There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[Hans Blaster]

I don't know I am not a physicist or geologist lol. It may be that particular granite is higher in radioactivity.

That would be the sensible answer.

It may be that this had something to do with the cutting method.

That would not.

I think they discovered high levels of Thorium-232 which has high radioactivity.

Th232 is less radioactive than either major uranium isotope as it has a LONGER HALFLIFE.

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.

While the Egyptians perferred granite could be higher in concentration in radio isotopes, I don't why all of the granite used to make modern vases would not. Some, sure, all, doubtful.

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.

Does Dr. Max think the genuine vases got on Putin's bad side? That's the only way I know to get a large amount of Po-210 (and Putin only use 0.01 mg which itself was "overkill"). So much for Dr. Max's credibility.

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

I'm sorry, but I have to re-rate "Dr. Max" as an unserious nutjob at this point. Dr. Max might have just as well said:

Note to Steve: This is not claiming anything about *YOU*, but the sources you just cited have fallen into the "ancient aliens" level of credibility. Try to do better than them. You seem like a decent guy. You don't need these grifters.

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.

The same minerals and rock types from different places do have chemical and isotopic signatures. Is there any analysis of such with pre-dynastic vases?

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.

Has anyone identified a signature of 20th century lathes?

One final note directly to you Steve:

Your sources are not doing you any favors. They say incredibly dumb and implausible things and present it as "science". There are so many con artists and grifters in "precision vase" space that it is hard to find a serious investigator. Given the higher quality of his write-up, I has some hope that "Dr. Max" might be more serious, but he is clearly not.

I posted the "ancient aliens" meme in hope to shock you into realization that you are being taken for a ride by nonsense peddlers. It is the same reason I mentioned "Atlantis" early in the thread. The sources you cite are being influenced by the "Hancock/Ancient Aliens/Atlantis/Connolly" tree of bad ideas. Dunn and "UnchartedX" are clearly Hancock superfans as is the "Ancient History BA" who made the video in your OP.

You deny that you favor "ancient aliens" or "Atlantis" and I accept the truthfulness of that claim, as I suspect the other posters on the thread generally do as well. My only effort here is to try to get you to realize that this is not the case with many of the sources you rely on with the hope that you will reassess their general credibility.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Ok must have got you mixed up with another poster. I am posting to 4 or 5 people at once lol. But they made a common sense case that it is unnecessary to find the advanced tech to prove it was made by advanced tech.

If we find a Porche embedded in a rock 5,000 years ago we don't need to know or find the tech to see that it involved advanced tech. The problem with this view is the expectation of exactly what that tech would be and look like. You may be assuming it has to be like we understand today.

But like I said with stone softening it may be something that does not require a device like we think. It may be a manipulation of stone physics or chemistry ect that they came to know. Like ancients did with medicines and other aspects of nature.

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.

This vase is in the Petrie museum under predyanstic vases. Are we now going to question the provenance of all vases that exist including in museums.

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

We don't know. Once again this is the idea that where ever something is found it must come from there. Yet we see all over that stuff came from other places. The precision vases under the Stepped pyramid don't come from Djoser or the 3rd dynasty. They were inherited. So why not vases in Gizeh.

We just don't know. But because we have the exact same vases under the Stepped pyramid and in grave pits well before the Gizeh works we know they are early.

But it doesn't matter because the level of tech is even too advanced for Gizeh. We are still talking 2500BC and the very first potters wheels and bore sticks were rudimentary slow and wobbly. We have the vases made from them and they don't have these signatures of lathing and machining. Do you understand what Petrie is saying about the level of tech in the cutting.

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

For many reasons to do with the reverse engineering of the marks. Look how Petrie describes them similar coincidently to the modern testers. The circularity is exact and uniform as though the cutter was fixed and did not move to keep its line.

The Bore stick is well known for the tubular drill cores. Funndy enough Petrie also describes them as being created by some other mechanism that has tremendous pressure and could cut into granite with ease and not abrasion as this wears down rather than cuts and leaves specific signatures.

But to hollow out vases in some plaves 6 or 8 inches or more wide with exact uniform arcs is not from a bore stick. They are designed to wobble for their momentum and will cause erratic grinding and abarasing. Two completely different signatures. As Petrie said these were pretty sophisticated lathes that had a fixed cutter that could create a near exact arc repeatedly.

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

They look more like something produced by a fixed cutter that it leaves such uniform bands. Someone rubbing or polishing won't be so uniform and be in all directions. Its classic witness marks to something pushed onto the vase as the tool or vase was rotating. In fact Petrie mentions that for smaller vases the vase may have been turning rather than the tool.

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

Just as Petrie says
Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process
cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated.
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.

Plus all the other follow up investigation which says more or less the same thing and agrees with Petrie such as the tests I linked ie

The metrological evaluation of the Naqada period basalt vessels from the Petrie Collection clearly shows that these objects are made with the degree of technological sophistication unexpected from the late Neolithic peoples. This technological sophistication is evidenced in the precision of rotation that was used to shape these objects.

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

 

[stevevw]

That would be the sensible answer.

But that doesn't stop me from finding out from experts lol. I do have two eyes and a brain to read lol and understand when someone says the vases involved lathing and then I see the evidence directly on the vases.

That would not.

Th232 is less radioactive than either major uranium isotope as it has a LONGER HALFLIFE.

Yeah like I said I am not a physicist or geologist.

While the Egyptians perferred granite could be higher in concentration in radio isotopes, I don't why all of the granite used to make modern vases would not. Some, sure, all, doubtful.

Ok so we have one small identifyer that is different to modern vases. By collecting their small markers we can make a case for the vases being genuine.

Does Dr. Max think the genuine vases got on Putin's bad side? That's the only way I know to get a large amount of Po-210 (and Putin only use 0.01 mg which itself was "overkill"). So much for Dr. Max's credibility.

I'm sorry, but I have to re-rate "Dr. Max" as an unserious nutjob at this point. Dr. Max might have just as well said:

View attachment 372359
Note to Steve: This is not claiming anything about *YOU*, but the sources you just cited have fallen into the "ancient aliens" level of credibility. Try to do better than them. You seem like a decent guy. You don't need these grifters.

And the way everything is dismissed as whacko is a hallmark of hyper skeptics and cynics lol. I think this is Dr Max's specialist area. Yet you have the hyde to claim you know more. JUst after you congradulated me for knowing my lane you jump out of yours lol.

The same minerals and rock types from different places do have chemical and isotopic signatures. Is there any analysis of such with pre-dynastic vases?

Maybe, I know that the metals in stone vase fragments was done. Oh look it was done by Dr Max. There goes all that data lol. Nevertheless you can't make up metals in stone if the detector picks it up.

One thing they did not find is any copper. No copper tools used. But they did find tin, zircon, zinc and strangle titanium.

But anyway I think these tests are ongoing. But I think its one way to determine the authenticity of the ancient vases. Like an identity marker.

Has anyone identified a signature of 20th century lathes?

Of course, thats what all the language that is being used. Not actually saying its a specific lathe or period of modern times. But that some sort of fixed lathing was involved. Thats all that is necessary as there was no fixed lathe cutter during that time. Not even a simple potters wheel.

If there was it would have been very rudimentary and certainly not as sophisticated. In fact this was also not the case later such as with the Bore Stick commonly used in later dynasties. As this is unstable and leaves completely different signatures.

One final note directly to you Steve:

Your sources are not doing you any favors. They say incredibly dumb and implausible things and present it as "science".

Thats according to you. For example you label Dr Max's hypothesis as whacko. You don't know and he has based this on his expert understanding. I would say on this he is more knowledgable than you.

How do we know you are just being hyper skeptical and don't like alternative ideas. Yet it was alternative ideas that moved science forward. All I have presented has good research and testing. I have specific what is spectulation. Your making this into a conspiracy not me.

Do you think all the talk about UAP's and advanced tech is all whacko.

There are so many con artists and grifters in "precision vase" space that it is hard to find a serious investigator. Given the higher quality of his write-up, I has some hope that "Dr. Max" might be more serious, but he is clearly not.

Once again I disagree. You seem to hold a low opinion of anyone who presents something alernative. Dr Max even mentions this and this seems to be from a man who is honest and knows what he is talking about.

