There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[sjastro]

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.

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.

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.

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.

View attachment 372508 View attachment 372523View attachment 372513


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.

View attachment 372515

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.

View attachment 372521

View attachment 372520

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.

Hum fair enough.

I am going to ask you again, if you think the Egyptians had tools where the cutting process alone produced machined surfaces and sharp edges explain the appearance of Khufu's unfinished sarcophagus.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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).

Again... if you want to make such a claim: show the actual machine itself! Stop with this ridiculous game of "Guess the tool!" with each picture you show.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you certainly need the evidence for anyone to remotely take you seriously.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

If you wish I can send you, by pm, a step by step guide to do this easily. If you wish you can even have the AI rewrite your sentences to make them more concise and intelligible.

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.

That is presumptuous. I might go so far as to say exceedingly presumptuous. I have, to my growing regret, read every single post in this thread, some of them more than once.

Steve, it is casual dismissals of this kind that lead to some of the "personal remarks". Consider for a moment that this remark of yours can be considered offensive by me. It is an attack on my integrity. You have presumed, let me say dared, to suggest that I would be so unprofessional, so careless as to make an observation without exploring all the relevant data - in this case all the posts.

Well, I'm not offended by it, purely because it is in line with what I see as routine thoughtlessness in your own posts. They are what they are. It would be nice if they changed, but until they do I'm not going to be put out by them.

 

[stevevw]

Again... if you want to make such a claim: show the actual machine itself! Stop with this ridiculous game of "Guess the tool!" with each picture you show.

Thats the idea. But its not all gusessing. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Do you think reverse engineering can tell us anything about the methods used.

It seems your holding me to standard that you don't apply to yourself. You claim that these predynastic vases were made by the simple tools in the records. We have no tools or methods from the predynastics.

So your wanting me to accept your claim that the traditional method is what caused these marks. But you also have no evidence of the tools or method. Looks like we are in a stalemate.

Do you think that if forensics determines a gun was used in a murder by the signature of bullet holes at the crime scene. That not finding the gun means they cannot say that a gun caused the signatures.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you certainly need the evidence for anyone to remotely take you seriously.

I think I already have provided ample evidence. You have two eyes. You can see for yourself. What do you think these marks in the images look like. Be honest.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thats the idea. But its not all gusessing. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Do you think reverse engineering can tell us anything about the methods used.

It seems your holding me to standard that you don't apply to yourself. You claim that these predynastic vases were made by the simple tools in the records. We have no tools or methods from the predynastics.

So your wanting me to accept your claim that the traditional method is what caused these marks. But you also have no evidence of the tools or method. Looks like we are in a stalemate.

Do you think that if forensics determines a gun was used in a murder by the signature of bullet holes at the crime scene. That not finding the gun means they cannot say that a gun caused the signatures.

I think I already have provided ample evidence. You have two eyes. You can see for yourself. What do you think these marks in the images look like. Be honest.

That's not at all how reverse engineering works. Reverse engineering is taking something that already exists but you don't have the specific blueprints for, taking it apart, studying it and putting it back together again.

What you're doing is looking at something, and then going "I think this is because of that!".

That's not reverse engineering, it's just making a claim with no evidence.

 

[stevevw]

If you wish I can send you, by pm, a step by step guide to do this easily. If you wish you can even have the AI rewrite your sentences to make them more concise and intelligible.

OK how do you pm lol. I am not good at this stuff. Like I said I still type with single fingers lol.

That is presumptuous. I might go so far as to say exceedingly presumptuous. I have, to my growing regret, read every single post in this thread, some of them more than once.

No really. If you notice I said "you are not me". It does not matter if you have read my posts through your eyes and mind. Its not me and you can never know this or focus on the things I do, or see the samne thing said the way I do. How do I know that your take on me is correct lol. You have not offerent anything.

Considering that most of these personal attacks come with demeaning and belittling language I think this is a sure sign that theres more to the opinion than just an univested opinion. If someone is that upset or morally outraged that they resort to personal attacks and moralising what is basically an investigation into ancient advanced knowledge.

