There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

So then we see if we find any new archeological sites and excavate those.

I think thats an unreal solution. We may not find anymore for years. Are we to wait and just ignore all these vases. When you consider that the very best of what came out of the digs was given away by archeologists like Petrie. It seems strange that we don't attempt to verify them in whatever way we can.

So now you're speculating not only on my mental states, but also how the forgers think?

Yes we can do that. But also the collectors and auction houses. All aspects of what was going on and what would have been the most likely situation. For example forging these vases down to the smallest of detail and even unusual marks that would not be bothered with. This is done in forensic science.

You look for tiny signatures that only the ancient vases would have. Whatever that is. Thats one way. Even metals in the stone and the stone makeup. In fact One test found a higher level of radioactive material in the predynastics as opposed to modern vases. Forgers would not know this.

Or the tremendous difficulty and cost would restrict most back street forgers out. This would be someone with connections. Even modern machinist have difficulty replicating these vases let alone early to mid 20th century tech. It would have been specialised.

The problem is the majority of vases and the best vases are in private collections. No one in their right mind in testing these vases would ignore the majority of vases and a category of vases that potentially has the very best examples.

This then needs to actually done for each vase.

But some of the vases in private collections like Beall's have this level of prevenance. They trace back to say high rtanking politicians or military who were gifted these from say Petrie. They will all say this on the certificate of authenticity. One well known family has owned these vases in the early 20th century and has sold many for 10,s of 1,000's of dollars with guarentees and certificates of authenticity.

Museums have hosted them on loan and everyone referred to them as genuine and this was taken for granted. So we should be able to say they are the real deal.

The three pictures of the inside of vases you posted recently don't look exactly the same. So which ones are you talking about?

The two images together of the full inside of the unbroken vases. The one on the left is a predyanstic with provedence going back to the same family I mentioned above. Before this family it was owned by a high ranking officier in the Egyptian army I think. The one on the right is a modern CNC vase.

The seperate pic of the vase fragment is from under the Stepped pyramid where there are many like this. They both show circular striarations. But some vases will be partly or fully polished on the inside as well. So its not every vase. But either way we have clear evidence for circular strirations from some sort of machining. In the case of the fragment theres no doubting its provenance.

No, that is not true. It's only the observation that we don't know and therefore can't use it as evidence for any historical or archeological claims. I'm sure there are vases of all qualities with unknown provenance.

Actually it is true when it comes to the precision vases. We are not worried about the less precise vases. They are not calling out with their signatures in being witnesses to modern tech and machining. Its the vases I have shown with high precision that are now being questioned for provenance.

When they say it may have been made on some lathe in the mid 20th century they are trying to attribuute those modern signatures still to within modern times. The provenance has become the biggest objection to these vases. There are literally millions of crooked soft stone vases. Theres ample to find good provenance and we know they did not need sophisticated tech. Well not as much as these precision vases anyway.

Did that specific fragment have any engravings from a predynastic king? The stepped pyramid is not predynastic, so we can't assume that just because something was found under it then it was predynastic.

Ah and you said it was not about provenance. Thats all that is left to counter the evidence. These were found by Petrie and are still the same ones when discovered. The same place the complete vases that are in museums and yes some of the same have inscriptions from predynastic kings.

But many from the predyantsics such as the Naqada. Whether the Kings usurped them or made them themselves. But it doesn't matter because they are all predynastic and 5,000 plus years old.

If you go an find pics of the vases under the pyramid you will see many repeats of the same vases tested. They look exactly the same. Repeated over and over and over again.

Just go to any pics or especially videos of under the Stepped pyramid and you will see. Obviously they have taken the complete ones and cleaned up a bit. But they are everywhere. From memory they even used fragments as part of building walls.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I think thats an unreal solution. We may not find anymore for years. Are we to wait and just ignore all these vases. When you consider that the very best of what came out of the digs was given away by archeologists like Petrie. It seems strange that we don't attempt to verify them in whatever way we can.

What a hypocritical thing to say! "Oh, we should accept that all these things were made with advanced tech, but we shouldn't go and search for the advanced tech that made them. That's unreal."

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Ah and you said it was not about provenance.

What of course it is about provenance.

This is the discussion in context:

But do you notice that in attacking the provenance people are actually admitting the vases are too modern to be from such early times. Which makes the ones with good prevenance out of place.