Dr Max
Being wrong is normal. Wrong should not be stigmatized. Only by admitting wrong can we learn and improve. In fact, when we are learning, we are wrong most of the time. If one equates science with learning, then science and scientists are wrong most of the time. There are countless examples of it in physics and medicine.

I posted the "ancient aliens" meme in hope to shock you into realization that you are being taken for a ride by nonsense peddlers. It is the same reason I mentioned "Atlantis" early in the thread. The sources you cite are being influenced by the "Hancock/Ancient Aliens/Atlantis/Connolly" tree of bad ideas. Dunn and "UnchartedX" are clearly Hancock superfans as is the "Ancient History BA" who made the video in your OP.

I think this is arrogance. That you think others are incapable of knowing this and can still support alternative ideas. That if they do they must be whackos. I also think its decieving that you equate the two for just about everything that does not align with your preconcieved ideas and beliefs.

Dr Max specifically said this was a hypothesis and nothing actually real or factual. Heexplained his reasoning based on scientific possibilities and not some far fetched idea about gods or the supernatural. Yet you specifically ignored this and pretended that he was actually proposing this as fact. Thus the decption to painted good people as whacko.

There are many good people out there supporting such ideas. This whole thread has been one big conspiriacy itself lol. A conspiriact to make out good people and alternative ideas are a conspiracy lol.

I completely understand your point. You seem to think people don;t know this. Its the same attitude that Christians must be nieve and easily fooled for believing in God.

You deny that you favor "ancient aliens" or "Atlantis" and I accept the truthfulness of that claim, as I suspect the other posters on the thread generally do as well. My only effort here is to try to get you to realize that this is not the case with many of the sources you rely on with the hope that you will reassess their general credibility.

Ancient alians. I never even alluded to such things and I can see this preconcieved assumption is ooozing out of you with every reply. It is you who are building in your own mind the strawman of ancient aliens and Atlantis because some people dare to propose alternative knowledge.

Don't even use the word (advanced) then but (alternative) because advanced only makes sense in light of our own advancement as we understand today with the tech we have. Call it alternative. That some ancients knew how to mess with nature and discovered some alternative knowledge about nature and reality.

Nothing to do with Atlantis or aliens. Just humans and nature. Nature is an amazing thing and is certainly capable of doing things we consider impossible. It is nature we are tapping into today to improve tech.

While we are on aliens and this is in no way bringing aliens in as far as ancient tech. But what do you think today of the UAP's and advanced tech that even congress seems to be saying. Here we have modern day people, high ranking good people under oath and certainly not whackos saying theres advanced tech we cannot understand.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ancient alians. I never even alluded to such things and I can see this preconcieved assumption is ooozing out of you with every reply. It is you who are building in your own mind the strawman of ancient aliens and Atlantis because some people dare to propose alternative knowledge.

Don't even use the word (advanced) then but (alternative) because advanced only makes sense in light of our own advancement as we understand today with the tech we have. Call it alternative. That some ancients knew how to mess with nature and discovered some alternative knowledge about nature and reality.

Nothing to do with Atlantis or aliens. Just humans and nature. Nature is an amazing thing and is certainly capable of doing things we consider impossible. It is nature we are tapping into today to improve tech.

While we are on aliens and this is in no way bringing aliens in as far as ancient tech. But what do you think today of the UAP's and advanced tech that even congress seems to be saying. Here we have modern day people, high ranking good people under oath and certainly not whackos saying theres advanced tech we cannot understand.

Steve:

I am begging you to go back and read the section of my earlier post (#1001) that starts with

One final note directly to you Steve:

Read it carefully and read it in good will. I am not making *any* claims about what *you* believe about the methods of ancient Egyptian vase manufacture or anything else. It is entirely about the sources you like to quote in this thread (and a couple of related ones earlier).

"UnchartedX", Chris Dunn, the YTuber in the OP, and others are enthusiasts for known pseudo-archeology pushers like Hancock. Now it would seem that one of the best of your sources ("Dr. Max") is pushing unsupported and unphysical fantasies about ancient stone working. So much for him.

Please read it carefully and in a spirit of fellowship. When you have finished with that we can resume our conversations.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Ok must have got you mixed up with another poster. I am posting to 4 or 5 people at once lol. But they made a common sense case that it is unnecessary to find the advanced tech to prove it was made by advanced tech.

Please, make sure you get the names correct if you are going to ascribe someone a position.

If we find a Porche embedded in a rock 5,000 years ago we don't need to know or find the tech to see that it involved advanced tech. The problem with this view is the expectation of exactly what that tech would be and look like. You may be assuming it has to be like we understand today.

The Petrie vases are not like Porsches though.

But like I said with stone softening it may be something that does not require a device like we think. It may be a manipulation of stone physics or chemistry ect that they came to know. Like ancients did with medicines and other aspects of nature.

This vase is in the Petrie museum under predyanstic vases. Are we now going to question the provenance of all vases that exist including in museums.

Actually, we know that replicas was made even at the time of Petrie's dogs. This is why I would be much happier with investigations of vases from well documented modern dogs.

We don't know. Once again this is the idea that where ever something is found it must come from there. Yet we see all over that stuff came from other places. The precision vases under the Stepped pyramid don't come from Djoser or the 3rd dynasty. They were inherited. So why not vases in Gizeh.

Perhaps they were inherited, but until we can say that they ARE inherited we can't use them to argue about predynastic vases.

We just don't know. But because we have the exact same vases under the Stepped pyramid and in grave pits well before the Gizeh works we know they are early.

But it doesn't matter because the level of tech is even too advanced for Gizeh. We are still talking 2500BC and the very first potters wheels and bore sticks were rudimentary slow and wobbly. We have the vases made from them and they don't have these signatures of lathing and machining. Do you understand what Petrie is saying about the level of tech in the cutting.

Olga managed to make a vase with better exterior quality (according to Max) by only having a method to mark areas that were higher than the rest. There are other ways to do that that don't involve rotating the object. You can soot the inside of a hole in a piece of wood and polish the surfaces that get soot on them, my speculation. There are probably other ways to, that more experienced artisans have developed as a matter of fact during their careers.

Petrie was active well before the methods of archeology had matured and whilst he obviously was very interested in ancient Egypt, just because he says something doesn't make it true. The fact that he supposedly gave things away, makes me believe that he at least sometimes made quite substantial mistakes. Most of his writings are not peer-reviewed either.

For many reasons to do with the reverse engineering of the marks. Look how Petrie describes them similar coincidently to the modern testers. The circularity is exact and uniform as though the cutter was fixed and did not move to keep its line.

Coincidentally? They have probably read him.

The Bore stick is well known for the tubular drill cores. Funndy enough Petrie also describes them as being created by some other mechanism that has tremendous pressure and could cut into granite with ease and not abrasion as this wears down rather than cuts and leaves specific signatures.

But to hollow out vases in some plaves 6 or 8 inches or more wide with exact uniform arcs is not from a bore stick.

The pictures you have shown don't have exact uniform arcs.

They are designed to wobble for their momentum and will cause erratic grinding and abarasing. Two completely different signatures. As Petrie said these were pretty sophisticated lathes that had a fixed cutter that could create a near exact arc repeatedly.

They look more like something produced by a fixed cutter that it leaves such uniform bands. Someone rubbing or polishing won't be so uniform and be in all directions. Its classic witness marks to something pushed onto the vase as the tool or vase was rotating. In fact Petrie mentions that for smaller vases the vase may have been turning rather than the tool.

Just as Petrie says
Such an appearence could not be produced by any grinding or rubbing process
cut by a tool sweeping an arc from a fixed center while the bowl rotated.
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.

Plus all the other follow up investigation which says more or less the same thing and agrees with Petrie such as the tests I linked ie

The metrological evaluation of the Naqada period basalt vessels from the Petrie Collection clearly shows that these objects are made with the degree of technological sophistication unexpected from the late Neolithic peoples. This technological sophistication is evidenced in the precision of rotation that was used to shape these objects.

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

Max should get his stuff published if he believes in it.

 

[stevevw]

Please, make sure you get the names correct if you are going to ascribe someone a position.

Yes sorry I get confused with posters. It was a standout as it was contradictory to what all other objections.