Then this in itself is a disqualifyer regardless of what people say.

Thats how I know and am not assuming. Its a truth principle that if someone is distured to the point that they get personal that there is emotional reaction or motivation which will distort the perception and thinking. I am not talking about you.

Steve, it is casual dismissals of this kind that lead to some of the "personal remarks".

Hum how do I know that your remark here is a casual dismissal itself of my point of view lol. I see some tar good people who may proposed alternative ideas as automatically being a whacko. This is a fact and virtually happened from page 1. The bias was already in the house before the door was open lol.

I know that some of the posts I was referring to actually has clear personal attacks. That you don't see it this way or missed it, or overlooked it through your version of me is part of the problem and tells me you don't really know.

Heres a experiment. You tell me what my position is. What my arguement is if you know me so well.

Consider for a moment that this remark of yours can be considered offensive by me. It is an attack on my integrity. You have presumed, let me say dared, to suggest that I would be so unprofessional, so careless as to make an observation without exploring all the relevant data - in this case all the posts.

The difference is I have not made it personal jibes directly to anyone but rather reasoned my disagreement as to why. Or personalise it about character.

If I say I don't think you can know me as I know me and therefore do my thinking. I am making an arguement based on what I will consider logic, the facts or the experience I have. The important thing is I am not injecting into my replies and arguements personal jibes as little qualifiers. You may take my disagreement and arguement as personal. But its not.

Well, I'm not offended by it, purely because it is in line with what I see as routine thoughtlessness in your own posts. They are what they are. It would be nice if they changed, but until they do I'm not going to be put out by them.

See heres an example. You say 'routine thoughlessness'. I don't even know what that means. You have not explained or reasoned your conclusion or offered any evidence.

'Thoughlessness' seems extreme and vague and there may many ways to take this. One being it implies the person has not thought about things.. Now I may have thought about it and got it wrong. But I thought about it and anyone who knows me knows I think a lot lol. Its the qualification that the disagreement is due to some moral issue rather than any reasoned arguement.

Put it this way from the onset people made out everything said was whacko and psuedoscience. Not just at me but at those who propose such alternative ideas. So already its hostile territory lol. I don't mind this and I don't mind the banter and flack that people give when discussing these controversial ideas.

But there is always a line and because the issue attracts that kind of ridecule it can often slip into going overboard. I point it out occassionally when its constant and move on.

 

[stevevw]

That's not at all how reverse engineering works. Reverse engineering is taking something that already exists but you don't have the specific blueprints for, taking it apart, studying it and putting it back together again.

Isn't that what is happening with the vases for example. They are already existing, we don't have the blueprints and though we can't physically take it apart we can look at its parts and see how they go together and were created.

For example we measure the circularity and symmetry and determine the level of precision as to whether it was created by lathing or hand made. Certain signatures point to machining rather than hand made without any guidence from tech.

What you're doing is looking at something, and then going "I think this is because of that!".

No because as mentioned above the tests which is like reverse engineering. Or call it breaking down the parts and looking at the marks to determine what caused them.

I have linked several articles on this testing and you will find in their conclusions they state that from their tests and looking into metrology and scanning that the marks on the object are caused by lathing or machining and not hand made method.

They are not just pulling numbers and personal opinions out of the air. They have done what is equivelant to reverse engineering of the objects. Or call it a forensic examination to determine what caused the marks.

Let me ask. When you look at an object and may not know how it was made. Or it was said it was made by X method. Do you look at the marks and then relate them to the possible marks each method may create. Like if you say it was created by hand as opposed to machine.

Do you think there will be different kinds of marks for each method. When you claim that the object was made the traditional way are you saying the marks on the object look more like it was made the traditional way. As opposed to machining.

If you do. Are you not doing exactly what I am doing except you are coming to a different conclusion.

If you don't. Then what are you basing your claim on to determine how they were made.

That's not reverse engineering, it's just making a claim with no evidence.

