There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[BCP1928]

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

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 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.

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.

What's your source for all of that? The Boy's Own Book of Ancient Civilizations ca. 1950?

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.

I didn't say that it had to be like today's methods, though that seems the most probable. You're the one who wants it to be something that the Naqada people couldn't have developed themselves because you want it to be magic technology from Shangri-La.

 

[stevevw]

They both use RMSD, but Karoly uses the median and Max uses the mean.

Yes so why is this such a big thing.

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.

Ok but are they wrong.

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

Oh I see "we don't know". Yet others are carrying on like they do know. Like this is evidence that everything is definietly wrong and whacko. This is the exact misrepresentation I am talking about.

Yes, the scientific study of measurement.

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

The science is the measuring. Its done by proper equipment and technicians. It is a seperate stage of merely gathering the data of all the measurements of the vases. Nothing about speculation about what those measures mean. In fact that state is not science but speculation.

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.

Oh yes I forgot about those tests. Yet Max states that they were "crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology".
No one is saying all the vases are precise or that they are perfect. Only that some fall into being precise enough that they match modern day tech.

Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Abstract I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. Th…

maximus.energy

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.

Why would they publish fullstop at this stage. They obviously need more tests. But why a metrology journal.

It would more likely by The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology and The British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan, as well as publications that focus on specific aspects like the Arts of Making in Ancient Egypt series. The metrology would be a part of that but not dictate which journal. The aim is not to prove the metrology but that the vases are precise. The metrology is just the method of that aim. .

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.

What is the industry standard.

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".

Yes ultimately if you want to make a strong case you have to eliminate as much as possible any issues that will come up in peer review. Thats what testing is about. Until you prove your case or not. Only two tests at museums so far. So more needs testing.

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

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.

But the metrology is proposing nothing. Its just measurements and doing as much as you can and by similar methods to compare and by other methods to cover most methods. Especially the best methods like CT scanning that get down to almost perfect measures.

Then once you have all the data you start trying to see patterns or methods of how the vases were made. One basic signature is the very good symmetry and circularity. A case of ddetermining whether the vase is turned or not. Its like reverse engineering the vase. That is all forensic science not speculation or assumptions. The numbers will tell the story.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes so why is this such a big thing.

Ok but are they wrong.

The median is a non-measure of precision (-1000, -500, 0, 1, 2) and (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2) both have the same median but if I said that they values measured a deviation from a centerline in the same units you would tell me that the precision was better for the second set of numbers.

Oh I see "we don't know". Yet others are carrying on like they do know. Like this is evidence that everything is definietly wrong and whacko. This is the exact misrepresentation I am talking about.

Until we are certain the best approach is to not draw any big conclusions from the data.

The science is the measuring. Its done by proper equipment and technicians. It is a seperate stage of merely gathering the data of all the measurements of the vases. Nothing about speculation about what those measures mean. In fact that state is not science but speculation.

Oh yes I forgot about those tests. Yet Max states that they were "crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology".
No one is saying all the vases are precise or that they are perfect. Only that some fall into being precise enough that they match modern day tech.

Abstract
I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. The analysis clearly shows that the examined Predynastic stone vessels were crafted with technical sophistication comparable to modern technology. The remarkable precision of the stone vessels, which starkly contrasts with the capabilities of late Neolithic societies, suggests these artifacts originate from a previously unrecognized, technologically advanced culture capable of rotational accuracy rivaling modern tools.

Precision of the Naqada Period Stone Vessels

Abstract I analyzed 3D scans of 19 Naqada period stone vessels from the Petrie Museum of Egyptian and Sudanese Archaeology using the same algorithm and code as for Matt Beall’s collection. Th…

maximus.energy

There is almost no overlap between the green dots and the yellow ones. The precise class in the REVISED analysis of Matt Bealls vases are better or equal to the modern replicas.

NB! Green in the plot below is in the precise class of Matt Bealls vases, not the Petrie vases! Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED In the revised analysis V18 is also mostly out od the discussion.

Why would they publish fullstop at this stage. They obviously need more tests. But why a metrology journal.

They don't have to! Getting published in any journal at this point would be good.

It would more likely by The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology and The British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan, as well as publications that focus on specific aspects like the Arts of Making in Ancient Egypt series. The metrology would be a part of that but not dictate which journal. The aim is not to prove the metrology but that the vases are precise. The metrology is just the method of that aim. .

What is the industry standard.

ISO 1101 or ASME Y14.5, using terms defined in either two standards in a non-normal way should be avoided (as it can be seen as misleading). In this case calculating the RMSD instead of using an existing definition of circularity.

