There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

Everyone is assumed to be an amateur until expertise is evidenced. Not the other way around.

That is a silly way to look at people. In fact it hinges on the very idea of using negative assumptions and stereotypes to generalise people.

But even if we go along with this assumption irs suppose to be a unknown one and not one that used against the person to discredit them. If its a neutral assumption that we just don't know.

Then using it as a weapon to discredit someone is no longer being neutral. It is then made into an absolute fact that the person is an amateur. Without the proper investigation to determine that.

I wasn't the person who made the original claim, but so far it seems to hold. Why didn't they just use actual metrology software, then we wouldn't have this conversation.

That was never discussed. It was automatically assumed. Karoyl explained why and as far as I know nobody has mentioned this explanation as being wrong. As the vases were unprecedented there was no existing software that could capture the vases. So existing software was adjusted.

In fact Dr Max used a similar approach. But also the Vase project team did use the metrology software and came to the same findings. Which confirms the modified softeware was within the range of the metrology software.

But also to further confirm the measurements guage metrology was also done which also came to the same findings.

Basically the objections came down to the accuracy over what amounted to microns of difference. So I reduced the whole dispute from skeptics down to whether the circularity and concentricity was the result of lathing. Then it was a case of what level of lathing sophistication.

Fixating on microns of difference or even the vases as a whole is misleading. When we take a step back and realise that the vases look out of place for that time which did not even have the potters wheel.

Looking at the precision looking vases in the context of other signatures such as the obvious machining marks on stones, the softening of stone and other precision works allows us to understand that overall these ancients were capable of something greater methods than pounding, grinding and rubbing stones into such precision and quality.

With no academic output at all, he is an amateur. If one doesn't work professionally in the field one are an amateur. That's the definition.

The point is if someone is going to make a claim of being an amateur then they should investigate first if this is the case. I am saying that no investigation at all was done beofre this accusation was hurled.

Karoyl states that the researchers that helped develop the software were "professionals" and not amateurs. So theres the first hint. Why would Karoyl use an amateur who knows little if his aim is to prove the precision of these vases. He chose to measure vases in museums because of the provenance issue. So why would be then throw another obstacle in his work.

A simple search gives you one of the researchers Marian Marcis who is a Professor in Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, #d reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images. That seems the exact expertise needed. Or at least beyond the amateur level lol.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marian-Marcis-2

If you had read it you would know. What they did is explained in the methods section, including their assumptions.

Why do you skip the most important points about how bias is being used. How Christ King like the professional software researchers are called amateurs as part of discrediting the whole research project.

The new tech that was derived from the modelling is stated by the scientists involved. Unless you think they are lying.

Radiowaves with an wavelength between 200 to 600 m (not all of them to any large degree). But no extraction device was hypothesized.

There are two aspects I think. The modelling of the entire structure, its shape and how this itself causes radiowaves of a particular length are concentrated into the chambers and base.

Then there is investigation of the specific of the internal structure as to how this may further concentrate electromagnetic waves into the chambers or other parts of the pyramid. Such as thermal or acoustics. Thats not to say that the placement and use of granite or specific stone types are not themselves the generator of certain effects. Such as the granite in chambers being under tremendous pressure.

I am pretty sure there have been tests done in the pyramid chamber and ante chamber that have shown high piezoelectric effects. I know there have been acoustic tests.

No energy extraction.

What do you mean by energy extraction. Is this the mechanism that can utilise the energy that has been generated. As far as I understand the modelling and evidence shows that the pyramid could potentially be an energy generator and that this could be a source of energy that could be utilised by the Egyptians.

They just have not yet joined the dots in showing how that energy could have been utilised.

This a paper describing what they want to do, not what have been done. You have posted it before, and I gave you the same comment. Did you even reread it in light of my comment? It is unclear whether that conference contribution was peer-reviewed.

Yes and my point is like all good science the modelling and theorectic science is done first based on a hypothesis. Which is usually imagined based on some indirect evidence ie good acoustics in pyramid, some anomelies such as finding certain signatures.

Then its a case of testing directly to confirm. My point is as this is all fairly new science due to the new tech available that these preliminary tests and science is not psuedoscience as its all been labelled but part of the science process. That its being lumped as all part of the conspiracy of lost advanced tech nutters is bias.