Nevertheless you seem to believe that we must find the device before being able to make any determinations about what caused the actual marks. I think this is not necessary for obvious reasons.

The Petrie vases are not like Porsches though.

Yes I made an exaggerated example to hit home the illogical thinking. Lets say it was a precision part that looks a part that goes into a Porche. This will have much of the same precision of a vase that has been lathed. We don't need to find the manufacturing machine that made that part.

We can say as it meets the requirements of machining by its signatures. As opposed to say a hand made part without machining which for good reasons is not how we make precision parts.

Its ironic really. Because we don't have the traditional tools and device in the records for back then. Yet you and others are quite happy to accept this method without finding the device.

Actually, we know that replicas was made even at the time of Petrie's dogs. This is why I would be much happier with investigations of vases from well documented modern dogs.

Petrie was excavating from the later 19th century. I would like to see any examples of attempts to create these vases back then. I have a feeling they were not as precise. Even today manufactures say that replicating these vases is not easy and requires specialist machining. Especially on the inside.

Perhaps they were inherited, but until we can say that they ARE inherited we can't use them to argue about predynastic vases.

Well this is the point. Who is saying this. The skeptics will always want more and more and more evidence which can be overly demanding. Whereas many institutions, dealers, and most importantly the market says they are the real deal.

They are often good enough to be guranteed their worth and to be housed in museums and referred to as examples of predyanstic works. I would rather fall on the side with the mainstream acceptance that a few hyper skeptics.

Olga managed to make a vase with better exterior quality (according to Max) by only having a method to mark areas that were higher than the rest.

Lol you do realise Your actually making a case for advanced tech using wheels and laths with modern day bearings to stablise the work for OLga to achieve this. Without it she would not have been able.

Then well we have not even began to mention the interior which was nowhere near the level of the vases and an impossible task to be marking little spots on a wheel to then reach in and chip away. Not does her method look anything like the near perfect arcs cut into the stone Petrie mentions. Or what we clearly see on the insides.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases
The ‘replica’ vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ were made by Olga Vdovina in collaboration with the antropogenez.ru. The objective of the replication effort was to show that it was possible to make stone vases using stone, wood, and copper tools known to ancient Egyptians.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker

The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians.

Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric. This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

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

maximus.energy

There are other ways to do that that don't involve rotating the object. You can soot the inside of a hole in a piece of wood and polish the surfaces that get soot on them, my speculation. There are probably other ways to, that more experienced artisans have developed as a matter of fact during their careers.

Yes and thats my whole point. Now your thinking outside the circular. The use of heat and fire to shape objects. A natural phenomena that is enhanced by humans. I mentioned the softening of stone which is a similar logic.

But it seems askeptics only want certain alternative ways that align with modern tech which then means that anything that looks similar must have been made with some sort of primitive tool and sheer rubbing from the beginning to create everything we see.

If for example we found burn marks or evidence of burning or heating to shape these vases then you would have to by logic of your example on wood be open to such alternative ways.

Petrie was active well before the methods of archeology had matured

Petrie actually pioneered modern archeology. He is like the Einstein of phsyics. His measures though not down to the micron were what set the science of archeology. He rigidly recorded every detail.

Yes modern tech was not available and thats why his opinion is untainted. He is just observing and measuring a new thing almost. But they did have the lathing principles at that time. In fact it would have been the new tech for that time and well known by scientists in the field. They were at the forefront.

In fact none of Petries contemporaries disagreed with his measurements and explanations of the methods. They just did not like the idea of actually saying that this was like modern tech or required modern ways of lathing. Or lathing at all.

and whilst he obviously was very interested in ancient Egypt, just because he says something doesn't make it true. The fact that he supposedly gave things away, makes me believe that he at least sometimes made quite substantial mistakes. Most of his writings are not peer-reviewed either.

Lol your now subjectively making claims about Petries motives and thinking to use as evidence to undermine him. Just because he says something that many, even his contempories agreed with and can see with their own eyes.

The reason he gave away vases as gifts was that there were so many. These were not all precision vases. They were the minority being at the top of the best exanmples and reserved for royalty. But he did so for some as that was the kind of person he was and I would say that back then the whole thing about vases and auctions and precision was not a thing.

But none of this is relevant to the facts that he recorded the precision and marks on the vases and gave his best opinion from a scientific explanation for what may have caused them. But this is not rocket science either. Theres a big difference between exact arcs that are cut into vases and pounding, chipping and rubbing.

Coincidentally? They have probably read him.

Here it is again. The reduction of anyone who dares suggest the same findings must all be deluded and are seeing things that are not there. Like some contagious mental disorder that causes them to be fooled. Never any thought that repeated findings may be good science lol.

The pictures you have shown don't have exact uniform arcs.

So wait now your doing it to Petrie. He is looking directly at the arcs in the vases. What he depicts in only a small example. But he is looking directly at them and with his vase expertise telling us how the arc is uniform and meets exactly when reset. The steps around the lip stepped up with the same exact arc.

But you believe the pictures prove him wrong because of what you think they look like. I would rather believe Petrie and others who have actually measured and tested these vases.

Max should get his stuff published if he believes in it.

Actually Max mentions this. He says he is already publishing them on his site. They are open articvles available for peer review and this is actually happening right now. Whether that is taken to a jouranl I don't know. But whats the difference. Both are open to scientists to peer review.

Like I said the hostile reception and biases of those who even suggest such things even before it is explained is not a good environment and is usually hestitant in even allowing such articles.

But he has published stuff.

Observation of neutron emission during acoustic cavitation of deuterated titanium powder - Scientific Reports

Possibility of nuclear reactions in solid state is intriguing for two reasons: (1) It provides a means of studying nuclear processes in conditions that are much different from traditional plasma-filled reactors or particle accelerators; (2) it dramatically lowers the cost and complexity of the...

www.nature.com

So he is a scientists and thinks in such terms and not some whacko that is deluded into thinking aliens or Atlantis created these vases lol.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Yes sorry I get confused with posters. It was a standout as it was contradictory to what all other objections.

Nevertheless you seem to believe that we must find the device before being able to make any determinations about what caused the actual marks. I think this is not necessary for obvious reasons.

Even if you find what you call witness marks, how do you propose to the determine what made them if it is something that is fundamentally different from any thing that have come after and if we don't find any traces of the tools?

Yes I made an exaggerated example to hit home the illogical thinking. Lets say it was a precision part that looks a part that goes into a Porche. This will have much of the same precision of a vase that has been lathed. We don't need to find the manufacturing machine that made that part.

That is straight up not true, if you think there are mm surface deviations (as portrayed by the Petrie vases) in the bearing surfaces of an sports car crankshaft, you're sorely mistaken

We can say as it meets the requirements of machining by its signatures. As opposed to say a hand made part without machining which for good reasons is not how we make precision parts.

No one has yet showed that the proposed quality metrics even are comparable to modern machining tolerance definitions.

Its ironic really. Because we don't have the traditional tools and device in the records for back then. Yet you and others are quite happy to accept this method without finding the device.

No, I don't know exactly how they were done, but all arguments seem to be that they look to good to be the product of the known methods. But that is just an argument from incredulity, it says more about those making the argument than the object.

Petrie was excavating from the later 19th century. I would like to see any examples of attempts to create these vases back then. I have a feeling they were not as precise. Even today manufactures say that replicating these vases is not easy and requires specialist machining. Especially on the inside.

Regarding the actual Petrie vases that have been measured?

Well this is the point. Who is saying this. The skeptics will always want more and more and more evidence which can be overly demanding. Whereas many institutions, dealers, and most importantly the market says they are the real deal.

Then they can deal with them, but it is not science.

They are often good enough to be guranteed their worth and to be housed in museums and referred to as examples of predyanstic works. I would rather fall on the side with the mainstream acceptance that a few hyper skeptics.


Lol you do realise Your actually making a case for advanced tech using wheels and laths with modern day bearings to stablise the work for OLga to achieve this. Without it she would not have been able.

I gave you an example that requires no lathing. And turntables was known technology in the near east at the time.

Then well we have not even began to mention the interior which was nowhere near the level of the vases and an impossible task to be marking little spots on a wheel to then reach in and chip away. Not does her method look anything like the near perfect arcs cut into the stone Petrie mentions. Or what we clearly see on the insides.