Yes ultimately if you want to make a strong case you have to eliminate as much as possible any issues that will come up in peer review. Thats what testing is about. Until you prove your case or not. Only two tests at museums so far. So more needs testing.

But the metrology is proposing nothing. Its just measurements and doing as much as you can and by similar methods to compare and by other methods to cover most methods. Especially the best methods like CT scanning that get down to almost perfect measures.

Without good provenance the results are almost worthless, at best they can inspire them to make more measurements of objects with better provenance.

Then once you have all the data you start trying to see patterns or methods of how the vases were made. One basic signature is the very good symmetry and circularity. A case of ddetermining whether the vase is turned or not. Its like reverse engineering the vase. That is all forensic science not speculation or assumptions. The numbers will tell the story.

Perhaps, but then they need to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

 

[stevevw]

What's your source for all of that? The Boy's Own Book of Ancient Civilizations ca. 1950?

For all what. I said a lot lol. For the wheel not coming into Egyptian culture until around 2600BC

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt
The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c.2600 BC).

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA

orca.cardiff.ac.uk

This is the article I linked earlier. It actually says the Naqada people were making pottery before and without the wheel. It then says they made stone vases with some sort of turning device but never say that they had a turning device.

How could they when the evidence is that they had no wheel or turning device. They refer to the Bore stick device as wobbly and on the Old KIngdom wall painting. But thats 1,000 years later.

The point is everything about the Naqada people is how we would expect. Their level of tech was Neolithic and primitive. They used simple mud brick shelters and made pottery by hand by the coil method. Then we see these precision vases which completely contradict the culture being found.

Theres other wierd stuff going on. Like these vases are usually found with one per grave and the other mud pots have been made to mimmick the precise ones. Even painting them to look like granite. As though they found these vases and could not replicate them so made clay copies.

Before the Pyramids

https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

I didn't say that it had to be like today's methods, though that seems the most probable. You're the one who wants it to be something that the Naqada people couldn't have developed themselves because you want it to be magic technology from Shangri-La.

No I don't want it to be magic. That is your take on it. That is the skeptics take because we know the MO. Any time an alternative idea is proposed that messes up the nice orthodox worldview its called conspiracy and whackery.

If someone mentions there may have been some lost cultures who had lost knowledge skeptics quickly create the strawman its all quackery and Atlantis.

When in reality of anyone is fair we see that these ideas of lost cultures and knowledge is actually based on fact. Its actually the story the cultures today are telling us was true. We see that there have been lost cities on coastal areas and that there could have been a massive catastrophy that wiped out many and the culture and knowledge with it.

But we don't even get to first base with the skeptics as they relegate it all, any mention at all as whackery.

The ironic thing is that I have not once mentioned Atlantis and am talking about the metrology of vases and its been the skeptics who have brought this in at least 20 or 30 times now. Like they want it to be about this more than those suggesting advanced lost knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

The median is a non-measure of precision (-1000, -500, 0, 1, 2) and (-2, -1, 0, 1, 2) both have the same median but if I said that they values measured a deviation from a centerline in the same units you would tell me that the precision was better for the second set of numbers.

Until we are certain the best approach is to not draw any big conclusions from the data.

But if we see both methods (the Mean and Median) showing similar levels of precision then its sort of repeating the precision. Like I said what about the simple guage metrology where we can see the circularity when we measure around the vase and its within 0.005 inch. What then.

Just to get that level of roundness with a tiny deviation of basically a human hair or two is pointing to some sort of turning to maintain such precision. I mean 10 times out of 10 we would recognise this as evidence of turning. But for some reason its resisted on this occassion.

There is almost no overlap between the green dots and the yellow ones. The precise class in the REVISED analysis of Matt Bealls vases are better or equal to the modern replicas.

So if Bealls vases are better or equal to modern replicas whats the problem. No one was saying that all these vases are better than modern ones. But on par with them. As you can see the precision class are within a range and not specific. So long as they are in that range they are deemed as on par with modern machined vases.

Some are better, some the interior is better than modern machined vases. You have to remember these are 5,000 year old vases so theres ware and damage. But its the interiors that seem to be the best which makes sense in that they are protected. But also the plain and clear lathing or machining marks on the inside.

You also have to remember that though theres no overlap the differences here are in microns. Its still within the modern machining levels.

View attachment 371619
NB! Green in the plot below is in the precise class of Matt Bealls vases, not the Petrie vases! Precision and Classification of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: REVISED In the revised analysis V18 is also mostly out od the discussion.

Ok so whats the problem. I know that Bealls vases lack good providence. But as I said most of the best examples of vases are in private collections because they were the best. If there is say a 1,000 out there and they all have limited providence what then.