I think I have more than proved the bias and double standard. So its hard to take anything further on this thread as serious.

 

[stevevw]

The zero evidence for modern lathe work, stone softening, moulding stones etc is also reflected in the vocabulary used in the Old Kingdom.
While the Old Kingdom had words to describe tools attested to by archaeological discoveries such as abrasives, saws, copper chisels, hammerstones, and verbs for cutting, carving, grinding and polishing, there is nothing to describe lathe work, softening and moulding.



Isn't it a 'remarkable coincidence' the absence of hi tech evidence also shows up as an absence of terms describing them.

Thereit is, the extreme and absolute claim that there is no evidence. You throw a latex mold showing evidence of striations you claim were caused by random hand grinding. Somehow achiveed a super flat and sharp edged cut.

Yet even skeptics on your side disagree with you and claim it was a big copper saw using the same striations as the evidence. So already your own side is undermining your absolute claim.

Let alone the fact I showed you this is clearly the result of a fixed cut of some sort with the sharp arc cut where it stops against the uncut stone. Showing the striations follow that same uniform arc.

Clear and obvious observation science right before our naked eyes. Who said there was zero evidence.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

That is a silly way to look at people. In fact it hinges on the very idea of using negative assumptions and stereotypes to generalise people.

What is the alternative?

But even if we go along with this assumption irs suppose to be a unknown one and not one that used against the person to discredit them. If its a neutral assumption that we just don't know.

Then using it as a weapon to discredit someone is no longer being neutral. It is then made into an absolute fact that the person is an amateur. Without the proper investigation to determine that.

If they want to convincing that is what they have to do, either by making their method explicit so that other experts can evaluate them or by providing credentials.

That was never discussed. It was automatically assumed. Karoyl explained why and as far as I know nobody has mentioned this explanation as being wrong. As the vases were unprecedented there was no existing software that could capture the vases. So existing software was adjusted.

Needlessly so.

In fact Dr Max used a similar approach. But also the Vase project team did use the metrology software and came to the same findings. Which confirms the modified softeware was within the range of the metrology software.

No they didn't. Max used a different process and different definitions.

But also to further confirm the measurements guage metrology was also done which also came to the same findings.

So what was the overlap of tested vases between the different measures.

Basically the objections came down to the accuracy over what amounted to microns of difference. So I reduced the whole dispute from skeptics down to whether the circularity and concentricity was the result of lathing. Then it was a case of what level of lathing sophistication.

Fixating on microns of difference or even the vases as a whole is misleading. When we take a step back and realise that the vases look out of place for that time which did not even have the potters wheel.

No they didn't.

Looking at the precision looking vases in the context of other signatures such as the obvious machining marks on stones, the softening of stone and other precision works allows us to understand that overall these ancients were capable of something greater methods than pounding, grinding and rubbing stones into such precision and quality.

This just your assertion.

The point is if someone is going to make a claim of being an amateur then they should investigate first if this is the case. I am saying that no investigation at all was done beofre this accusation was hurled.

If they are not involved in the field professionally they are amateurs.

Karoyl states that the researchers that helped develop the software were "professionals" and not amateurs. So theres the first hint. Why would Karoyl use an amateur who knows little if his aim is to prove the precision of these vases. He chose to measure vases in museums because of the provenance issue. So why would be then throw another obstacle in his work.

A simple search gives you one of the researchers Marian Marcis who is a Professor in Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, #d reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images. That seems the exact expertise needed. Or at least beyond the amateur level lol.

I've read his output, he is no professional coder.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Marian-Marcis-2

Why do you skip the most important points about how bias is being used. How Christ King like the professional software researchers are called amateurs as part of discrediting the whole research project.

I don't think it is important.

The new tech that was derived from the modelling is stated by the scientists involved. Unless you think they are lying.

They are exaggerating, it is what is in the article that is important.

There are two aspects I think. The modelling of the entire structure, its shape and how this itself causes radiowaves of a particular length are concentrated into the chambers and base.

Then there is investigation of the specific of the internal structure as to how this may further concentrate electromagnetic waves into the chambers or other parts of the pyramid. Such as thermal or acoustics. Thats not to say that the placement and use of granite or specific stone types are not themselves the generator of certain effects. Such as the granite in chambers being under tremendous pressure.

No one has connected the radiowaves(200-600 m wavelength) to any way to extract the energy.