So do you think any tests were done on the vases to work out how they were made. Do you think there are any tests we can do to determine how these works were made.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Isn't that what is happening with the vases for example. They are already existing, we don't have the blueprints and though we can't physically take it apart we can look at its parts and see how they go together and were created.

For example we measure the circularity and symmetry and determine the level of precision as to whether it was created by lathing or hand made. Certain signatures point to machining rather than hand made without any guidence from tech.

What you described is not at all reverse engineering.

No because as mentioned above the tests which is like reverse engineering. Or call it breaking down the parts and looking at the marks to determine what caused them.

I have linked several articles on this testing and you will find in their conclusions they state that from their tests and looking into metrology and scanning that the marks on the object are caused by lathing or machining and not hand made method.

They are not just pulling numbers and personal opinions out of the air. They have done what is equivelant to reverse engineering of the objects. Or call it a forensic examination to determine what caused the marks.

Let me ask. When you look at an object and may not know how it was made. Or it was said it was made by X method. Do you look at the marks and then relate them to the possible marks each method may create. Like if you say it was created by hand as opposed to machine.

Do you think there will be different kinds of marks for each method. When you claim that the object was made the traditional way are you saying the marks on the object look more like it was made the traditional way. As opposed to machining.

If you do. Are you not doing exactly what I am doing except you are coming to a different conclusion.

If you don't. Then what are you basing your claim on to determine how they were made.

I do think that there will be different kind of marks, but since you are coming into this whole thing wanting your claims of advanced tech to be true, then you are cherry picking the conclusions given to you.

So do you think any tests were done on the vases to work out how they were made. Do you think there are any tests we can do to determine how these works were made.

I think a good thing to do is look at the extant traditional methods of making pots in Egypt that we have today, using the tools that we know the ancient Egyptians used, and then see how they compare to the vases that you claim were made with advanced tech. That's a good test.

And, I will keep repeating this until it sinks in: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim advanced tech existed, then you need to actually present the evidence of the advanced tech itself. Not marks that you claim were made by the supposed advanced tech, but the advanced tech itself, either in contemporary art or in the actual physical tools themselves.

 

[sjastro]

OK how do you pm lol. I am not good at this stuff. Like I said I still type with single fingers lol.

No really. If you notice I said "you are not me". It does not matter if you have read my posts through your eyes and mind. Its not me and you can never know this or focus on the things I do, or see the samne thing said the way I do. How do I know that your take on me is correct lol. You have not offerent anything.

Considering that most of these personal attacks come with demeaning and belittling language I think this is a sure sign that theres more to the opinion than just an univested opinion. If someone is that upset or morally outraged that they resort to personal attacks and moralising what is basically an investigation into ancient advanced knowledge.

Then this in itself is a disqualifyer regardless of what people say.

Thats how I know and am not assuming. Its a truth principle that if someone is distured to the point that they get personal that there is emotional reaction or motivation which will distort the perception and thinking. I am not talking about you.

Hum how do I know that your remark here is a casual dismissal itself of my point of view lol. I see some tar good people who may proposed alternative ideas as automatically being a whacko. This is a fact and virtually happened from page 1. The bias was already in the house before the door was open lol.

I know that some of the posts I was referring to actually has clear personal attacks. That you don't see it this way or missed it, or overlooked it through your version of me is part of the problem and tells me you don't really know.

Heres a experiment. You tell me what my position is. What my arguement is if you know me so well.

The difference is I have not made it personal jibes directly to anyone but rather reasoned my disagreement as to why. Or personalise it about character.

If I say I don't think you can know me as I know me and therefore do my thinking. I am making an arguement based on what I will consider logic, the facts or the experience I have. The important thing is I am not injecting into my replies and arguements personal jibes as little qualifiers. You may take my disagreement and arguement as personal. But its not.

See heres an example. You say 'routine thoughlessness'. I don't even know what that means. You have not explained or reasoned your conclusion or offered any evidence.

'Thoughlessness' seems extreme and vague and there may many ways to take this. One being it implies the person has not thought about things.. Now I may have thought about it and got it wrong. But I thought about it and anyone who knows me knows I think a lot lol. Its the qualification that the disagreement is due to some moral issue rather than any reasoned arguement.