A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases
The ‘replica’ vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ were made by Olga Vdovina in collaboration with the antropogenez.ru. The objective of the replication effort was to show that it was possible to make stone vases using stone, wood, and copper tools known to ancient Egyptians.

I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker

The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians.

Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric. This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.

Astonishing Precision of Predynastic Egyptian Stone Vessels: A Metrological Study

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

maximus.energy

Yes but its outside is as better than all the measured Petrie vases, bar one.

Yes and thats my whole point. Now your thinking outside the circular. The use of heat and fire to shape objects. A natural phenomena that is enhanced by humans. I mentioned the softening of stone which is a similar logic.

I'm not arguing for the use of heat and fire to shape the object, I was just giving a method of marking the higher point which then could be polished. It doesn't even have to be sooted, you can just see where the wooden template scrapes against the circular object.

But it seems askeptics only want certain alternative ways that align with modern tech which then means that anything that looks similar must have been made with some sort of primitive tool and sheer rubbing from the beginning to create everything we see.

If for example we found burn marks or evidence of burning or heating to shape these vases then you would have to by logic of your example on wood be open to such alternative ways.

You misunderstood me.

Petrie actually pioneered modern archeology. He is like the Einstein of phsyics. His measures though not down to the micron were what set the science of archeology. He rigidly recorded every detail.

Even during his life Einstein wasn't the "be all and end all" of physics. Do you believe the methods haven't been bettered by all the scientists working in the field since then? He's knowledge was surely great compared to his contemporaries, but dwarfs in comparison to what we can know today.

Yes modern tech was not available and thats why his opinion is untainted. He is just observing and measuring a new thing almost. But they did have the lathing principles at that time. In fact it would have been the new tech for that time and well known by scientists in the field. They were at the forefront.

In fact none of Petries contemporaries disagreed with his measurements and explanations of the methods. They just did not like the idea of actually saying that this was like modern tech or required modern ways of lathing. Or lathing at all.

Lol your now subjectively making claims about Petries motives and thinking to use as evidence to undermine him. Just because he says something that many, even his contempories agreed with and can see with their own eyes.

If he did give the best vases away as you propose is the reason we find them in private collections, then that is a major mistake.

The reason he gave away vases as gifts was that there were so many. These were not all precision vases. They were the minority being at the top of the best exanmples and reserved for royalty. But he did so for some as that was the kind of person he was and I would say that back then the whole thing about vases and auctions and precision was not a thing.

He should have realised that they have scientific meaning regardless.

But none of this is relevant to the facts that he recorded the precision and marks on the vases and gave his best opinion from a scientific explanation for what may have caused them. But this is not rocket science either. Theres a big difference between exact arcs that are cut into vases and pounding, chipping and rubbing.

What you have shown are not exact arcs.

Here it is again. The reduction of anyone who dares suggest the same findings must all be deluded and are seeing things that are not there. Like some contagious mental disorder that causes them to be fooled. Never any thought that repeated findings may be good science lol.

So wait now your doing it to Petrie. He is looking directly at the arcs in the vases. What he depicts in only a small example. But he is looking directly at them and with his vase expertise telling us how the arc is uniform and meets exactly when reset. The steps around the lip stepped up with the same exact arc.


But you believe the pictures prove him wrong because of what you think they look like. I would rather believe Petrie and others who have actually measured and tested these vases.

No you're arguing for peer-reivew again.

Actually Max mentions this. He says he is already publishing them on his site. They are open articvles available for peer review and this is actually happening right now. Whether that is taken to a jouranl I don't know. But whats the difference. Both are open to scientists to peer review.

Peer-review takes time out of the day for professionals, journals know who the professionals are and send them articles for peer-reivew. Max's articles are most likely not even known to professionals in the field.

Like I said the hostile reception and biases of those who even suggest such things even before it is explained is not a good environment and is usually hestitant in even allowing such articles.

But he has published stuff.

I know, but not in a related field

Novel upgrading technology cuts diluent use, capital costs
MI Fomitchev-Zamilov
Oil & Gas Journal 113 (2), 66-66

Observation of neutron emission during acoustic cavitation of deuterated titanium powder
M Fomitchev-Zamilov
Scientific Reports 14 (1), 11517

These are the ones that I think have been peer-reviewed (I don't use preprint servers as of yet). How are these even remotely related to ancient Egyptian vases, or machining?

Observation of neutron emission during acoustic cavitation of deuterated titanium powder - Scientific Reports

Possibility of nuclear reactions in solid state is intriguing for two reasons: (1) It provides a means of studying nuclear processes in conditions that are much different from traditional plasma-filled reactors or particle accelerators; (2) it dramatically lowers the cost and complexity of the...

www.nature.com

So he is a scientists and thinks in such terms and not some whacko that is deluded into thinking aliens or Atlantis created these vases lol.

How much thorium-232 must one have to use its as a sort of alpha particle abalator? Its half-life is 14 billion years, so my guess is that you would to have a lot of it. If that is correct it seems far-fetched that it could have been used as ablator.

 

[sjastro]

Here is a plaster cast taken from Khufu's granite sarcophagus which is located in the King's chamber in the Great Pyramid.
Plaster casts are designed to accentuate surface details such as striations.

If the 4th dynasty Egyptians used diamond tipped circular saws for cutting granite not only would the striation patterns be circular but the kerf or groove width is constant. Instead we see straight parallel grooves and a variable kerf indicating a saw with abrasives were used where the variable kerf was caused by crushing of the abrasive probably sand against the granite during the sawing process.

 

[stevevw]

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?

So has Einstein and most other scientists who established long standing scientific methods and findings. This is a logical fallacy that some how time itself defeats facts. It also incorporates a lot of subjective determinations that have developed since that are claimed to be facts because over time different worldviews underlie what is fact.

But we are talking about measurement, machining and lathing. Petrie pioneered the methods of measuring Egyptian artifacts that are still used today. Measuring a vase has not changed fundementally. Whether that was an archologist ruler or a metrology guage. Its a matter of degrees.

But what Petrie measures and he explains this down to the fine measures of his time (1,000th of an inch) has only been verified down to the micron. Its not as if his measures were out by more inaccurate measures showing less precise. They support his pioneering work. When he mentions lathing and machining techniques those same priciples were in play and only improved.

But it was the principles of lathing and fixing the work or cutting to achieve the exact arcs and strirations is what he recognised in the current level of tech and the priciples of machining as opposed to hand made without any fixed guide attached to the hands or object.

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.

You are misunderstanding the point. My point was that it is unnecessary to show any device or method that made these works to prove that these works were made by advanced tech that is unlike the claimed traditional methods. Full stop. Not that I can't show this. But that its not necessary for me to show this to prove ancient advanced and lost knowledge and tech.

The first thing is that the lost tech may not even be what you think it is. Like computers, modern lathes or CNC machines. Your assuming there was some device fullstop.

When it may be some other tech we don't even know the question to ask as to what it was. It exists in a different paradigm of understanding that we don't understand which may involve as I mentioned stone softening. Which may not require machines. Or at least sophisticated ones.

Not a single person has said that.

Now your claiming you have read every single persons post. I know that is not true so this is an obvious falsehood. But I also know what I read lol. So your also doing my thinking as though you also read the threads I read. Who said there was no advanced tech. You seem to be promoting mind reading lol.

Gee do I have to go back and prove this. I mean if you did how would you go about it. Maybe word search lol. What word would show anyone said this.

What I find interesting is that your now more or less tarring everyone with the same mindset to what I think is an obvious logical fallacy. Is that the hill you want to die on lol.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So has Einstein and most other scientists who established long standing scientific methods and findings. This is a logical fallacy that some how time itself defeats facts. It also incorporates a lot of subjective determinations that have developed since that are claimed to be facts because over time different worldviews underlie what is fact.

But we are talking about measurement, machining and lathing. Petrie pioneered the methods of measuring Egyptian artifacts that are still used today. Measuring a vase has not changed fundementally. Whether that was an archologist ruler or a metrology guage. Its a matter of degrees.