No, that is not true. It's only the observation that we don't know and therefore can't use it as evidence for any historical or archeological claims. I'm sure there are vases of all qualities with unknown provenance.

When I say "No, that is not true" I'm saying that questioning the provenance is not "people are actually admitting the vases are too modern to be from such early times." When the provenance is questionable they are uninformative in any conclusionary sense.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You look for tiny signatures that only the ancient vases would have. Whatever that is. Thats one way. Even metals in the stone and the stone makeup. In fact One test found a higher level of radioactive material in the predynastics as opposed to modern vases. Forgers would not know this.

What does radioactivity level tell us about the object?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I think thats an unreal solution. We may not find anymore for years. Are we to wait and just ignore all these vases. When you consider that the very best of what came out of the digs was given away by archeologists like Petrie. It seems strange that we don't attempt to verify them in whatever way we can.

Yes we can do that. But also the collectors and auction houses. All aspects of what was going on and what would have been the most likely situation. For example forging these vases down to the smallest of detail and even unusual marks that would not be bothered with. This is done in forensic science.

You look for tiny signatures that only the ancient vases would have. Whatever that is. Thats one way. Even metals in the stone and the stone makeup. In fact One test found a higher level of radioactive material in the predynastics as opposed to modern vases. Forgers would not know this.

Do you have a reference for the radioactive activity in presumed ancient vases vs modern vases?

Or the tremendous difficulty and cost would restrict most back street forgers out. This would be someone with connections. Even modern machinist have difficulty replicating these vases let alone early to mid 20th century tech. It would have been specialised.

The numbers that have been presented don't seem impossible for modern machining to reconstruct? Compare the tolerances routinely achieved today, and those machining tolerances put a higher restriction on the object than the quality measures proposed.

The problem is the majority of vases and the best vases are in private collections. No one in their right mind in testing these vases would ignore the majority of vases and a category of vases that potentially has the very best examples.

If we don't know from where they came we still don't learn anything about ancient vases.

But some of the vases in private collections like Beall's have this level of prevenance.

So detail their provenance and measure them specifically then.

The two images together of the full inside of the unbroken vases. The one on the left is a predyanstic with provedence going back to the same family I mentioned above. Before this family it was owned by a high ranking officier in the Egyptian army I think. The one on the right is a modern CNC vase.

The one the left is Matt Beall's V18, it can traced back to 1979.

The seperate pic of the vase fragment is from under the Stepped pyramid where there are many like this. They both show circular striarations. But some vases will be partly or fully polished on the inside as well. So its not every vase. But either way we have clear evidence for circular strirations from some sort of machining. In the case of the fragment theres no doubting its provenance.

No but the striations don't look like the ones in the CNC modern vase.

Actually it is true when it comes to the precision vases. We are not worried about the less precise vases.

Yes, we are. If a vase is a forgery I would like to know regardless if it how high or low quality it is. Badly provenanced low quality vases cannot tell us anything about ancient vases either.

They are not calling out with their signatures in being witnesses to modern tech and machining. Its the vases I have shown with high precision that are now being questioned for provenance.

First you show provenance, until then the measurements are contextless, they tell us at best something about something but no one knows what.

When they say it may have been made on some lathe in the mid 20th century they are trying to attribuute those modern signatures still to within modern times. The provenance has become the biggest objection to these vases. There are literally millions of crooked soft stone vases. Theres ample to find good provenance and we know they did not need sophisticated tech. Well not as much as these precision vases anyway.
But many from the predyantsics such as the Naqada. Whether the Kings usurped them or made them themselves. But it doesn't matter because they are all predynastic and 5,000 plus years old.

View attachment 372283View attachment 372282

If you go an find pics of the vases under the pyramid you will see many repeats of the same vases tested. They look exactly the same. Repeated over and over and over again.

Just go to any pics or especially videos of under the Stepped pyramid and you will see. Obviously they have taken the complete ones and cleaned up a bit. But they are everywhere. From memory they even used fragments as part of building walls.

How are these pictures connected to your example vase fragment? Did your specific example have anything on it that makes it a predynastic vase? This is why there is a need for the meticulousness of archeological methods.

 

[stevevw]

What a hypocritical thing to say! "Oh, we should accept that all these things were made with advanced tech, but we shouldn't go and search for the advanced tech that made them. That's unreal."