I am pretty sure there have been tests done in the pyramid chamber and ante chamber that have shown high piezoelectric effects. I know there have been acoustic tests.

So link the article that describes how they measured the voltages caused by the piezoelectric effects in the chambers.

What do you mean by energy extraction. Is this the mechanism that can utilise the energy that has been generated. As far as I understand the modelling and evidence shows that the pyramid could potentially be an energy generator

Not really it might focus radiowaves of a certain length, but the source in the simulation was external to the pyramid.

and that this could be a source of energy that could be utilised by the Egyptians.

There is no source proposed and no mechanism for turning the radiowaves into a useable energy source.

They just have not yet joined the dots in showing how that energy could have been utilised.

Yes and my point is like all good science the modelling and theorectic science is done first based on a hypothesis. Which is usually imagined based on some indirect evidence ie good acoustics in pyramid, some anomelies such as finding certain signatures.

Then its a case of testing directly to confirm. My point is as this is all fairly new science due to the new tech available that these preliminary tests and science is not psuedoscience as its all been labelled but part of the science process. That its being lumped as all part of the conspiracy of lost advanced tech nutters is bias.

I think I have more than proved the bias and double standard. So its hard to take anything further on this thread as serious.

Suit yourself.

 

[stevevw]

To be clear I'm not sure if you understand the word "conspiracy". (I said nothing about amateurs in that post and almost nothing in this whole thread. Quit injecting distractions. Also try to pay attention to who you are replying to, I suspect this is a failure of your memory of who is arguing with you about what.)

I am way ahead. The whole thing about the definition of the word 'conspiracy' is itself a disatraction ffrom the point being made. That is the idea of any of what has been presented as being a conspiracy theory. This is just one way among a number of ways to discredit whats presented.

I don't care how you define conspiracy. I am talking about its unjustified use. Along with other words and meanings like pseudoscience and grifters which are used arbitrarily to dismiss the good work and people involved.. You have done this from the get go.

Good grief Steve. Are you not paying attention? Let me be very clear:

EXPLANATIONS are not EVIDENCE.

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree that this is the case. Explanations can become the evidence ie the signatures of scoop marks in the granite is the observational evidence.

The orthodox explanation is small dolerite pounders. The explanation is claimed to be supported by the evidence and the evidence supports the explanations. It becomes the orthodoxy regardless of the evidence.

This is not science but a belief. The overiding belief that everything was created by traditional gradualism and reductive thinking that forces all methods into a simple to complex schema. Thus the explanation becomes part of the evidence which begs the question.

This has all been hashed over repeatedly

No it hasn't. If you call a couple of exchanges thorough enough to establish the truth then this is poor epistemically. Certainly at the very least we have good preliminary science that warrants further investigation and certainly has not established the orthodoxy.

But its a good example of how alternative perspectives are dismissed as 'already been dealt with and nthing to see here'. So lets move on. I disagree.

and has nothing to do with your utter failure to grok "conspiracy" and how it is not the same as "pseudoscience" or the difference between "explanation" and "evidence".

I don't care about working out the difference. Only to say whatever is the negative use of these words to misrepresent good people and their work has already been shown in this thread.

So however you want to describe these words they are being misused in this thread. Is that clear enough for you and straight to the point. I don' care about the meanings. Only that they are wrong used.

Evidence is data. To go to our "favorite" subject (vases)--

The material is evidence,
The quality is evidence,
the location of the find is evidence,
the organic residue inside is evidence,
the historical development of such objects (material, styles, sizes, quality, usage) is evidence.

all of the measurable facts about it are evidence. None is an explanation.

Copper tube drills, atlantean CNC machines, the techniques of the "artists against myths" group are "candidate explanations". None are "evidence".

Science is the process of testing candidate explanations.

Yes this is one aspect of evidence. Then you have the cultural aspects such as belief, cultural practices, the influence on the physical world such as architecture, temples and the spiritual aspects of the kinds of structures and artifacts made, ie the pyramid shape, the way objects are lain out in space ect which may have an influence.

Material science will relegate all this dimension to a by product of the material and objective measures like you mention to make belief and superstition. No purpose involved. This all evidence is just an accident or coincidence.

This is based on the premise that fundementally reality is Mind and conscious experiences of the world which give a deeper knowledge. This includes phenomenal belief which includes the spiritual and transcedental worship and practices that had an influence on the physical world these ancients created.