Do we exclude potentially the very best examples of these precision vases. We have to work out a way to include them. Otherwise we are skewing the evidence anyway by eliminating what may be the swaying factor that proves these vases are precise.

View attachment 371622

They don't have to! Getting published in any journal at this point would be good.

Well not really because by the looks of this thread there would be too much outcry from skeptics lol. You want to nullify most of that beforehand with robust evidence,

ISO 1101 or ASME Y14.5, using terms defined in either two standards in a non-normal way should be avoided (as it can be seen as misleading). In this case calculating the RMSD instead of using an existing definition of circularity.

What is the existing definition of circularity. Did not Max also do this besides Karoly and used a non existing definition of circularity. Just different non standards ie Median and Means error or deviation from the perfect circle.

Without good provenance the results are almost worthless, at best they can inspire them to make more measurements of objects with better provenance.

Yes and no. Like I said above there are literally 100s of genuine vases out there which are the very best examples to use if we want to determine the validity. So discounting them all is discounting probably the most important evidence. We have to also measure these vases and find a way to include them. If the museums can determine authenticity without full providence based on other factors then so should these vases.

Perhaps, but then they need to start publishing in peer-reviewed journals.

Why, it seems that the disputes and skeptics can make their case now as being shown. It is better to sort this out before peer review lol. Thats what the tests and open source are for to allow the tests and to allow them to be challenged to sort out the evidence and then publish. No scientific hypothesis is proposed without a long testing period.

 

[stevevw]

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.

It was not required as its an adjustment of an existing method. In the case of Karoly Poka it was developed in as Petriescope which was basically a custom made software developed based on the same tech but to accommodate the vases as they had no precedent of form being ellipsoids andother weird shapes.

But no new techniques were used. I have seen papers using new methods of measure for quantum particles and they never have a seperate paper for the instruments used. They just explain this in the paper.

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.

Ah because he makes, repairs and uses that equipment everyday lol. Because he actually has that equipment in his lab. Fancy having such expensive equipment and not knowing how it works.

If this scientists was confirming something you agreed with you the thought of questioning their ability would not cross your mind. You would trustr them. Your bias is showing through in that you speak subjectively about his credibility without one bit of evidence, ie "I wasn't that impressed".

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.

Measurement experience. So if a scientists has a lab with the measuring equipment in it and he uses many times do you think they would gain experience and expertise in using that scanner or guage. You find every reason why he is not able. But overlook the most obvious that he actually owns the equipement, has a lab and has used that equipment many times in testing. Its really commonsense.

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.

So what if their experience and knowhow in using these different devices to measure stuff translates into knowhow of using simple light scanners. Max is already showing he knows a range of testing and measuring equipment. How is scanners not related as far as understanding how the equipment generally operates. Do they need a degree in each machine lol.

If he knows how to use NMR spectroscopy, or mass spectrometry because he has that equipment and uses it in his lab as part of testing. Then why are you not applying the same logic that he also has light scanners in his lab and using them in tests with similar knowledge and ability.

Put it this way. I would rather a scientists who understands measuring stuff with equipement then an archeologist.

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

Its the technical thinking. Scientists take a technical approach and have the kind of mind that will be able to breakdown the processes whether its spectrometry or CT light scanning. They think analytically and in maths and numbers. So its not a far stretch to adapt. Its the machine thats doing the work. You just have to learn the process of operating the machine. You don't need a degree.

I linked the video showing the use of the hand help scanner. You take it out of the case and switch it on. Then you hover over the vase and it creates a software mesh and the software does the number crunching. Your trying to make it far more complex than it is.

You or I can take a guage sensor clamp or callipers and measure the roundness or flatness of a vase and get the precision on the digital readout right before our eyes. Without a degree. We can hold a light sensor over a vase and see the software crunch the numbers.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

This might be the most inane comment you've written. It was in response to this statement:

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

The vase people are measuring things. They are not studying how measurement works and the mechanism of measuring tools. It would be really good if they knew how those tools worked and what kind of data can and cannot be extracted with them, but their measurements of objects are studies of the objects not the measurement tools and methods.

Let's think of an analogy for a moment -- a simple wrench turning a nut on a bolt. The wrench (and the threaded bolt/nut combo) is built on simple physical principles and machines -- the kind students learn about in primary school. Knowing some of those principles will likely improve your utilization of a wrench, but using the wrench is not studying simple physics it is using a wrench to do a task.

Your vase people are using scanning tools to measure objects and analysis tools to extract information from the measurements. Neither of those is "metrology". An awareness of metrology is useful to know when a tool is appropriate just as a knowledge simple machines is useful for understanding the limits of ones wrench. After all a wrench makes a lousy hammer and a hammer makes a lousy wrench.