Put it this way from the onset people made out everything said was whacko and psuedoscience. Not just at me but at those who propose such alternative ideas. So already its hostile territory lol. I don't mind this and I don't mind the banter and flack that people give when discussing these controversial ideas.

But there is always a line and because the issue attracts that kind of ridecule it can often slip into going overboard. I point it out occassionally when its constant and move on.

The responses you get are a reaction to your disrespectful behaviour to others not the subject matter.
If the subject matter was as innocuous as say knitting you would get the same criticisms.

 

[Ophiolite]

And, I will keep repeating this until it sinks in: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want to claim advanced tech existed, then you need to actually present the evidence of the advanced tech itself. Not marks that you claim were made by the supposed advanced tech, but the advanced tech itself, either in contemporary art or in the actual physical tools themselves.

To me, an acceptable alternative would be to demonstrate (with multiple confirmations) that the dimensional properties and "marks of manufacture" cannot be produced using methodologies known to be available to Egyptians of that time. This would be good evidence for accepting the strong possibility that an unknown tech was involved in the production of the vases. (It is also important that this demonstration be made on vases of well established and appropriate (i.e. ancient) provenance.)

I think the use of the term "advanced tech" has muddied the waters by bringing with it implications that do not follow naturally from the evidence or argument presented so far.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To me, an acceptable alternative would be to demonstrate (with multiple confirmations) that the dimensional properties and "marks of manufacture" cannot be produced using methodologies known to be available to Egyptians of that time. This would be good evidence for accepting the strong possibility that an unknown tech was involved in the production of the vases. (It is also important that this demonstration be made on vases of well established and appropriate (i.e. ancient) provenance.)

I think the use of the term "advanced tech" has muddied the waters by bringing with it implications that do not follow naturally from the evidence or argument presented so far.

Exactly! Just saying "Just so" about it does absolutely nothing to show anything about it.

 

[BCP1928]

Thats the idea. But its not all gusessing. Ever heard of reverse engineering. Do you think reverse engineering can tell us anything about the methods used.

It seems your holding me to standard that you don't apply to yourself. You claim that these predynastic vases were made by the simple tools in the records. We have no tools or methods from the predynastics.

So your wanting me to accept your claim that the traditional method is what caused these marks. But you also have no evidence of the tools or method. Looks like we are in a stalemate.

Do you think that if forensics determines a gun was used in a murder by the signature of bullet holes at the crime scene. That not finding the gun means they cannot say that a gun caused the signatures.

I think I already have provided ample evidence. You have two eyes. You can see for yourself. What do you think these marks in the images look like. Be honest.

Is that your logical argument? That because we have no evidence of the tools and methods used by predynasitc craftsmen* they could not possibly have had a stone-cutting lathe or anything which would make similar marks.? Do you really think that follows?

*Which is false, BTW. We do have evidence of tools and methods used by predynastic craftsmen

 

[stevevw]

Is that your logical argument? That because we have no evidence of the tools and methods used by predynasitc craftsmen* they could not possibly have had a stone-cutting lathe or anything which would make similar marks.? Do you really think that follows?

Did not the poster I was replaying to just literally say because I cannot produce the evidence of any lathe that this in itself refutes the claim that a lathe might have been used. I used the example of not finding the gun doesn't mean the bullet hole signatures point to a gun.

I actually agree with your logic. But people have been saying that absent of finding the actual device any suggestion of lathing from the signatures fails.

*Which is false, BTW. We do have evidence of tools and methods used by predynastic craftsmen

Did we find a lathe or potters wheel or even bore stick in the pre dynastics sites lol.

In fact we don't have the method for cutting large blocks some 10 to 20 feet. Never found a 10 or 20 foot copper saw, no mechanism for housing that saw to keep it precise as in the precision of many cuts. In fact some cuts are impossible for hand held saws. No depictions on walls of cuting blocks. Only small carpentry saws cutting wood.