People who know how to test a candidate explanation.

But is not this circular easoning. I am saying that the orthodoxy which is usually (the people who claim to know how to test) are doubling down on orthodoxy despite the evidence. There seems to be an assumption that these people are correct according to their explanations.

What has been happening in recent times is that more indpendents are out in the fields taking a closer look at the evidence and they are finding contradiction in the orthodox explanations.

So if this is about the evidence being the evidence which is the observations and data collected. Then what is wrong that people are pointing out the orthodoxy is wrong with better explanations that seem to fit the evidence.

I thought if I pointed out some obviously nonsense conspiracy theories you might catch a clue about what a conspiracy theory is and how it is not pseudoscience. That backfired. I'm not even going to read most of what your wrote above and respond to exactly none of it as it has nothing to do with our topic.

It was my attempt to show that conspiracies are never made from nothing. If the Atlantis idea is a conspiracy theory that is used as an example. All I can say is that it had a real event basis.

There would be no conspiracy for 9/11 if it did not happen lol. Thats all. The conspiracy has a real basis. This was the original point but it got lost in all this semantics about the meanings of words.

Oh so we're not credible now? Decades of experience doing *exactly* what the evaluation and identification of pseudoscience requires -- critically evaluating methods and the reasoning behind conclusions.

Lol your asking me to believe you. Its not whether you have the ability or credibility to do so. Its that people make this claim against others without actually showing that its the case by the specific content being discussed. I just gave the examples of how Chris Smith and now Marian Marcis were made into amateurs without any evidence. Showing bias.

Why on earth would I take the word of anything said on such a thread. There is obvious bias. You may be right but you have not specifically shown the pseudoscience.

Is the Vase scan projects pseudoscience. Is modelling the pyramids or testing for ancient cement pseudoscience. What exactly is pseudoscience about what is presented. Or is this a hunch or feeling you get for certain words and narratives that speak a language you don't like and assume is all bunk.

This is literally what I do as my profession on a daily basis. I am not the only one here who can do that. Pointing out unwarranted conclusions drawn from data (or absences of data) is so engrained into how read scientific papers that I read them with a pen in my hand as if I am the referee.

But what happens when others with just as much or even more expertise say the opposite. Then it becomes a game of who is the biggest expert lol.

I mean even Petrie from the very beginning when these works were discovered until today. Experts are still explaining the evidence as advanced knowledge.

If like you say the evidence is the evidence. Then why is one explanation more truthful or factual then another. In fact if we are truthful then we would have to admit that some of these signatures blantantly look like machining. Even if they prove not.

We first have to admit the observations. Yet even the orthodoxy fails this first basic step in dismissing the obvious signatures. That there is a debate and resistence over this only shows that despite the evidence this comes down to belief.

Whatever worldview belief one has will determine what they allow as the explanation even if that means ignoring or dismissing the evidence.

Doing evaluations of that sort is a skill that must be learned and practiced. I have that professional training. What kind of professional experience do you have in this kind of evaluation?

Commonsense lol, two eyes, ears and a mind that can understand stuff. You don't need to be a rocket scientists to see a machine cut in stone before your eyes.

As for the specialist stuff yeah, sure I leave that to the experts. I trust theyknow what they are talking about. I can or the average person can sort of understand the rational or basis. In the case of conspiracy you don't have to be a scientist and in fact a behavioural expert would be better as its more about human cognition then the science.

By this logic you should also allow experts in other fields to have their say. Therefore depending on your field you cannot know all things relating to this thread. Commensense can tell a conspiracy otherwise it doesnpt explain how non experts can sport a conspiracy and not fall for it lol.

A quack is a fraudulent physician. You've mistaken that for "crank". Like I said, I know how to do these kind of evaluations.

Here we go again with the semantics. It doesn't matter. Whatever negative meaning you want to use thats going to undermine the person and ideas.

As to amateur, they certainly aren't trained in any of the relevant professions, but I don't care about that.

Well you should. Who is more an expert on tooling or macining signatures. Someone who may have worked as a machinist and precision toolest for 50 years. Or an archeologist for 20 years. Or an academic without machining or tooling experience.

The idea of using academia to dismiss expertise is a false analogy.