Given what others have posted here, some of the measurements and analyses seem to be inappropriate. This is the kind of thing that a methods section of a formal paper would clear up and a peer reviewer would raise questions about if any bits of it were missing. Important questions like "how was this setting set?" and "how was it calibrated?" and "how did you determine the reference value (mean,median, etc.)?".

Finally, measuring stuff isn't science. Science is hypothesis testing. The hypothesis seems to be "did predynastic Egyptian stone artisans have advanced tools not found in the extant archeological record?".

"The science" is testing that hypothesis including designing and documenting experimental protocols, using appropriate materials for the experiments, cross checking against alternative hypotheses, etc. This is where the vase people seem to be lacking the most.

 

[BCP1928]

For all what. I said a lot lol. For the wheel not coming into Egyptian culture until around 2600BC

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt
The potter's wheel was introduced to Egypt from the Levant during the reign of Pharoh Sneferu in the 4th dynasty (c.2600 BC).

The origins and the use of the potters wheel in Ancient Egypt -ORCA

orca.cardiff.ac.uk

This is the article I linked earlier. It actually says the Naqada people were making pottery before and without the wheel. It then says they made stone vases with some sort of turning device but never say that they had a turning device.

How could they when the evidence is that they had no wheel or turning device. They refer to the Bore stick device as wobbly and on the Old KIngdom wall painting. But thats 1,000 years later.

The point is everything about the Naqada people is how we would expect. Their level of tech was Neolithic and primitive. They used simple mud brick shelters and made pottery by hand by the coil method. Then we see these precision vases which completely contradict the culture being found.

Ah yes, they were "primitive."

Theres other wierd stuff going on. Like these vases are usually found with one per grave and the other mud pots have been made to mimmick the precise ones. Even painting them to look like granite. As though they found these vases and could not replicate them so made clay copies.

Before the Pyramids

https://isac.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp33.pdf

No I don't want it to be magic. That is your take on it. That is the skeptics take because we know the MO. Any time an alternative idea is proposed that messes up the nice orthodox worldview its called conspiracy and whackery.

If someone mentions there may have been some lost cultures who had lost knowledge skeptics quickly create the strawman its all quackery and Atlantis.

"Some lost cultures who had lost knowledge" Comes down to the same thing as invoking "Atlantis."

When in reality of anyone is fair we see that these ideas of lost cultures and knowledge is actually based on fact. Its actually the story the cultures today are telling us was true. We see that there have been lost cities on coastal areas and that there could have been a massive catastrophy that wiped out many and the culture and knowledge with it.

How did the Egyptians get it, then?

But we don't even get to first base with the skeptics as they relegate it all, any mention at all as whackery.

The ironic thing is that I have not once mentioned Atlantis and am talking about the metrology of vases and its been the skeptics who have brought this in at least 20 or 30 times now. Like they want it to be about this more than those suggesting advanced lost knowledge.

"Atlantis" is just a placeholder for whatever "advanced lost knowledge" myth you happen to be pushing.in this discussion.
Isn't that why you are arguing with sjastro about a few thousandths of an inch? Even the tolerances that he is suggesting would invoke "Wow! That's pretty close to what one would expect from modern machining" from archaeologists. "I wonder how they did it?" What you want is not to show how they did it, but to show that these "primitive" Egyptians couldn't have done it without "ancient lost technology" What a humbug.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If someone mentions there may have been some lost cultures who had lost knowledge skeptics quickly create the strawman its all quackery and Atlantis.

Some of the sources you have cited in this thread (less so since it became all vases all the time, but Dunn and "unchartedX" are among the believers) trace directly or indirectly to the Connolly Atlantis myth. (Hancock, Hyerdahl, "ancient aliens" all go back to Connolly's Atlantis myth.

When in reality of anyone is fair we see that these ideas of lost cultures and knowledge is actually based on fact. Its actually the story the cultures today are telling us was true. We see that there have been lost cities on coastal areas and that there could have been a massive catastrophy that wiped out many and the culture and knowledge with it.

What "catastrophy"? much of the "catastrophy" destroyed lost civilization stuff, especially off shore, are Hancock's version of the Atlantis myth.

But we don't even get to first base with the skeptics as they relegate it all, any mention at all as whackery.

The ironic thing is that I have not once mentioned Atlantis and am talking about the metrology of vases and its been the skeptics who have brought this in at least 20 or 30 times now. Like they want it to be about this more than those suggesting advanced lost knowledge.