 

[BCP1928]

Did not the poster I was replaying to just literally say because I cannot produce the evidence of any lathe that this in itself refutes the claim that a lathe might have been used. I used the example of not finding the gun doesn't mean the bullet hole signatures point to a gun.

I actually agree with your logic. But people have been saying that absent of finding the actual device any suggestion of lathing from the signatures fails.

Did we find a lathe or potters wheel or even bore stick in the pre dynastics sites lol.

You might not ever find one even if they had any. It is entirely possible to build a stone-cutting lathe with no moving parts that would leave little or nothing in the archaeological record. Did they do that? I have no idea, but to say that it is impossible as adamantly as you do is just illogical foolishness.

 

[stevevw]

You might not ever find one even if they had any. It is entirely possible to build a stone-cutting lathe with no moving parts that would leave little or nothing in the archaeological record.

Its possible that there was a more sophisticated way of lathing or maching or producing the works that would also leave nothing in the records.

Did they do that? I have no idea, but to say that it is impossible as adamantly as you do is just illogical foolishness.

But is that not exactly what some are saying about a more sophisticated method. Whether that be a sophisticated lathe or some other outside the box method such as stone softening. Skeptics on this thread have said exactly that. That any suggestion of such ideas are whacko and impossible,

If you really think we should have an open mind to various possibilities then the skeptics are not applying the same standards.

But we can also determine some possibilities more than others. Like for example that the precision is at least high enough in circularity and symmetry to say it was lathed rather than chiseled or pounded and rubbed into precision. Most people have acknowledged this.

Likewise we can determine the level of sophistication in that lathe or method that demanded certain features like a very stable and fixed cutting point that enabled uniform curves and lines or flat surfaces. Many experts have mentioned this and that is exactly what I am doing.

The difference is when you say some rudimentary lathe or method was used people never then back this up with the evidence. They just assume this because they have to find some way that is primitive to match that time and yet achieve such signatures.

But when we actually look at what signatures are caused by such methods we see different signatures. Like the hand made vases in the tests. They were in the imprecise class and the fact that one of the vases came close was because of the intrioduction of modern tech in a stable turning wheel that allow such precision.

When we look at the bore stick method we see a different signature again. When we look at copper saw cuts we see a different signature to many of the cuts. We can determine pretty close to what sort of tech was required and they don't match. Simple as that.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Do you think that if forensics determines a gun was used in a murder by the signature of bullet holes at the crime scene. That not finding the gun means they cannot say that a gun caused the signatures.

If all they find is a hole without any other circumstantial evidence (no location specified, no unburnt powder, no metallurgical findings in the hole, no reports of gunfire from the location etc), how would they determine that it was caused by a bullet in the first place? And to make the point about provenance clear, what if they found the hole in a piece of wall in the hands of a unrelated collector 5000 years after the supposed shooting had taken place? To me, that is just a hole.

 

[BCP1928]

Its possible that there was a more sophisticated way of lathing or maching or producing the works that would also leave nothing in the records.

Possible but not necessary.

But is that not exactly what some are saying about a more sophisticated method. Whether that be a sophisticated lathe or some other outside the box method such as stone softening. Skeptics on this thread have said exactly that. That any suggestion of such ideas are whacko and impossible.

If you really think we should have an open mind to various possibilities then the skeptics are not applying the same standards.

But we can also determine some possibilities more than others. Like for example that the precision is at least high enough in circularity and symmetry to say it was lathed rather than chiseled or pounded and rubbed into precision. Most people have acknowledged this.

Likewise we can determine the level of sophistication in that lathe or method that demanded certain features like a very stable and fixed cutting point that enabled uniform curves and lines or flat surfaces. Many experts have mentioned this and that is exactly what I am doing.

The difference is when you say some rudimentary lathe or method was used people never then back this up with the evidence. They just assume this because they have to find some way that is primitive to match that time and yet achieve such signatures.

That seems to be the best position to take in the absence of evidence one way or the other and it is at least theoretically possible to build a turning machine with the tools and skills we know they had. You know, "primitive" tools like hammers, saws, chisels, drills, files and the like.