But once again all the attention is on the semantics an dnot the point. That good people who are experts in what they were talking about were dismissed as amateurs without any evidence and no explanation. No reference to their work, nothing.

I think you are confused with the term "peer review". Nothing you have shown is a "peer review". Peer review is the process of evaluating scientific work, including proposals. The papers are not "peer review", even when they have been peer reviewed. You have not shown any reports from the peer reviewers. (That is normal. They aren't usually published or even signed.)

Thats why I think all this fixation on peer review is silly. Its an extention of the ad hominems over the credibility of individuals being called amateurs and psuedoscientists and all that.

Many of the evaluations you have seen us post of various documents you post, going through them paragraph by paragraph, are of the sort you would see in a actual review. The primary difference is that none of us are Egyptologists or archeologists, so we wouldn't be reviewing those papers. (In some cases, like the slate of "acousitc resonance papers" you posted one not need to know those fields to recognize garbage for what it is.)

Ok I don't care now. I think even if they were peer reviewed they would have been dismissed one way or another. There is obvious bias.

It isn't. Nor is it determined by uploads to YouTube. What they are doing isn't going to make their ideas get accepted. They need actual hypothesis testing.

The uploads to You Tube actually contain live tests recorded. Thats why I think they are better than peer review. They allow the average person to be the scientist. They upload results, scans, files ect for others to test for themselves.

I think thats a level above social media comments. I can understand how its a good way to conduct a project. You can gain collaborations and funding and its independent. This is what I am talking about how more independents have been able to go out into the field and do research to give new perspectives on the orthodoxy.

Grifters are people who try to sell you stuff they don't have. (AKA, confidence men)

Yes and because some may sell stuff as part of doing a podcast or research is not wrong. There is no funding for the research and they are not lucky like some who can get grants. Try getting a grant for research on lost advanced tech lol.

I supose there are some pseudoscience conspiracies, but we are not calling this a conspiracy theory. There is no talk of a secrete cabal keeping the ancient knowledge down. I'm sure you can fid people at that depth of depravity, but the vase gropers et al. you've been quoting are trying to keep it respectable.

Lol that you moralise it is interesting. I think elaborating and imagining far fetched possibilities is a natural human tendency. We have to accept that. In some ways its a vessel which carries a truth or a grain of truth thats been taken to an extreme.

Sometimes its good like in making a great science fiction novel. Other times its out of place and unreal. But there are also a lot of blurred lines in between as well and thats part of what needs to be sorts. Thats metaphysical beliefs and not science.

If that is what you want (a pseudoscience conspiracy theory) maybe this thread is more your speed:

Free Energy & Tartaria

Some say Tartaria was a myth or a conspiracy theory but I can assure you it was not. And on this thread I will try to prove it. 1. The Tartarians had the knowlede of how to access free energy from the Ionosphere & Nickola Tesla knew abot this technology. 2. The Tartarians built some of the...

www.christianforums.com

No thanks. I have heard of that one lol. When and if I am in the mood I will have a look. Thats the point. I think its important that we can indulge this kind of imaginative thinking as it actually is at the forefront of scientific thinking.

If it was not for the fact that we can indulge such far fetched ideas loosely based on some truths we would never discover anything new that was beyond what we could have believed at the time.

That some look at this like its a contagion and avoid it like the plague seems more about belief than being open minded to all sorts of possibilities. Based on the idea that people can entertain such things without being sucked in. The assumption that because they suggest or entertain such ideas they must have already been sucked in.

Grifters are definitionally not good people. Most of the core vase people are on some sort of hustle. I devalue them because they are not good people.

Yes thats why I objected to your framing of Hancock. I disagree that he is a bad person. THise who know him actually say the exact opposite. Yeah he may have some far fetched ideas. BUt a lot if actually supported or is not proposing anything and just posing questions and alternative possibilities.

I don't see a lot of people out there in the fields, diving on ruins, going to the sites and making direct observations. To label all his work and him as a person as bad or any single words is itself bad.

 

[stevevw]

There isn't even an indigenous myth buried in the posts. Just some non-specific reference to "indigenous knowledge" while accusing us of ignoring it because of our dogmatic naturalism. oy vey.

Which shows that this is using a fallacy to claim a fallacy is being made lol. Thats right there is not Indigenous myths because I did not use the Indigenous knowledge for that purpose. Hense anassumption.