But what Petrie measures and he explains this down to the fine measures of his time (1,000th of an inch) has only been verified down to the micron. Its not as if his measures were out by more inaccurate measures showing less precise. They support his pioneering work. When he mentions lathing and machining techniques those same priciples were in play and only improved.

But it was the principles of lathing and fixing the work or cutting to achieve the exact arcs and strirations is what he recognised in the current level of tech and the priciples of machining as opposed to hand made without any fixed guide attached to the hands or object.

But there is a 100% difference between your idolization of Petrie to taking him to be the be-all-end-all of anything Egyptian, and the work of Einstein who had people add to his work to show that he was correct.

Your entire basis is literally just "Petrie said it, that settles it." That is 100% what your words say every time you mention Petrie.

You are misunderstanding the point. My point was that it is unnecessary to show any device or method that made these works to prove that these works were made by advanced tech that is unlike the claimed traditional methods. Full stop. Not that I can't show this. But that its not necessary for me to show this to prove ancient advanced and lost knowledge and tech.

The first thing is that the lost tech may not even be what you think it is. Like computers, modern lathes or CNC machines. Your assuming there was some device fullstop.

When it may be some other tech we don't even know the question to ask as to what it was. It exists in a different paradigm of understanding that we don't understand which may involve as I mentioned stone softening. Which may not require machines. Or at least sophisticated ones.

Once again: an extraordinary claim like the claim that ancient Egyptians used advanced tools requires extraordinary evidence. You cannot just say "Oh, it's unnecessary to show any any device or method" in this sort of situation because you cannot back up anything you're saying apart from you going "Because I said so". That is not how science works, that is not how investigations work, that is not how being a skeptic works.

Now your claiming you have read every single persons post. I know that is not true so this is an obvious falsehood. But I also know what I read lol. So your also doing my thinking as though you also read the threads I read. Who said there was no advanced tech. You seem to be promoting mind reading lol.

Gee do I have to go back and prove this. I mean if you did how would you go about it. Maybe word search lol. What word would show anyone said this.

What I find interesting is that your now more or less tarring everyone with the same mindset to what I think is an obvious logical fallacy. Is that the hill you want to die on lol.

I've read and understood more posts on this thread than you have, and it's clear that you have zero ability to back up anything you've said.

Once again: claims without evidence are just claims, and extraordinary claims like the ones you're making require extraordinary evidence. Either present the evidence of the tools existing, either in the actual tools themselves or contemporary artistic evidence of them existing, or just stop making claims altogether.

You are an absolutely horrendous skeptic. The only logical fallacy at work is you thinking that we should take anything you say as fact without any pushback against what you say.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like, the whole point of being a skeptic is to ask questions.

Therefore, there is nothing wrong with someone being skeptical of a skeptic's skepticism, especially when said skepticism is incredibly outlandish as this thread and Steve's other Egyptian thread. And there's especially nothing wrong with being skeptical of said skepticism when the person spouting said skepticism treats their own views as being something we should just take their word on without evidence or thought.

 

[stevevw]

But there is a 100% difference between your idolization of Petrie to taking him to be the be-all-end-all of anything Egyptian, and the work of Einstein who had people add to his work to show that he was correct.

Your entire basis is literally just "Petrie said it, that settles it." That is 100% what your words say every time you mention Petrie.

No this is your strawman. I never said Petrie is the be all and end all. The whole debate had decended into fallacies of authority with all the back and forth discrediting of testers and researchers involved. I merely highlighted that Petrie is no whacko like the rest are being painted.

But I was never just using Petrie and in fact he came in late. I have listed other experts and even mainstream archeology on the early Egyptians who use the same language to describe the precision vases in recognition that some sophisticated lathing or wheel was involved. Even others on this thread agreeing that lathing was involved.

Once again: an extraordinary claim like the claim that ancient Egyptians used advanced tools requires extraordinary evidence. You cannot just say "Oh, it's unnecessary to show any any device or method" in this sort of situation because you cannot back up anything you're saying apart from you going "Because I said so". That is not how science works, that is not how investigations work, that is not how being a skeptic works.

Yet heres the hypocracy. We have no evidence for the traditional methods. We have no simple wheel, no bore stick and no copper tubes or saws. So the same logic would apply to anyone who claims this was done the traditional or orthodox way as depicted in reliefs or in attempted experiements to replicate these vases.

So your not applying the same standards to yourself. Your quite happy to make a factual truth claim that it was the traditional method without there being any evidence for it found. In that case you have no evidence until these are found in predynastic Egypt.

I've read and understood more posts on this thread than you have, and it's clear that you have zero ability to back up anything you've said.

Fair enough. Zero sounds a bit extreme. I think there is at least some evidence. The fact that people like Petrie and many others disagree shows its not zero. Unless you want to label everyone who disagrees as wrong. Thats a pretty big claim that like you said demands pretty big evidence.

Once again: claims without evidence are just claims,

So you don't think the lathing marks on the vases is evidence for lathing of some sort. I have actually provided clear images and illustrations from the sites or from the sites of actually lathing marks. How is this not evidence. I have provided independent evidence from a cross section of archeology and sciences that clearly state these marks are evidence of lathing or machining of some sort. How is this not evidence.

Is it that you don't believe the images or expert comments. Do you agree that the images shown at least look like some sort of lathing or machining. Not that it is lathing or machining. But that it looks like this.

and extraordinary claims like the ones you're making require extraordinary evidence. Either present the evidence of the tools existing, either in the actual tools themselves or contemporary artistic evidence of them existing, or just stop making claims altogether.

But I think I have. What if you are just denying clear evidence. It seems to me most people say that the marks look like lathing. But you seem to not even acknowledge this.

In some ways we already have sorted out the method. Experiments using the traditional tools and methods have not been able to replicate the signatures of the precision vases.

Tests done by modern manufacturers in machining have come closest to replicating the vases. This shows that the traditional methods cannot reproduce the level of precision.

But this is not rocket science as we all know that high levels of circularity and symmetry is usually caused by lathing. It seems the only time some want to deny this is with the precision vases.

You are an absolutely horrendous skeptic. The only logical fallacy at work is you thinking that we should take anything you say as fact without any pushback against what you say.

I usually know when people strat usuing such emotive and morally outragious language that its more than about facts and the truth. Adding words like horrendous or absolutes like 100% wrong or zero evidence is an indication of injecting personal biases in. That in itself is an immediate disqualifer.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No this is your strawman. I never said Petrie is the be all and end all. The whole debate had decended into fallacies of authority with all the back and forth discrediting of testers and researchers involved. I merely highlighted that Petrie is no whacko like the rest are being painted.

But I was never just using Petrie and in fact he came in late. I have listed other experts and even mainstream archeology on the early Egyptians who use the same language to describe the precision vases in recognition that some sophisticated lathing or wheel was involved. Even others on this thread agreeing that lathing was involved.

You do treat him as the sole authority, which itself is a horrendous appeal to authority since Egyptology has advanced massively in the 1800s.

Yet heres the hypocracy. We have no evidence for the traditional methods. We have no simple wheel, no bore stick and no lathe. So the same logic would apply to anyone who claims this was done the traditional or orthodox way as depiected in reliefs or in attempted experiements to replicate these vases.

So your not applying the same standards to yourself. Your quite happy to say that it was the traditional method without there being any evidence for it found.

But we do have evidence for the traditional methods. It has been shown to you repeatedly but you've outright ignored them! I even linked to two examples of how vases were made in the traditional Egyptian methods in post #994, with one even including a video link and you outright ignored it!

The only hypocrisy comes from you.

Fair enough. Zero sounds a bit extreme. I think there is at least some evidence. The fact that people like Petrie and many others disagree shows its not zero. Unless you want to label everyone who disagrees as wrong. Thats a pretty big claim that like you said demands pretty big evidence.

Thinking there is evidence and showing there is evidence are two completely different things.

Oh, and again, Petrie! A man who hasn't been relevant in Egyptology since the early 20th century.

So you don't think the lathing marks on the vases is evidence for lathing of some sort. I have actually provided clear images and illustrations from the sites or from the sites of actually lathing marks. How is this not evidence. I have provided independent evidence from a cross section of archeology and sciences that clearly state these marks are evidence of lathing or machining of some sort. How is this not evidence.