Ok I thought you said we should go and find more precision vases so we can get better provenance vases to test to verify they have used advanced knowledge. I was saying that may take years and why not work on authenticating the many vases we already have.

OK so your talking about finding the devices or methods that may have made the vases. But would not be just as difficult and therefore could be years if and when we find anything. We can't even find the traditional tools.

If it is you contention that not finding the tools or method means the vases cannot be verified as to how they were made. Then you would have to apply the same logic to the fact that we have also not found the traditional tools and methods for the predynastics as well. Certainlt noting like a potters wheel or even copper saw or chisel. That all comes from later dynasties.

So what then we are left with nothing. We have to sit in limbo for years hoping to find something. Until then we cannot do anything. That seems a strange way to work out whats happening.

 

[stevevw]

What of course it is about provenance.

This is the discussion in context:

Yes so we have machining marks on a vase fragment from under the Stepped pyramid which is at least 2650BC. We have vases with 1st dynasty Kings inscriptions 3100BC. We have others found in pits and tombs going back 3600BC.

No matter which way you look at it the provenance doesn't matter as its all pre potters wheel and bore stick. Let alone sophisticated lathing.

When I say "No, that is not true" I'm saying that questioning the provenance is not "people are actually admitting the vases are too modern to be from such early times." When the provenance is questionable they are uninformative in any conclusionary sense.

I am not sure what you mean. Of course the reason provenance is questioned is because of the fact that the claim is that these precision vases existed and were made at such an early time. The provenance issue is the very thing that questions the timeline lol. It does for no other reason when it comes to the precision vases.

When someone claims these vases are advanced tech and knowledge the first thing that is mentioned in objection is the provenance. The skeptics own response is the evidence that the provenance is all about undermining the timeline and vases. And they are right to do so as long as its fair and balanced.

But lets forget about all that. Thats why I went to the actual machine marks on the vases under the pyramid. This cuts out all the conjecture and shows direct evidence that pretty sophisticated machining was involved.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ok I thought you said we should go and find more precision vases so we can get better provenance vases to test to verify they have used advanced knowledge. I was saying that may take years and why not work on authenticating the many vases we already have.

OK so your talking about finding the devices or methods that may have made the vases. But would not be just as difficult and therefore could be years if and when we find anything. We can't even find the traditional tools.

If it is you contention that not finding the tools or method means the vases cannot be verified as to how they were made. Then you would have to apply the same logic to the fact that we have also not found the traditional tools and methods for the predynastics as well. Certainlt noting like a potters wheel or even copper saw or chisel. That all comes from later dynasties.

So what then we are left with nothing. We have to sit in limbo for years hoping to find something. Until then we cannot do anything. That seems a strange way to work out whats happening.

But as I've said repeatedly, making the claim of advanced tech existing is worthless without the actual evidence OF THE TOOLS THEMSELVES EXIST, especially since we know of other methods of how such things were made with the tools we know to have existed at the time. I even posted links showing and describing how such vases can be made without things like potter's wheels or lathes. It's not all that hard to figure out. You claim otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So either put that evidence forward or stop making the claims.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes so we have machining marks on a vase fragment from under the Stepped pyramid which is at least 2650BC. We have vases with 1st dynasty Kings inscriptions 3100BC. We have others found in pits and tombs going back 3600BC.

I have seen the drills used by hand today, they look like the could leave those striations. To be able to say that the bore stick was in use 1000 years before we date it today would be cool, but in no way problematic for archeology in general.

No matter which way you look at it the provenance doesn't matter as its all pre potters wheel and bore stick. Let alone sophisticated lathing.

What sophisticated lathing? Of course it matters, the potter's wheel was around in the world at the time. If the vases are from there, you would have a possibility that they were made on a rotating table of some sort. Turntables was a thing before the potter's wheel in any case.

I am not sure what you mean. Of course the reason prevenance is questioned is because of the fact that the claim is that these precision vases existed and were made at such an early time. The provenance issue is the very thing that questions the timeline lol. It does for no other reason when it comes to the precision vases.

I'm saying even if you would like to prove something with a low quality vase there would be questions about provenance. The question about provenance is there regardless of the quality of the vase.