I referred to Indigenous knowledge and how even western science is waking up to the alternative knowledge being more advanced than thought. Which we are now learning from.

In other words Indigenous peoples had knowledge which we now consider advanced in relation to nature and the enviornment 10s of 1,000s of years ago.

It was also to show how western science dismissed and treated indigenous knowledge as nothing thus destroying much of it now being lost.

 

[sjastro]

Thereit is, the extreme and absolute claim that there is no evidence. You throw a latex mold showing evidence of striations you claim were caused by random hand grinding. Somehow achiveed a super flat and sharp edged cut.

Yet even skeptics on your side disagree with you and claim it was a big copper saw using the same striations as the evidence. So already your own side is undermining your absolute claim.

Let alone the fact I showed you this is clearly the result of a fixed cut of some sort with the sharp arc cut where it stops against the uncut stone. Showing the striations follow that same uniform arc.

Clear and obvious observation science right before our naked eyes. Who said there was zero evidence.

Try to get it through your thick skull the evidence leads to the conclusion, you don't start off with a conclusion and try to force fit the evidence.
What makes your argument so profoundly stupid you don't even have any evidence to force fit into a conclusion.
You are totally deluded into thinking you have presented evidence where the striations for sharp cuts follow the arc of the cut; to do so requires a common archaeological technique where microphotographs are taken inside the cut using raking light where the light source is at a very low angle to accentuate details.

It has been explained, but since you are not the sharpest tool in the shed (pardon the pun) it didn't register, the Egyptians used a technique known as relief cutting where they bow drilled small overlapping holes which were then chiseled out.
The Egyptians were able to do arc cuts which stopped at the uncut stone.

This is your evidence, experimental archaeologists relying on the discovery of bow drill components, copper chisels and copper tubular fragments 6-8mm in diameter found at Saqqara, Giza, Abydos and Deir el-Medina have been able to reproduce the cuts you claim are impossible requiring technologies where there is zero evidence.

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which shows that this is using a fallacy to claim a fallacy is being made lol. Thats right there is not Indigenous myths because I did not use the Indigenous knowledge for that purpose. Hense anassumption.

I referred to Indigenous knowledge and how even western science is waking up to the alternative knowledge being more advanced than thought. Which we are now learning from.

In other words Indigenous peoples had knowledge which we now consider advanced in relation to nature and the enviornment 10s of 1,000s of years ago.

It was also to show how western science dismissed and treated indigenous knowledge as nothing thus destroying much of it now being lost.

This lacks coherence. Are you into New Age nonsense? You sure talk like it.

 

[stevevw]

What is the alternative?

You can't work that out. Obviously you investigate first whether your claim stands up and is correct rather than making unfounded assumptions.

Its ironic because the objection is that these researchers are not using good science. Yet the very claims are not based on good science. Thus disqualifying themselves by their own logic.

If they want to convincing that is what they have to do, either by making their method explicit so that other experts can evaluate them or by providing credentials.

Your throwing back on the person who is being attacked without justification in the first place. The accusation of amateur was in response to the evidence the accusor could have checked for themselves. Remember the accusation is they are an amateur and don't know what they are talking about.

So if your going to make the claim they don't then you better have good evidence and support for that. This includes doing your investigation if this is the case. Afterall they are the one who introduced the claim.

Needlessly so.

No thjey have not. Show me where Karolys explanation for why the new software was developed. No reference was made to this section of the video.

No they didn't. Max used a different process and different definitions.

They both used a measure for circularity and concentricity that used slices of the vase compared to each other and a central axis.

So what was the overlap of tested vases between the different measures.

In the fact that where ever the guage metrology shows a certain precision measure for say circularity the scans did the same. They lined up. If the nech showed 1/1000 or 3/1000 of an inch from the gusgae metrology so did the scanning. It did not show a completely different measure.

No they didn't.

Therefore any lathing is out of place for that time. To say that these high precision vases which are better than those that came 1,000 years later with the Bore stick on the walls is silly.

So at the very least we would logically conclude that if the later Egyptians got pretty good precision with Bore Stick tech. Then these predynastic vases must have also involved some sort of lathing or device that produced even better precision. Yet there was not even a potters wheel or Bore stick tech.

This just your assertion.