Is it that you don't believe the images or expert comments. Do you agree that the images shown at least look like some sort of lathing or machining. Not that it is lathing or machining. But that it looks like this.

Images and illustration do nothing to support your claim of lathing without the lathe itself being shown. Once again: all you are doing is making a claim with no evidence to back it up.

At this point, I don't even think you know what evidence actually is.

But I think I have. What if you are just denying clear evidence. It seems to me most people say that the marks look like lathing. But you seem to not even acknowledge this.

In some ways we already have sorted out the method. Experiments using the traditional tools and methods have not been able to replicate the signatures of the precision vases.

Tests done by modern manufacturers in machining have come closest to replicating the vases. This shows that the traditional methods cannot reproduce the level of precision.

But this is not rocket science as we all know that high levels of circularity and symmetry is usually caused by lathing. It seems the only time some want to deny this is with the precision vases.

That's just an absolute load of bunk from you.

I usually know when people strat usuing such emotive and morally outragious language that its more than about facts and the truth. Adding words like horrendous or absolutes like 100% wrong or zero evidence is an indication of injecting personal biases in. That in itself is an immediate disqualifer.

Honestly, I'd take anything you say more seriously if you were able to write English properly.

The only person injecting their personal bias in this is you with your repeated refusal to accept the very thought that ancient peoples knew what they were doing with the tools they had at their disposal without relying on vague commentary of evidence 'advanced tech'.

I say this again and will continue to say it again until it sinks in at least: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You want to claim that Ancient Egyptians had advanced technology, actually show the advanced tech in question. Put up or shut up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No this is your strawman. I never said Petrie is the be all and end all. The whole debate had decended into fallacies of authority with all the back and forth discrediting of testers and researchers involved. I merely highlighted that Petrie is no whacko like the rest are being painted.

Petrie is nearly the only archeologist you ever cite. He's been dead for a century and his work is 100 years behind on technique. Your other sources are non-archeologists many of whom are extremely questionable or even grifters. I am still waiting for your reply to my message (post #1004) of yesterday on this subject.

 

[sjastro]

Yet heres the hypocracy. We have no evidence for the traditional methods. We have no simple wheel, no bore stick and no copper tubes or saws.

And you wonder why people question your intellectual capacity and/or honesty by now claiming there is no evidence of traditional methods.

Exhibit A: A copper saw fragment from the 3rd dynasty by which stage the ancient Egyptians were supposedly using the equivalent of electric powered circular saws.

​

Exhibit B: The remnants of a copper tube drill and corundum abrasive in a drilled piece of limestone from the 18th dynasty.
Even though it is from the 18th dynasty, the Egyptians from this period used pounders and bronze chisels to produce much larger and more detailed granite obelisks than their Old Kingdom counterparts possessing the equivalent of electric powered circular saws, angle grinders etc.
(Please cease and desist with the idiotic theory the 18th dynasty obelisks are forgeries and were produced in the Old Kingdom).

Exhibit C: The plaster cast of Khufu's 4th dynasty granite sarcophagus as described in post@1008 which you conveniently ignored.
Let me repeat if the striations were produced by a circular saw the pattern would be circular and the kerf or groove width constant.
Instead there are straight parallel grooves and a variable kerf indicating a saw with abrasives were used where the variable kerf was caused by crushing of the abrasive probably sand against the granite during the sawing process.

 

[stevevw]

And you wonder why people question your intellectual capacity and/or honesty by now claiming there is no evidence of traditional methods.

There you go again. Personal remarks. You have to add a little jibe in each time. You can't help yourself. And its silly really when people do this because they set themselves up to be judged by the same criteria. In fact it makes them look like the person they are belittling.

This evidence you cite is not from the predyanstics. I said no method of a device to make precision vases and not some 40cm saw or later bore stick tech that came in the 18th dynasty when tech had developed in softer material. Still there is absolutely no bore sticks or potters wheels from the predynastics where these vases originate from.

So you have basically created a strawman and then beat me around the head with it lol.

Exhibit A: A copper saw fragment from the 3rd dynasty by which stage the ancient Egyptians were supposedly using the equivalent of electric powered circular saws.

View attachment 372462
​

Exhibit B: The remnants of a copper tube drill and corundum abrasive in a drilled piece of limestone from the 18th dynasty.
Even though it is from the 18th dynasty, the Egyptians from this period used pounders and bronze chisels to produce much larger and more detailed granite obelisks than their Old Kingdom counterparts possessing the equivalent of electric powered circular saws, angle grinders etc.
(Please cease and desist with the idiotic theory the 18th dynasty obelisks are forgeries and were produced in the Old Kingdom).

View attachment 372463​

Exhibit C: The plaster cast of Khufu's 4th dynasty granite sarcophagus as described in post@1008 which you conveniently ignored.

Sorry I may have missed some. I tended not to respond to your posts as much as for your personal jibes. Wasn't much fun being belittled all the time.

Let me repeat if the striations were produced by a circular saw the pattern would be circular and the kerf or groove width constant.
Instead there are straight parallel grooves and a variable kerf indicating a saw with abrasives were used where the variable kerf was caused by crushing of the abrasive probably sand against the granite during the sawing process.

View attachment 372464​

Ok so now we are getting into the strirations. Now you have opened up a can of worms.

First I must point out that we have not found massive saws that can cut 10 or 20 foot cuts. So you are doing exactly what I have been doing and getting flack for it. Which is looking at signatures as the way to tell the method without there being any evidence of such a method found.

According to the logic of yourself and others even if the signatures look like you think they look like (giant saw). Its all irrelevant because there is no such tech or tool found 10 or 20 foot saw). As stated to me that because I cannot show evidence of the lathe or method for machining that my arguement has no legs. Until we find the lathe or method its all whacko lol. Thats the logic. So this logic applies to you as well.

But more importantly if we are going to go down this path then you will have some explaining to do for other patterns in stone that look like circular saw or some planer or router that could cut in arcs and curves and even around bends. Impossible for a hand held giant saw which can cut in one go and not restart and leave a different pattern.

Exibit number 1.

The strirations on the basalt stone pavers at Giza show a curve or arc in the striarations across the top of this example. We can see its arc by the thin lip it left on the right edge where it stops. Which by the way is thinner than the thickness of a giant copper saw at 5mm plus. THis edge is around 2 or 3 mm. Plus the wobble from a hand saw would make the cut move all over the place and not leave such a sharp and thin edge.

Exhibit number 2.

The famous pink granite slab at Abu Rawash. It clearly shows a circular cut which is seen in the arc where the cutting stops. Like a giant circular saw. Almost seems like a thin layer was shaved off the top. Once again the thin edge at the lip is thinner than any massive copper saw. No straight edge giant handsaw could cut an arc like that.

Not only that the entire slab is cut with a concave bow in it. Its actually cut with a curve going inwards. Both curves impossible to create with a massive stright cut hand saw.

Also notice in the second image what looks like a planer or router or maybe same sort of circular saw edge has dug in deeper here and there and left a sharp step. Just as a planer does when its pushed hard against the surface that it digs in and and then comes back out. This cannot be caused by a hand saw.

Exhibit 2.

Rock faces around the same site as the basalt pavers at Giza that looks like something shaved off a thin layer and once again a very thin super straight edge, thinner than any massive hand saw. Some of these are at least 20 feet long and appears cut in one continious cut without a reset.

Not only that it appears the cut is going into the surface and along the top and leaving an edge. Rather than from the side and cutting in a thin layer. Besides what sort of handsaw could be that long and bend with the contour.

Just like some machine that can follow a surface dips and bends.

Ah why not. One more. This is a good one.

Exhibit 4

A black diorite slab at Abu Sir.

This has several machine marks. Another obvious arc cut that sems to have dug into the surface and left a pretty big step like the pink granite slab at Abu Rawash.

But the most interesting witness mark is what looks like actual router marks. Or like a machine cutter snicked or dug in on the edge of the slab. Certainly not from a copper hand held saw or pounding and rubbing.

This looks like an accident or a test run on the side of a slab. The step in the top surface has the same signature as these router or maybe circular saw dipping into the edge that goes right across the top in an arc.

Not all these cuts are curved or arced. But they still look like machining. They still have very uniform strirations and thin sharp edges.