When someone claims these vases are advanced tech and knowledge the first thing that is mentioned in objection is the provenance. The skeptics own response is the evidence that the provenance is all about undermining the timeline and vases. And they are right to do so as long as its fair and balanced.

But lets forget about all that. Thats why I went to the actual machine marks on the vases under the pyramid. This cuts out all the conjecture and shows direct evidence that pretty sophisticated machining was involved.

What sophisticated machining?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What sophisticated machining?

The type created by sophisticated machines that despite all the evidence we have for the Egyptians, both from themselves and other sources, have not found a single trace of, let alone in the Greek or Roman world who repeatedly came into contact with the Egyptians, and especially the latter who would have no doubt used it themselves if they found it.

 

[Ophiolite]

The type created by sophisticated machines that despite all the evidence we have for the Egyptians, both from themselves and other sources, have not found a single trace of, let alone in the Greek or Roman world who repeatedly came into contact with the Egyptians, and especially the latter who would have no doubt used it themselves if they found it.

I think, Warden, the answer is obvious! These machines were so sophisticated and advanced that their built in obsolescence was so powerful that on completion of any vase the machine crumbled to dust. Then the potter had handover his hard-earned scheckels to buy a new one from the alien merchants.

 

[stevevw]

What does radioactivity level tell us about the object?

I don't know I am not a physicist or geologist lol. It may be that particular granite is higher in radioactivity. It may be that this had something to do with the cutting method. I think they discovered high levels of Thorium-232 which has high radioactivity.

Its that the predynastic vases may be destinguished by the high levels of radioactivity as opposed to modern fakes. If this is consistent then its one little piece of evidence that the vases are more likely predynastic.

Dr Max has an interesting hypothesis.

Po-210 or any other short-lived alpha emitter. Po-210 atoms decay by emitting alpha particles, which are helium ions travelling at very high velocity. A milligram of Po-210 would emit a horrendous flux of helium ions, which would ablate any surface they come in contact with.

Softening Matter with Electrons
Another option is to use a short-lived beta emitter to saturate a hard material with electrons.

The alpha blade ablates material but the beta blade locally softens the material. As such the alpha blade is useful primarily for cutting whereas the beta blade is better suited for scooping as the soft material needs to be pushed away and removed much like sculptor’s clay.

These two examples look like technologies that could have been used to shape the rocks on polygonal masonry found all over the world: from Peru to Egypt.

Nuclear Machining Hypothesis

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. The Nuclear Hypothesis Marveling at the precision of ancie…

maximus.energy

But my point was that perhaps some chemical or metals test can destinguish the ancient vases as opposed to modern fakes. Or it may be in the technique where there is some tiny byproduct of the specific method on ancient vases as opposed to modern fakes.

Like the lathes of the 1900's or 1950's may have some signatures that come from the particular lathes. Something along those lines to tell that the vases were not fakes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't know I am not a physicist or geologist lol. It may be that particular granite is higher in radioactivity. It may be that this had something to do with the cutting method. I think they discovered high levels of Thorium-232 which has high radioactivity.

Its that the predynastic vases may be destinguished by the high levels of radioactivity as opposed to modern fakes. If this is consistent then its one little piece of evidence that the vases are more likely predynastic.

Dr Max has an interesting hypothesis.

Po-210 or any other short-lived alpha emitter. Po-210 atoms decay by emitting alpha particles, which are helium ions travelling at very high velocity. A milligram of Po-210 would emit a horrendous flux of helium ions, which would ablate any surface they come in contact with.

Softening Matter with Electrons
Another option is to use a short-lived beta emitter to saturate a hard material with electrons.

The alpha blade ablates material but the beta blade locally softens the material. As such the alpha blade is useful primarily for cutting whereas the beta blade is better suited for scooping as the soft material needs to be pushed away and removed much like sculptor’s clay.

These two examples look like technologies that could have been used to shape the rocks on polygonal masonry found all over the world: from Peru to Egypt.

Nuclear Machining Hypothesis

Support The Research Do you want to know the truth about our past? Fuel the research. Your participation matters and makes the difference. The Nuclear Hypothesis Marveling at the precision of ancie…

maximus.energy

But my point was that perhaps some chemical or metals test can destinguish the ancient vases as opposed to modern fakes. Or it may be in the technique where there is some tiny byproduct of the specific method on ancient vases as opposed to modern fakes.