No its not. We have preliminary evidence of stone softening and casting or messing around with the texture and material of stones. We have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodox dolerite pounders on granite in the scoop marks that look like stone was softened.

We have ample clear cut signatures of machining all over the stones. Why would we not be open to the possibility of advanced knowledge in working with the hardest stones. Afterall they had 10's of 1,000's of years of experience. Thats all they had to work with but stone up until the very later periods.

If they are not involved in the field professionally they are amateurs.

They were involved in the field professionally. They were at the professor level in the field of software development and specially related to ancient culture. In the case of Smith he was actually making very similar objects to the vases in the metal parts he made. He knew everything there is to know about tooling and machining when it comes to creating objects.

Yet because this was not investigated and it was assumed they were amateurs because the underlying assumption was already made that anyone suggesting such possibilities must be doing psuedoscience and therefore amateurs.

I've read his output, he is no professional coder.

Its so easy to make claims without actually providing the evidence. What part of Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, 3D reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images is not related to software development that can capture the vases.

I would have though digitalisation and 3D reconstructions of cultural artifacts is exactly related.

This is what I am talking about unsupported claims that double down and still with no actual evidence. Remembering these experts are said to be amateurs. To say they have no idea is rediculous and bias when at the very least they cover fields related.

I think once theses good people are made out to be amateurs they will never live that down. Because acknowledging they know what they are talking about means admitting defeat and I don't think skeptics will do that.

I don't think it is important.

Then this I think is part of the dismissal because KIngs case is a clear slam dunk case of bias. One you can't fob off with claims that he is not a expert in the fioeld. Yet was obviously made out to be one without proper investigation. Thus exposing the bias. Thus lending weight to the bias against others like Marcis.

They are exaggerating, it is what is in the article that is important.

See this is surely a subjective opinion. The scientists say it like they are not exaggerating. So who do I believe. You on a social media site or the direct words out of the scientists who did the tests.

No one has connected the radiowaves(200-600 m wavelength) to any way to extract the energy.

By the looks of it no one has tried yet. You have to get access to bring in machinery and all that. The last time this was allowed was to find any new cavities with Muon detectors. Or the acoustic tests mentioned.

But theorectically its a good possibilitiy. There are also some independent researchers like the vases who are gathering evidence. I have not mentioned these because they have no scientific papers yet.

So link the article that describes how they measured the voltages caused by the piezoelectric effects in the chambers.

It seems the only tests so far are the acoustic tests actually done inside the pyramid. But the tests showing that pink granite under stress of vibrations of some sort can produce piezoelectric effect is beyond doubt.

The combination of modelling that shows energy waves concentrated into the chambers already. Along with the potential effects of granite that is in those chambers supports the hypothesis so far. Certyainly nothing to be dismissed as Woo or conspiracy.

Not really it might focus radiowaves of a certain length, but the source in the simulation was external to the pyramid.

Yes but it was a certain energy wave and not any that is external to the pyramid. Did was not that the point. If it just captured the stuff that is everywhere then so what. Its that it captured a particular radio wave in a partuclar part of the pyramid as opposed to anywhere else.

Now what happens at that stage maybe something else that is added to enhance or utilised that energy into something else. But it seems the pyramid shape and its specific internal structure is able to capture certain radio waves. In a cavity that also has the potential for other energy manipulation in the material or with added acoustics or pressure or thermal treatment.

There is no source proposed and no mechanism for turning the radiowaves into a useable energy source.

Actually there is but its all spectulation. This is the part we have to test in various ways. All the modelling and hypothesis is done. Its now a case of testing this on site. Its exaciting I think.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I am way ahead. The whole thing about the definition of the word 'conspiracy' is itself a disatraction ffrom the point being made.

Yeah. So quit bringing it up. The conspiracy talk is entirely on YOU.

That is the idea of any of what has been presented as being a conspiracy theory.

Is complaint you make because you don't read well. No one else is talking about conspiracies but YOU.

This is just one way among a number of ways to discredit whats presented.

I don't care how you define conspiracy. I am talking about its unjustified use.

That would be YOUR use of conspracy as you are the only one talking about them. I'd like to stop but you keep making false accusations that I am calling things conspiracies.

Along with other words and meanings like pseudoscience and grifters which are used arbitrarily to dismiss the good work and people involved.. You have done this from the get go.