Cutting with a copper saw I think is not actually cutting but abrasing and the crystals are not doing any deep cutting but grinding. They are not fixed and don't just fall into place and make uniform deep cuts. They are all over the place and often don't go deep or just crush into powder and abrase. Which leaves grounded out cuts that are wider and mostly smooth with no strirations or patchy nicks here and there.

Nevertheless the main problem is hand saws are too thick to shave off thin layers and leave a edge thinner than the saw itself. Or cut around bends and move with the contour of the surface like a machine cutter of some sort.

PS I have linked some of these images earlier and the sources are with them if you care to find them.

 

[Ophiolite]

Since you misunderstand observations about the quality of your arguments as being personal remarks I shall avoid them in this post, other than in this opening sentence.

I refer to this statement:

Exhibit number 2. The famous pink granite slab at Abu Rawash. It clearly shows a circular cut that almost seems shave off the top. Once again the thin edge at the ip is thinner than any massive copper saw. Not only that its a concave arc meaning its center dips below the straight edge saw and impossible to create

I have the following difficulties with it:

• I do not see any circular cut. Please explain what you are referring to.
• You attatch significance to "shaves off the top". Why, and what does "shaving of the top" mean?
• Whatever it does mean, please explain how this significance is not undermined by the two negative qualifiers "seems" and "almost"
• Edges have a single dimension. How can a line be "thinner" than anything?
• Where is the concave arc you refer to? I see no such arc. I do not deny it exists, I ask you to identify it for me.
• Did you mean to say "Not only that, but it has a concave arc. This means the centre of the arc lies below the edge allegeldy created by the saw and that is an impossibility," ?

It is not a personal remark to say that your arguments would be treated less emotionally if it was not necessary to work hard to disentangle the poor grammar, misspelled words, peculiar sentence structure and resultant obfuscation. ChatGPT or any LLM will happily correct your writings before you post them. This will do you and your readers a great service.

Aside: We all make errors in our posts. I am not troubled by the missed "l" in the word "lip" in your quote above. Those things happen, but most can be quickly identified by a single read through the post. My read through my own post here identified four errors, but that simple read through allowed me to correct them. (I have deliberately left this "aside" unchecked. It will be amusing to see if I made any here. Statisitcally, it seems likely.)

Edit: I see I missed one on my single read through - "allegedly" was spelt "allegeldy".

 

[sjastro]

There you go again. Personal remarks. You have to add a little jibe in each time. You can't help yourself. And its silly really when people do this because they set themselves up to be judged by the same criteria. In fact it makes them look like the person they are belittling.

This evidence you cite is not from the predyanstics. I said no method of a device to make precision vases and not some 40cm saw or later bore stick tech that came in the 18th dynasty when tech had developed in softer material. Still there is absolutely no bore sticks or potters wheels from the predynastics where these vases originate from.

So you have basically created a strawman and then beat me around the head with it lol.

Sorry I may have missed some. I tended not to respond to your posts as much as for your personal jibes. Wasn't much fun being belittled all the time.

Ok so now we are getting into the strirations. Now you have opened up a can of worms.

First I must point out that we have not found massive saws that can cut 10 or 20 foot cuts. So you are doing exactly what I have been doing and getting flack for it. Which is looking at signatures as the way to tell the method without there being any evidence of such a method found.

According to the logic of yourself and others even if the signatures look like you think they look like (giant saw). Its all irrelevant because there is no such tech or tool found 10 or 20 foot saw). As stated to me that because I cannot show evidence of the lathe or method for machining that my arguement has no legs. Until we find the lathe or method its all whacko lol. Thats the logic. So this logic applies to you as well.

But more importantly if we are going to go down this path then you will have some explaining to do for other patterns in stone that look like circular saw or some planer or router that could cut in arcs and curves and even around bends. Impossible for a hand held giant saw which can cut in one go and not restart and leave a different pattern.

Exibit number 1.

The strirations on the basalt stone pavers at Giza show a curve or arc in the striarations across the top of this example. We can see its arc by the thin lip it left on the right edge where it stops. Which by the way is thinner than the thickness of a giant copper saw at 5mm plus. THis edge is around 2 or 3 mm. Plus the wobble from a hand saw would make the cut move all over the place and not leave such a sharp and thin edge.

View attachment 372475 View attachment 372480

Exhibit number 2.

The famous pink granite slab at Abu Rawash. It clearly shows a circular cut which is seen in the arc where the cutting stops. Like a giant circular saw. Almost seems like a thin layer was shaved off the top. Once again the thin edge at the lip is thinner than any massive copper saw. No straight edge giant handsaw could cut an arc like that.

Not only that the entire slab is cut with a concave bow in it. Its actually cut with a curve going inwards. Both curves impossible to create with a massive stright cut hand saw.

Also notice in the second image what looks like a planer or router or maybe same sort of circular saw edge has dug in deeper here and there and left a sharp step. Just as a planer does when its pushed hard against the surface that it digs in and and then comes back out. This cannot be caused by a hand saw.


View attachment 372476 View attachment 372477

View attachment 372481

Exhibit 2.

Rock faces around the same site as the basalt pavers at Giza that looks like something shaved off a thin layer and once again a very thin super straight edge, thinner than any massive hand saw. Some of these are at least 20 feet long and appears cut in one continious cut without a reset.

Not only that it appears the cut is going into the surface and along the top and leaving an edge. Rather than from the side and cutting in a thin layer. Besides what sort of handsaw could be that long and bend with the contour.

Just like some machine that can follow a surface dips and bends.

View attachment 372485 View attachment 372486

Ah why not. One more. This is a good one.

Exhibit 4

A black diorite slab at Abu Sir.

This has several machine marks. Another obvious arc cut that sems to have dug into the surface and left a pretty big step like the pink granite slab at Abu Rawash.

But the most interesting witness mark is what looks like actual router marks. Or like a machine cutter snicked or dug in on the edge of the slab. Certainly not from a copper hand held saw or pounding and rubbing.

This looks like an accident or a test run on the side of a slab. The step in the top surface has the same signature as these router or maybe circular saw dipping into the edge that goes right across the top in an arc.

View attachment 372489 View attachment 372490

Not all these cuts are curved or arced. But they still look like machining. They still have very uniform strirations and thin sharp edges.

Cutting with a copper saw I think is not actually cutting but abrasing and the crystals are not doing any deep cutting but grinding. They are not fixed and don't just fall into place and make uniform deep cuts. They are all over the place and often don't go deep or just crush into powder and abrase. Which leaves grounded out cuts that are wider and mostly smooth with no strirations or patchy nicks here and there.

Nevertheless the main problem is hand saws are too thick to shave off thin layers and leave a edge thinner than the saw itself. Or cut around bends and move with the contour of the surface like a machine cutter of some sort.

PS I have linked some of these images earlier and the sources are with them if you care to find them.

Why don't you try to explain the images in my post in the context of the use of circular saws and machine finished surfaces instead your usual incoherent ramblings.

I am not going to be side tracked by your nonsense.
Here is the image of Khufu's granite sarcophagus from which the plaster cast was taken revealing the striation patterns are consistent with the use of saw and abrasives.

Where are the sharp edges and machine finish if the 4th dynasty Egyptians were using the equivalent of modern circular saws?

What totally destroys your argument is Khufu's sarcophagus is unfinished. What you see is the result of copper tools and abrasive work as evidenced by the plaster casts before the final shaping was done by hand grinding with abrasives.
Given even in the 18th dynasty craftsman were able to produce high quality granite statues using primitive tools, hand grinding a sarcophagus with sharp edges would have been relatively easy.

You can produce as many images as you want of stone blocks with sharp edges and smooth surfaces, they can be explained in the same way as Khufu's sarcophagus without the need of exotic tooling.

 

[stevevw]

Since you misunderstand observations about the quality of your arguments as being personal remarks I shall avoid them in this post, other than in this opening sentence.

Hum there is constructive criticism and there is derogatory remarks. I can show you if you want. I don't think you are me so you have not checked all the posts to me.

Saying "no wonder people question your intellectual capacity" is another way of saying your dumb or stupid. Especially when the actual basis for this is a strawman to begin with. Virtually creating a false representation to then use another fallacy that "Everyone knows' like it must be true lol. But I appreciate that you will keep from personal jibes.