That you don't know the difference (and when informed apparently ignore the difference) between credible archeologists and Atlantis tainted nutters is the primary problem and why you get this kind of feedback.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It was not required as its an adjustment of an existing method.

The method must be fully detailed. That detailing may include references to earlier versions that are detailed, eliminating the need to repeat text.

In the case of Karoly Poka it was developed in as Petriescope which was basically a custom made software developed based on the same tech but to accommodate the vases as they had no precedent of form being ellipsoids andother weird shapes.

Custom software? Needs to be fully documented. That's the way this goes.

But no new techniques were used. I have seen papers using new methods of measure for quantum particles and they never have a seperate paper for the instruments used. They just explain this in the paper.

Oh, you have? Can you link these papers?

Ah because he makes, repairs and uses that equipment everyday lol. Because he actually has that equipment in his lab. Fancy having such expensive equipment and not knowing how it works.

I specifically mentioned his "CV". I was clearly pointing to his output as a scientist. A few papers with a few citations on topics that have nothing to do with stone artifact measurements.

If this scientists was confirming something you agreed with you the thought of questioning their ability would not cross your mind. You would trustr them. Your bias is showing through in that you speak subjectively about his credibility without one bit of evidence, ie "I wasn't that impressed".

I am evaluating the credentials of someone in a field that is not known to me because *you* taut their credentials. I generelly have little interest in credentials.

Measurement experience.

No such general thing.

So if a scientists has a lab with the measuring equipment in it and he uses many times do you think they would gain experience and expertise in using that scanner or guage. You find every reason why he is not able. But overlook the most obvious that he actually owns the equipement, has a lab and has used that equipment many times in testing. Its really commonsense.

Radiation measurement has what exactly to do with measuring vases?

So what if their experience and knowhow in using these different devices to measure stuff translates into knowhow of using simple light scanners. Max is already showing he knows a range of testing and measuring equipment. How is scanners not related as far as understanding how the equipment generally operates. Do they need a degree in each machine lol.

If he knows how to use NMR spectroscopy, or mass spectrometry because he has that equipment and uses it in his lab as part of testing. Then why are you not applying the same logic that he also has light scanners in his lab and using them in tests with similar knowledge and ability.

You really don't know anything about those technologies, do you? NMR and mass spec. use large machines that cost millions. Facilities that have such equipment typically have professional technical staff to use it. We aren't anything near "light scanners".

Put it this way. I would rather a scientists who understands measuring stuff with equipement then an archeologist.

Archeologists *are* scientists. Quit being so biased against them.

Its the technical thinking. Scientists take a technical approach and have the kind of mind that will be able to breakdown the processes whether its spectrometry or CT light scanning. They think analytically and in maths and numbers. So its not a far stretch to adapt. Its the machine thats doing the work. You just have to learn the process of operating the machine. You don't need a degree.

I linked the video showing the use of the hand help scanner. You take it out of the case and switch it on. Then you hover over the vase and it creates a software mesh and the software does the number crunching. Your trying to make it far more complex than it is.

You or I can take a guage sensor clamp or callipers and measure the roundness or flatness of a vase and get the precision on the digital readout right before our eyes. Without a degree. We can hold a light sensor over a vase and see the software crunch the numbers.

Wave your hands harder, you might start levitating. This is all motivated reasoning.

 

[sjastro]

Thanks to @Stopped_lurking for the updated version of the Maximus.energy link.
Rather than resolving the issues I made of the original link, this latest version adds more problems.

(1) What has happened to V18, the amazing vase with circularity and concentricity dimensions below scanner detection limits. It no longer appears to be in the scatter plot graph (Fig 8) despite a comparison image (Fig 11) with a modern vase.
If it has been excluded from the data, a comparison image is highly inconsistent. Putting V18 in the too hard basket if it still falls below scanner detection limits does not resolve anything.

(2) Here is an excerpt from the revised link.

The standard error SE as statistical noise is defined by the equation.
SE = σ/√n where σ is the standard deviation and n the sample size.
A sample size of only 100 cuts for both surfaces is too small and the real circularity and concentricity data can be drowned out by the noise.

The other issue it is a good idea to introduce the standard deviation σ but why is it only applied to the concentricity error and not the RMS circularity error?
A more correct application of σ is made in point (4).

(3) Another excerpt from the link.

It is logical to exclude cuts through handles and damaged areas of the vase but also worn-out areas?
How does the exclusion conditions for circularity and concentricity differentiate between a worn-out area and a variation due to the production of the vase?
In the case of the so called ‘precise vases’ where variations are at micron levels(?), the danger is throwing out the baby with the bath water by making filtering too aggressive producing lower circularity and concentricity values and making the vases ‘more precise’ than they actually are.