But when we actually look at what signatures are caused by such methods we see different signatures. Like the hand made vases in the tests. They were in the imprecise class and the fact that one of the vases came close was because of the intrioduction of modern tech in a stable turning wheel that allow such precision.

No wheel is necessary. The precision of between centers turning depends only on the rigidity of the structure.

When we look at the bore stick method we see a different signature again. When we look at copper saw cuts we see a different signature to many of the cuts. We can determine pretty close to what sort of tech was required and they don't match. Simple as that.

Don't match what?

 

[stevevw]

If all they find is a hole without any other circumstantial evidence (no location specified, no unburnt powder, no metallurgical findings in the hole, no reports of gunfire from the location etc), how would they determine that it was caused by a bullet in the first place?

Well obviously if its a bullet hole theres going to be more than just the bullet hole. Depending on what it hit. If its glass then say no more. If its a wall then its pretty obvious as well. Or a body. It went through the body. They will find markers. They can do tests to find the residues in the hole. Sometimes dependning on the hole they can tell the bullet itself and the specific gun used.

But its not limited to bullet holes. I am saying that forensics can tell a lot about what happened without seeing the incident or finding everything associated. Or analysing the marks on an object, ie strirations, geometry, sharp angles, circularity, metals within the surface from the tools used ect which can tell us what was the possible method without finding the method.

And to make the point about provenance clear, what if they found the hole in a piece of wall in the hands of a unrelated collector 5000 years after the supposed shooting had taken place? To me, that is just a hole.

Yes this is a common objection when some see the modern looking signatures that they may have been made 1,000s of years later. But the same can be said for finding a site that is claimed to be 3,500 years old that may be 5,000 years old. If you can't tell one way then you can't tell the other.

But I think we can. Once again the signatures. Its possible within the signatures to even tell the bullet and gun type depending on the situation as mentioned above. They do dig up bodies in cold cases and determine the cause of death. Look what happened with JFK and Kirk. Everyone is focusing on the markers of trajectories, wounds, ect as to even what sort of gun and bullet was used.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Well obviously if its a bullet hole theres going to be more than just the bullet hole. Depending on what it hit. If its glass then say no more. If its a wall then its pretty obvious as well. Or a body. It went through the body. They will find markers. They can do tests to find the residues in the hole. Sometimes dependning on the hole they can tell the bullet itself and the specific gun used.

So why did you use that analogy? Arguing by analogy is only useful if the situations really are analogous. In this case the vases are tangible enough that it's unclear what the analogy brings to the the table. If they want to do extra tests on well provenanced vases, that is also publishable regardless if there are any novel findings or not. Archeology is not my field, but PLOS One has historically published methodologically rigorous studies even when the results were negative. I see that their impact factor have faltered a little but it is still better than self-publishing on the web.

But its not limited to bullet holes. I am saying that forensics can tell a lot about what happened without seeing the incident or finding everything associated. Or analysing the marks on an object, ie strirations, geometry, sharp angles, circularity, metals within the surface from the tools used ect which can tell us what was the possible method without finding the method.

Yes this is a common objection when some see the modern looking signatures that they may have been made 1,000s of years later. But the same can be said for finding a site that is claimed to be 3,500 years old that may be 5,000 years old. If you can't tell one way then you can't tell the other.

The age is the smallest problem, what is the connection between the hole and any incident? Sure, there is a lot of uncertainty when dating an archeological site. That is why archeologist are very happy when they find organics that can be dated by C14-methods, but even that only tells us an estimate of when the carbon was last inside a living object.

But I think we can. Once again the signatures. Its possible within the signatures to even tell the bullet and gun type depending on the situation as mentioned above. They do dig up bodies in cold cases and determine the cause of death. Look what happened with JFK and Kirk. Everyone is focusing on the markers of trajectories, wounds, ect as to even what sort of gun and bullet was used.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Simplest way to fix this without relying on analogy: find the supposed advanced tech that is claimed to have been used.

Simple as.