Like the lathes of the 1900's or 1950's may have some signatures that come from the particular lathes. Something along those lines to tell that the vases were not fakes.

The more you have to rely on such extreme concepts like softening matter with electrons for periods in history before nuclear energy was even thought of, the more extreme evidence you need to put forward.

For a guy who said that we should listen to what locals say on the matter (or to quote your words from post #867: All ancient cultures believe their ancestors held great knowledge that was lost. Why deny them.), you do the Egyptians a mass disservice by creating such outlandish things to explain away something very simple.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't care if it counts as spam or whatever, but I'm going to copy and past what I wrote a few pages back regarding the vases:

Besides, doing my own little research spree (which was literally five minutes of Googling the phrase "carving jars from alabaster" turned up this website page: Hand Carving Process For Egyptian Alabaster, which simply (if not wholly visually) describes the process of how Egyptian Alabaster is shaped and form by modern artisans to make jars out of alabaster as they would thousands of years ago. And in fact, this process is expanded upon here, Crafting Timeless Beauty: The Art of Carving Egyptian Alabaster, which this time has a video, which I sadly can't link below (the actual process beings at about the 2 minute mark) and we see the exact process of how it's done in a traditional, but clearly complex and skilled manner.

But the point I'm making is that we know what processes the ancient Egyptians used, because there are still people using those same processes! We know how they did it, but you just refuse to accept that as evidence for anything. And your claims of the ancients using much more advanced technology than you claim they had just poos all over these people's hard work.

 

[sjastro]

Dr Max has an interesting hypothesis.

Po-210 or any other short-lived alpha emitter. Po-210 atoms decay by emitting alpha particles, which are helium ions travelling at very high velocity. A milligram of Po-210 would emit a horrendous flux of helium ions, which would ablate any surface they come in contact with.

Softening Matter with Electrons
Another option is to use a short-lived beta emitter to saturate a hard material with electrons.

This explains why the Egyptians had a funny walk. In order to prevent future generations of ancient Egyptians from glowing in the dark when handling radioactive material such as Po-210, they wore lead lined kilts.

 

[stevevw]

But as I've said repeatedly, making the claim of advanced tech existing is worthless without the actual evidence OF THE TOOLS THEMSELVES EXIST,

I agree with Stopped Lurking that we don't need to find or know exactly what the method was to claim that it was not the traditional methods but rather some other method we have not found yet.

For example. Say we find a Lazer cut in the stones or in the middle ages. The traditional tools were said to be copper saws, abrasion, chisels and pounders. Now we know that none of these match the signature and that it was something with great heat that could cut through stone because it left burn marks and some melted edges.

So we can tell it was not the orthodox tools claimed in the records or found with the culture. But something else that we have not found. Nothing changes the fact that the signatures speak of a completely different method that does not match.

especially since we know of other methods of how such things were made with the tools we know to have existed at the time.

As with the lazer cutting. Despite having the traditional tools. None of them can reproduce the marks on the stones that a lazer makes. So we can conclude it was not the traditional tools.

I even posted links showing and describing how such vases can be made without things like potter's wheels or lathes. It's not all that hard to figure out. You claim otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So either put that evidence forward or stop making the claims.

Yes and that is why I bypassed all the arguing about precision and provenance and went straight for the direct evidence on the vases in the sites or in museums that show machining and lathing marks. None of the traditional methods can replicate these marks.

Additionally they actually point to maching or lathing as they match vases which have been machined. In fact Flinders Petrie who found many of these vases describes and illustrates these machined strirations on many vase fragments on site he found. Similar to the one I linked.

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh: Flinders Petrie​

One piece found at Gizeh, No 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centering, recentered imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centerings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface.

Detail is shown by fragment No. 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated. This center of hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centering of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl.

That this was certainly not a chance result of handwork is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking curves.

Not only was the rotating tool employed, but the further idea of rotating the work and fixing the tool was also familiar to the earliest Egyptians.

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

Cambridge Core - Middle East Studies - The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

www.cambridge.org

Here is another vase at the Petrie museum with machining marks like lathing.

This is the vase sitting in its cabinet in the museum. This can be seen i8n the video I linked earlier if you want to know its source and see for yourself that it comes from a museum. Its a genuine vase.