I refer to this statement:

I have the following difficulties with it:

• I do not see any circular cut. Please explain what you are referring to.

The arced striarations and the arc where the cut stops against the uncut surface. Man I now have to go back again and find the analysis on this. I won't just yet. First can you see the arc left at the end of the cut where it stops which shows the arc of the cut before it. If you look at the strirations before it they match the arc.

• You attatch significance to "shaves off the top". Why, and what does "shaving of the top" mean
• Whatever it does mean, please explain how this significance is not undermined by the two negative qualifiers "seems" and "almost"

Well when you consider the thinness on the edge where the arc stops you will see it was a very thin cut taken off the top. The lip on the edge of the cut against the uncut stone shows that whatever was cut off the top of the block was no thicker than the that lip which in places is only a few mm if that.

• Edges have a single dimension. How can a line be "thinner" than anything?

I think you may referring to the thickness of the hand saw copper blade. If you notice the small lip in the last image where at places its only around 3mm. This is thicker than a massive copper blade. Thats why I say the cut is shaved off rather than cut through from the side. Its too thin to be a cut from the side.

• Where is the concave arc you refer to? I see no such arc. I do not deny it exists, I ask you to identify it for me.

In the 3rd image of the pink granite slab at Abu Rawash. If you notice the whole slab curves inward. THis means not only was an arc left in shaving or slicing off the top from right to left to leave an arc bowing outwards. But the cut also arcs downward from the surface. As though the blade not only bent inwards (horizontally) as an arc. But also vertically in the arc shown above when the cut stops against the cut stone.

• Did you mean to say "Not only that, but it has a concave arc. This means the centre of the arc lies below the edge allegeldy created by the saw and that is an impossibility," ?

Its hard to tell. I am not sure how someone cut cut a curve or arc in hard stone full stop. The curve bows below the surface line form outside in in. Can you see it when I enlarge it. See the bows down to the ground from forground to backgrond (horizontal). The other arc or curve on the surface images is curved the other way (vertically).

How can a hand held saw bow or arc two different ways in one cut. Why bother cutting in with an arc or curve if it was not an inherent feature of the cutter.

It is not a personal remark to say that your arguments would be treated less emotionally if it was not necessary to work hard to disentangle the poor grammar, misspelled words, peculiar sentence structure and resultant obfuscation.

Ok well that has nothing to do with the fact or truth or the evidence or the arguements. You have to make counter evidence or arguements dealing directly with the evidence. In this case there is no better evidence than direct observation of the signatures. Along with expert opinion we are being our own scientists.

I think the evidence is quite simple and clear by the images. They speak for themselves. I don't think poor grammar will deny this fact. I have linked these images before and people got the gist of what I was saying. Hey look at these, don't they look strange and more like machining. But its taken pages to finally acknowledge them lol.

I think the closest I have got so far is someone admitting that a couple looked like modern cuts. But that someone had come along much later when the tech was available and did them. So though I have had to keep plugging away this simple evidence has been avoided or dimissed as, whacko.

ChatGPT or any LLM will happily correct your writings before you post them. This will do you and your readers a great service.

Ok thats a good idea. Do they just correct all the spelling and grammar mistakes without having to do anything. I have mentioned I am dyslexic so that will help.

Aside: We all make errors in our posts. I am not troubled by the missed "l" in the word "lip" in your quote above.

Ah yes I think this has something to do with my typing technique. I have noticed that I leave the last letter off for some reason. Its not a spelling thing but a technique thing. I will have to solw down my typing.

Those things happen, but most can be quickly identified by a single read through the post. My read through my own post here identified four errors, but that simple read through allowed me to correct them. (I have deliberately left this "aside" unchecked. It will be amusing to see if I made any here. Statisitcally, it seems likely.)

Edit: I see I missed one on my single read through - "allegedly" was spelt "allegeldy".

Yeah I have never worried about peoples spell and grammar and usually can work out whats being said. Or the gist of it. But I will ask them if I don't quite understand something. Thats the best way I find instead of assuming.

I do have a tendency to go on and I know this. Perhaps an overcomoensating for the difficulty in grammar and framing things. That I have to repeat something in a different way because I think it was not explain well enough lol. On the other hand I like detailed replies that are not just short dismissals. That explain the reasoning. Which I think cannot really be done with just a few words.

But thankyou for your advice I will keep it in my. If I spot it lol.

 

[stevevw]

Why don't you try to explain the images in my post in the context of the use of circular saws and machine finished surfaces instead your usual incoherent ramblings.

This is why I don't like debating you. You keep adding these personal qualifyers which are obviously unreal and falsehoods.

OK so I didn't respond to your images in the way you wanted me to. I responded in a way that I wanted to. Is that ok or is that not allowed. I determined that your images did not negate that there was evidence for there being circular saw cuts in the stones and gave the examples. Just like you did.

If you are using those images to support your claim. Then you have to deal with images that contradict your claim. Simple as that. Best way to counter the claim. No need to give reasoning to why your examples are not valid.

All they do is show that we have two sets of methods. Two industries in stone. More than one method to cut stone. Just like today. It does not negate the clear images that show signatures that are more like machining marks than some massive copper hand held saw.

I am not going to be side tracked by your nonsense.

There you go again. I may disagree with you. But I don't deride your view. You do realise that many, many people also see things how I do. I think it was even you who said that one of the circular saw cuts. I think the one with three paralelle cuts. Was the product of a modern forgery. ter came along and used a circular saw. Was that you.

Someone did. Not just that people have unknowingly agreed that some sort of lathing was involved in a time that had not potters wheel let alone lathe. So if this is all nonsense then everyones speaking nonsense.

Here is the image of Khufu's granite sarcophagus from which the plaster cast was taken revealing the striation patterns are consistent with the use of saw and abrasives.

Gee they sure left this one pretty rought lol. Thats a joke by the way to lighten things. I always wondered how a hand held straight saw that needs to go back and forth could cut those destinctly sharp inside corners.

As though the inside was not pounded out and then ground down into a near perfect angels. But rather looks like a block is cut straight out of it in one go. Or maybe sections. But single straight cuts in one go for each section.

View attachment 372502
Where are the sharp edges and machine finish if the 4th dynasty Egyptians were using the equivalent of modern circular saws?

Ok I think I have shown some of the finer signatures on this box before. They show sharp straight and very thin cuts like they also have been shaved off. The lip or step left in so thin that a thick hand held saw could not have cut them.

Notice the top around the box. Like someone got a planer and cut out a flsy border around or was attempting to around the edge of the opening. These look similar to the thin sharp straight edges on the other examples

Now I don't think this is incoherent rambling but a simple observation of what the marks look like. Trying to reverse engineer them to work out what made them. You may have to enlarge them to see the detail.

What totally destroys your argument is Khufu's sarcophagus is unfinished. What you see is the result of copper tools and abrasive work as evidenced by the plaster casts before the final shaping was done by hand grinding with abrasives.

Yes and also sharp thin cuts like the surface was planed and they went a bit to deep in places and they neevr had the chance to polish them out. Like the sharp steps and lips we see inside vases. Or the same sharp thin edges or planing marks on many other examples like these. Like there just shaving thin layers off with some powered planer.

This cut or planing whatever you want to call it bends. It looks like the machine realinged or went off line and was re alined a couple of times as you can see over cuts or cross cuts. But it seems to have a similar thin planing or shaved marks with the tiny steps like the granite box on the closeup (second image).

Given even in the 18th dynasty craftsman were able to produce high quality granite statues using primitive tools, hand grinding a sarcophagus with sharp edges would have been relatively easy.

You think those long shaved or planed cuts to the surfaces were made by hand grinding and it was easy. I don't think so. It looks nothing like they were ground or abraised. Or cut with a hand saw.

They definitely look like some planer or powered saw just shaved or cut along the rock leaving a sharp straight or in some cases arced line thats thin. Too thin for thick giant saw. These look like they are cut in one continious pass. Some over 20 feet long.

You can produce as many images as you want of stone blocks with sharp edges and smooth surfaces, they can be explained in the same way as Khufu's sarcophagus without the need of exotic tooling.

Hum fair enough.