This leads to Point (4)

(4) Maximus.energy and Artifacts Foundation appear to only quote the average and median value respectively for circularity and concentricity on vases but not σ. Given theirs is a statistical analysis this is highly irregular. The standard deviation provides an insight into the production variation of the vase.

Taking this into consideration I got GPT-5 to add σ to the code we had developed earlier in the thread for circularity and concentricity calculations of the OG vase.
Firstly running an ideal shaped tube as the calibration.

The results are consistent with a 'perfect' object.

Next the OG vase.

Given the standard deviations are high relative to the median values for circularity and concentricity indicates extreme variability in production which is atypical of a modern lathe.

An enormous advantage in using AI as an assistant it has access to mathematical and statistical libraries where in this case it has used MAD (Median Absolute Deviation) to establish the cut-off which filters out features such as the handles and damaged areas.

Some values are excluded below the cut-off due to the use of area filters which filters out scanning artifacts and z range filters which keep the z slices in the 2%-98% range and filters out odd shaped cross sections.

The metric of 0.674 mm for the OG vase is considerably higher than the 0.027 mm for Artifacts Foundation as the filtering used is far less aggressive than what ever method Artifacts Foundation are using and a random condition used by Maximus.energy.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

But if we see both methods (the Mean and Median) showing similar levels of precision then its sort of repeating the precision. Like I said what about the simple guage metrology where we can see the circularity when we measure around the vase and its within 0.005 inch. What then.

Just to get that level of roundness with a tiny deviation of basically a human hair or two is pointing to some sort of turning to maintain such precision. I mean 10 times out of 10 we would recognise this as evidence of turning. But for some reason its resisted on this occassion.

Because what you are describing is not what they are reporting, for that the surface deviation plots are much more informative. Some of the Petrie vases differs more than mm's between the highest and lowest points on their surface. Machining tolerances are limits on spreads not medians and averages, I'll have to add in my understanding here. Precision is the reciprocal of a measure of spread, as in when the spread is low the precision is high. Take this with a heap of salt I'm just putting machining terms in terms I normally use.

So if Bealls vases are better or equal to modern replicas whats the problem. No one was saying that all these vases are better than modern ones. But on par with them. As you can see the precision class are within a range and not specific. So long as they are in that range they are deemed as on par with modern machined vases.

The Petrie vases are not as precise as modern vases or Matt Bealls vases in the precise class.

Some are better, some the interior is better than modern machined vases. You have to remember these are 5,000 year old vases so theres ware and damage. But its the interiors that seem to be the best which makes sense in that they are protected. But also the plain and clear lathing or machining marks on the inside.

You do understand that the most likely source of modern machining marks, are modern (from the 19th and 20th century) machines?

You also have to remember that though theres no overlap the differences here are in microns. Its still within the modern machining levels.

Ok so whats the problem. I know that Bealls vases lack good providence. But as I said most of the best examples of vases are in private collections because they were the best. If there is say a 1,000 out there and they all have limited providence what then.

Do we exclude potentially the very best examples of these precision vases. We have to work out a way to include them. Otherwise we are skewing the evidence anyway by eliminating what may be the swaying factor that proves these vases are precise.

Yes, we exclude them. If these precision vases actually were made 5000 years ago, we would expect to keep finding them in new digs.

Well not really because by the looks of this thread there would be too much outcry from skeptics lol. You want to nullify most of that beforehand with robust evidence,

I don't want to nullify anything, but without good provenance no one will ever be convinced that a vase should be taken seriously.

What is the existing definition of circularity. Did not Max also do this besides Karoly and used a non existing definition of circularity. Just different non standards ie Median and Means error or deviation from the perfect circle.

Both made mistakes, both need to go back and redo the analysis and report the radius difference between the minimum and maximum circle covering the perifery of the object. I gave you a picture from ISO 1101 in an earlier post.

Yes and no. Like I said above there are literally 100s of genuine vases out there which are the very best examples to use if we want to determine the validity. So discounting them all is discounting probably the most important evidence. We have to also measure these vases and find a way to include them. If the museums can determine authenticity without full providence based on other factors then so should these vases.

Why, if they do not have good provenance? A measurement of something you don't know where it came from or what has a happened to it is next to meaningless. If one finds an object beautiful than one should of course display it.

Why, it seems that the disputes and skeptics can make their case now as being shown. It is better to sort this out before peer review lol. Thats what the tests and open source are for to allow the tests and to allow them to be challenged to sort out the evidence and then publish. No scientific hypothesis is proposed without a long testing period.

If they want the input from the professionals they'll have to put it articles in journals.