This is a close up of the inside. You can actually just seee them on the above image if you enlarge it.

Also we see the signature of lathing marks going around vases from the light scans which are very uniform and circular. This image is from a previous video I posted on testing the vases.

You say I have provided no evidence. I think I have and its clear that some sort of lathing was involved. Not just any lathing but pretty sophisticated lathing. As Petrie says there was some sort of fixed point with tremendous pressure cutting onto the vase that could be reset.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I agree with Stopped Lurking that we don't need to find or know exactly what the method was to claim that it was not the traditional methods but rather some other method we have not found yet.

For example. Say we find a Lazer cut in the stones or in the middle ages. The traditional tools were said to be copper saws, abrasion, chisels and pounders. Now we know that none of these match the signature and that it was something with great heat that could cut through stone because it left burn marks and some melted edges.

So we can tell it was not the orthodox tools claimed in the records or found with the culture. But something else that we have not found. Nothing changes the fact that the signatures speak of a completely different method that does not match.


As with the lazer cutting. Despite having the traditional tools. None of them can reproduce the marks on the stones that a lazer makes. So we can conclude it was not the traditional tools.

Yes and that is why I bypassed all the arguing about precision and provenance and went straight for the direct evidence on the vases in the sites or in museums that show machining and lathing marks. None of the traditional methods can replicate these marks.

Additionally they actually point to maching or lathing as they match vases which have been machined. In fact Flinders Petrie who found many of these vases describes and illustrates these machined strirations on many vase fragments on site he found. Similar to the one I linked.

View attachment 372347

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh: Flinders Petrie​

View attachment 372350

One piece found at Gizeh, No 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centering, recentered imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centerings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface.

View attachment 372349

Detail is shown by fragment No. 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated. This center of hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centering of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl.

That this was certainly not a chance result of handwork is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking curves.

Not only was the rotating tool employed, but the further idea of rotating the work and fixing the tool was also familiar to the earliest Egyptians.

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

Cambridge Core - Middle East Studies - The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

www.cambridge.org

Here is another vase at the Petrie museum with machining marks like lathing.

This is the vase sitting in its cabinet in the museum. This can be seen i8n the video I linked earlier if you want to know its source and see for yourself that it comes from a museum. Its a genuine vase.

View attachment 372351

This is a close up of the inside. You can actually just seee them on the above image if you enlarge it.

View attachment 372352

Also we see the signature of lathing marks going around vases from the light scans which are very uniform and circular. This image is from a previous video I posted on testing the vases.

View attachment 372353

No, that's just all a crock from you. Absolute crock. I showed you traditional, workable and known methods that easily explain how things were done, but you just ignored it and go "LASERS! MACHINES! ELECTRONS!"

You are so hellbent on claiming advanced tech that you absolutely refuse to look at the evidence in front of you and make such stupid claims like that the Egyptians had a advanced tech, despite the fact that you cannot at all show such advanced tech existing and have to rely on very clear misinterpretations and bad faith arguments from other people to claim that advanced tech existed.

If you cared at all about it being true, then you'd go and actually find the advanced tech itself that you claim exists, instead of relying on the other works of things that we already know how they were done.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I agree with Stopped Lurking that we don't need to find or know exactly what the method was to claim that it was not the traditional methods but rather some other method we have not found yet.

Where did I say that? I think I have made it clear that it would be finding the tools that would be the positive evidence for their use.

For example. Say we find a Lazer cut in the stones or in the middle ages. The traditional tools were said to be copper saws, abrasion, chisels and pounders. Now we know that none of these match the signature and that it was something with great heat that could cut through stone because it left burn marks and some melted edges.

So we can tell it was not the orthodox tools claimed in the records or found with the culture. But something else that we have not found. Nothing changes the fact that the signatures speak of a completely different method that does not match.


As with the lazer cutting. Despite having the traditional tools. None of them can reproduce the marks on the stones that a lazer makes. So we can conclude it was not the traditional tools.

Yes and that is why I bypassed all the arguing about precision and provenance and went straight for the direct evidence on the vases in the sites or in museums that show machining and lathing marks. None of the traditional methods can replicate these marks.

Additionally they actually point to maching or lathing as they match vases which have been machined. In fact Flinders Petrie who found many of these vases describes and illustrates these machined strirations on many vase fragments on site he found. Similar to the one I linked.

View attachment 372347

The above picture is of low resolution to say whether the striations were made abrasively or by turning. For all you have presented this fragment might be from the time after the known date of the potters wheel and the hand drill or the core drill.

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh: Flinders Petrie​

View attachment 372350

One piece found at Gizeh, No 14, shows that the method employed was true turning, and not any process of grinding, since the bowl has been knocked off of its centering, recentered imperfectly, and the old turning not quite turned out; thus there are two surfaces belonging to different centerings, and meeting in a cusp. Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process which pressed on the surface.

View attachment 372349

Detail is shown by fragment No. 15; here the curves of the bowl are spherical and must have therefore been cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated. This center of hinging of the tool was in the axis of the lathe for the general surface of the bowl, right up to the edge of it; but as a lip was wanted, the centering of the tool was shifted, but with exactly the same radius of its arc, and a fresh cut made to leave a lip to the bowl.

That this was certainly not a chance result of handwork is shown, not only by the exact circularity of the curves, and their equality, but also by the cusp left where they meet. This has not been at all rounded off, as would would certainly be the case in hand-work, and it is clear proof of the rigidly mechanical method of striking curves.

Not only was the rotating tool employed, but the further idea of rotating the work and fixing the tool was also familiar to the earliest Egyptians.

The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

Cambridge Core - Middle East Studies - The Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh

www.cambridge.org

But these fragment was found at Giza, they are not predynastic.

Here is another vase at the Petrie museum with machining marks like lathing.

This is the vase sitting in its cabinet in the museum. This can be seen i8n the video I linked earlier if you want to know its source and see for yourself that it comes from a museum. Its a genuine vase.

View attachment 372351

This is a close up of the inside. You can actually just seee them on the above image if you enlarge it.

View attachment 372352

Why couldn't those marks be made by some abrasive boring? They are not the marks from something close to modern machining.

Also we see the signature of lathing marks going around vases from the light scans which are very uniform and circular. This image is from a previous video I posted on testing the vases.

View attachment 372353

These look like marks that could happen if someone polishes around the perimeter of the vase, they don't look like precision machining, IMO.

You say I have provided no evidence. I think I have and its clear that some sort of lathing was involved. Not just any lathing but pretty sophisticated lathing. As Petrie says there was some sort of fixed point with tremendous pressure cutting onto the vase that could be reset.

What tells you about sophisticated lathing from these pictures you present?

 

[stevevw]

No, that's just all a crock from you. Absolute crock. I showed you traditional, workable and known methods that easily explain how things were done, but you just ignored it and go "LASERS! MACHINES! ELECTRONS!"

Could the methods you claimed produce those circular machine marks. Thats all that matters. Do you disagree with Petrie. You say you have shown me. What about Petrie showing me. He disagrees with you and he was the one who found them and documented them. He actually measured them. You have not. Who should I believe.

You are so hellbent on claiming advanced tech that you absolutely refuse to look at the evidence in front of you and make such stupid claims like that the Egyptians had a advanced tech, despite the fact that you cannot at all show such advanced tech existing and have to rely on very clear misinterpretations and bad faith arguments from other people to claim that advanced tech existed.

I think its the other way around. I clearly showed you evidence right before your eye and the fact you don't even mention them but instead go into other things shows you don't want to mention them and know they contradict your claim.

If you cared at all about it being true, then you'd go and actually find the advanced tech itself that you claim exists, instead of relying on the other works of things that we already know how they were done.

But even others on your side agree with me thats its unnecessary. Who should I believe.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Could the methods you claimed produce those circular machine marks. Thats all that matters. Do you disagree with Petrie. You say you have shown me. What about Petrie showing me. He disagrees with you and he was the one who found them and documented them. He actually measured them. You have not. Who should I believe.

Petrie has been dead for over 80 years! Do you not think that the study of ancient Egypt has advanced significantly since the 1880s and 1890s?

I think its the other way around. I clearly showed you evidence right before your eye and the fact you don't even mention them but instead go into other things shows you don't want to mention them and know they contradict your claim.

That's such a load of bull. Nothing contradicts my claim that you can't show a single piece of advanced tech, nor any actual evidence of said tech existing in the first place.

But even others on your side agree with me thats its unnecessary. Who should I believe.

Not a single person has said that.