 

[stevevw]

Because what you are describing is not what they are reporting, for that the surface deviation plots are much more informative. Some of the Petrie vases differs more than mm's between the highest and lowest points on their surface. Machining tolerances are limits on spreads not medians and averages, I'll have to add in my understanding here. Precision is the reciprocal of a measure of spread, as in when the spread is low the precision is high. Take this with a heap of salt I'm just putting machining terms in terms I normally use.

What is spread. Why did both Max (mean) and Karoly (median) both claim the vases were in the precise class based on this measure. Karoyl explains this measure is the best way to measure the precision of the vase.

I mean we can go back to Dunns team who did the gauge and CT scans. They determine the vases are in the precision class both through the gusge and CT scans. They list the precision on the specific points down the vase. Or the perpendicularity and paralellism.

Max also measures the Parabolic Fit.
The outer and the inner surfaces of the ‘precise’ vases exhibit excellent fit to a parabola with RMS error on the order of 0.005”. For comparison, parabolic fits of the outer surfaces of the ‘imprecise’ artifacts are on the order of 0.030”.

The Petrie vases are not as precise as modern vases or Matt Bealls vases in the precise class.

Nevertheless they fall in the precise class. If Max's precise class is M < 25 thousandths of an inch; then the Petrie vases are in the precise class.

You do understand that the most likely source of modern machining marks, are modern (from the 19th and 20th century) machines?

Yes and this is why its an out of place artifact. That we find maching marks like modern machining on 5,000 year old vases. It is the same for the modern circular saw cuts in the stones. These are out of place signatures and they cannot all be modern fakes. Like someone was going around with a circular saw in the 20th century hacking into Egyptian monuments and works.

I guess if they can cut granite like a circular saw they can cut vases like a lathe or with some circular cutter. Take a close look at the last image where the circular saw has actually over cut and then backed up to straighten the line and continue cutting. Classic circular saw signature.

Someone on this thread said the three circular saw cuts in the basalt paver are modern circular saws done later in the 20th century. I think this just acknowledges what I see. That these are out of place signatures for that time. They look like modern machine signatures.
What Were the Ancient Egyptians Using to Cut Granite ..

Yes, we exclude them. If these precision vases actually were made 5000 years ago, we would expect to keep finding them in new digs.

Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.

The best examples have already been found and are in private collections. These are the ones that we need to test as they are the best. But theres 1,000s in museum basements as well lol. Karoly has another two museums to test more vases. One with the Petrie museum and another with the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy.

I don't want to nullify anything, but without good provenance no one will ever be convinced that a vase should be taken seriously.

Yes I agree. But I think there is pretty good provedence already on at least some of the vases. Like from the Petrie museum. Put it this way. Do you think they are good enough, round enough to have been turned.

If you were to compare a precision vase sitting in the Petrie museum with a known softer vase handmade with a borestick you will see the difference in signatures just by eye sight. You will see those machine marks on the inside where they have not been fully polished out. Funny enough the exact same machine marks on Bealls vases. Must have used the same maker.

Both made mistakes, both need to go back and redo the analysis and report the radius difference between the minimum and maximum circle covering the perifery of the object. I gave you a picture from ISO 1101 in an earlier post.

Do you mean the difference of the radius from the center point of the vase slice to the outside of the vase at that particular point. Then the error or deviation from a perfect circle for that radial point. This is done for each and every point around each slice.

What about this.

UnchartedX - Ben Van Kerkwyk

Exploring the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today.

unchartedx.com

Accuracy is how close a measured value is to the actual value. Precision is how close measured values are to each other.

We can’t measure accuracy of the vase since we don’t know what the original design was. An example of accuracy is creating a 1kg weight. How close it is to actually weighing 1kg is a measure of its accuracy. 1kg is a predetermined target.

For this vase, we are going to measure precision. We can see that it has a circular shape. This is true at any vertical position. So one measure of accuracy would be to take points along a narrow vertical height, say less than 1cm (the vase is about 12cm high) and compare the distance to the center axis for all the points. This would give an idea of the precision of the vase for representing a circle.

This has already been done for the vases. Why is this not a representation of the vases roundness.

Why, if they do not have good provenance? A measurement of something you don't know where it came from or what has a happened to it is next to meaningless. If one finds an object beautiful than one should of course display it.

Because lets say that most of the vases have been found now. There are no more. So they are now either in a museum or a private collection. Most of the vases in museums are from Petrie. Yet Petrie gave 100s away as gifts from the same digs. But he gave away the very best ones. The vases that will be the most likely candidates of the precise class.

So if we discount all the private collections then we are probably left with the lesser quality vases even in museums. There will be some. But the majority will be in private collections. So we also need to devise a way to test these private vases so they can be included. It is silly to exclude the majority of the best examples.

If they want the input from the professionals they'll have to put it articles in journals.

Yeah that will come. In the mean time its a bit of fun. But also as I said getting fixated on this specific example takes away from the overall view of out of place works all over the world that lend support for ancient lost advanced tech and knowledge. As with the circular saw cuts and many other examples it gets to a point where you cannot deny something is out of place in ancient times.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What is spread. Why did both Max (mean) and Karoly (median) both claim the vases were in the precise class based on this measure. Karoyl explains this measure is the best way to measure the precision of the vase.

Spread, how much variation there are in circularity. Modern lathing have very low variation in circularity, these vases have a large variations in the surface deviation plots. And their proposed quality metrics doesn't capture this, which I personally find problematic.

I mean we can go back to Dunns team who did the gauge and CT scans. They determine the vases are in the precision class both through the gusge and CT scans. They list the precision on the specific points down the vase. Or the perpendicularity and paralellism.

Max also measures the Parabolic Fit.
The outer and the inner surfaces of the ‘precise’ vases exhibit excellent fit to a parabola with RMS error on the order of 0.005”. For comparison, parabolic fits of the outer surfaces of the ‘imprecise’ artifacts are on the order of 0.030”.

Nevertheless they fall in the precise class. If Max's precise class is M < 25 thousandths of an inch; then the Petrie vases are in the precise class.

They dont. The combined quality metric he proposes (in the earlier unrevised version) sums both the inner and outer quality.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

So from this plot it is perhaps three UC15603, UC15604 and UC15607, and even those three are more like the other Petrie vases than the modern ones. NB! In his latest proposed quality metric he also adds the standard deviation of dR, I think it was.

Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.

The best examples have already been found and are in private collections. These are the ones that we need to test as they are the best. But theres 1,000s in museum basements as well lol. Karoly has another two museums to test more vases. One with the Petrie museum and another with the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy.

Yes I agree. But I think there is pretty good provedence already on at least some of the vases. Like from the Petrie museum. Put it this way. Do you think they are good enough, round enough to have been turned.

If you were to compare a precision vase sitting in the Petrie museum with a known softer vase handmade with a borestick you will see the difference in signatures just by eye sight. You will see those machine marks on the inside where they have not been fully polished out. Funny enough the exact same machine marks on Bealls vases. Must have used the same maker.

Do you mean the difference of the radius from the center point of the vase slice to the outside of the vase at that particular point. Then the error or deviation from a perfect circle for that radial point. This is done for each and every point around each slice.

What about this.

UnchartedX - Ben Van Kerkwyk

Exploring the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today.

unchartedx.com

Accuracy is how close a measured value is to the actual value. Precision is how close measured values are to each other.

We can’t measure accuracy of the vase since we don’t know what the original design was. An example of accuracy is creating a 1kg weight. How close it is to actually weighing 1kg is a measure of its accuracy. 1kg is a predetermined target.

For this vase, we are going to measure precision. We can see that it has a circular shape. This is true at any vertical position. So one measure of accuracy would be to take points along a narrow vertical height, say less than 1cm (the vase is about 12cm high) and compare the distance to the center axis for all the points. This would give an idea of the precision of the vase for representing a circle.

This has already been done for the vases. Why is this not a representation of the vases roundness.

Because the median is just a point estimate, and the geometric mean are always less or equal to the arithmetic mean (it's only equal if all numbers that are the same). They should include some term that actually takes into account what can be seen in the surface deviation plots.
Frankly at this point, they should just get it published. They can always get it published in this one

Because lets say that most of the vases have been found now. There are no more. So they are now either in a museum or a private collection. Most of the vases in museums are from Petrie. Yet Petrie gave 100s away as gifts from the same digs. But he gave away the very best ones. The vases that will be the most likely candidates of the precise class.

So if we discount all the private collections then we are probably left with the lesser quality vases even in museums. There will be some. But the majority will be in private collections. So we also need to devise a way to test these private vases so they can be included. It is silly to exclude the majority of the best examples.

Yeah that will come. In the mean time its a bit of fun. But also as I said getting fixated on this specific example takes away from the overall view of out of place works all over the world that lend support for ancient lost advanced tech and knowledge. As with the circular saw cuts and many other examples it gets to a point where you cannot deny something is out of place in ancient times.

Each and everyone of the "out-of-place" works, need the same fine-combing and granular critique before they can be used to support any arguments. Saying "Don't look at the trees, see the whole forest!" isn't helpful. The forest is made of individual trees, first we look at each tree individually, plot them on the map and then we say there is the forest.