Now *those* I have used because they apply. This isn't our first thread, nor the first time I have come across some of the pseudoscience (like the pyramid = electric generator nonsense.)

I understand what you are saying. I just disagree that this is the case. Explanations can become the evidence ie the signatures of scoop marks in the granite is the observational evidence.

No. No, you don't. If you understood that explanations are not evidence you wouldn't be claiming they are.

The orthodox explanation is small dolerite pounders. The explanation is claimed to be supported by the evidence and the evidence supports the explanations.

That's how evidence works.

It becomes the orthodoxy regardless of the evidence.

This is not science but a belief. The overiding belief that everything was created by traditional gradualism and reductive thinking that forces all methods into a simple to complex schema. Thus the explanation becomes part of the evidence which begs the question.

Good grief. you have no clue how scientific investigations work. You are just spinning your own self-reinforcing yarn.

No it hasn't. If you call a couple of exchanges thorough enough to establish the truth then this is poor epistemically. Certainly at the very least we have good preliminary science that warrants further investigation and certainly has not established the orthodoxy.

But its a good example of how alternative perspectives are dismissed as 'already been dealt with and nthing to see here'. So lets move on. I disagree.

I don't know what you think you are talking about.

I don't care about working out the difference. Only to say whatever is the negative use of these words to misrepresent good people and their work has already been shown in this thread.

So however you want to describe these words they are being misused in this thread. Is that clear enough for you and straight to the point. I don' care about the meanings. Only that they are wrong used.

I have no use for people who blithely refuse to use words correctly and then arrogantly say that they refuse to do so.

Yes this is one aspect of evidence. Then you have the cultural aspects such as belief, cultural practices, the influence on the physical world such as architecture, temples and the spiritual aspects of the kinds of structures and artifacts made, ie the pyramid shape, the way objects are lain out in space ect which may have an influence.

Material science will relegate all this dimension to a by product of the material and objective measures like you mention to make belief and superstition. No purpose involved. This all evidence is just an accident or coincidence.

This is based on the premise that fundementally reality is Mind and conscious experiences of the world which give a deeper knowledge. This includes phenomenal belief which includes the spiritual and transcedental worship and practices that had an influence on the physical world these ancients created.

Belief IS NOT EVIDENCE.

But is not this circular easoning. I am saying that the orthodoxy which is usually (the people who claim to know how to test) are doubling down on orthodoxy despite the evidence. There seems to be an assumption that these people are correct according to their explanations.

What has been happening in recent times is that more indpendents are out in the fields taking a closer look at the evidence and they are finding contradiction in the orthodox explanations.

So if this is about the evidence being the evidence which is the observations and data collected. Then what is wrong that people are pointing out the orthodoxy is wrong with better explanations that seem to fit the evidence.

It was my attempt to show that conspiracies are never made from nothing. If the Atlantis idea is a conspiracy theory that is used as an example. All I can say is that it had a real event basis.

There would be no conspiracy for 9/11 if it did not happen lol. Thats all. The conspiracy has a real basis. This was the original point but it got lost in all this semantics about the meanings of words.

I don't care about your conspiracies. SHut up about them.

Lol your asking me to believe you. Its not whether you have the ability or credibility to do so.

I know how to read a scientific paper, you clearly don't.

Its that people make this claim against others without actually showing that its the case by the specific content being discussed. I just gave the examples of how Chris Smith and now Marian Marcis were made into amateurs without any evidence. Showing bias.

I have no idea who those people are. I don't know why I should care.

Why on earth would I take the word of anything said on such a thread. There is obvious bias. You may be right but you have not specifically shown the pseudoscience.

We have.

Is the Vase scan projects pseudoscience.

Possibly. It may also just be sloppy or poorly motivated.

Is modelling the pyramids or testing for ancient cement pseudoscience. What exactly is pseudoscience about what is presented. Or is this a hunch or feeling you get for certain words and narratives that speak a language you don't like and assume is all bunk.

@sjastro has told you multiple times about alternative and more plausible explanations for the "concrete casing block". Pyramid power is absolute junk. The Egyptians didn't even know about EM waves.

But what happens when others with just as much or even more expertise say the opposite. Then it becomes a game of who is the biggest expert lol.

I mean even Petrie from the very beginning when these works were discovered until today. Experts are still explaining the evidence as advanced knowledge.

When did he die now?

If like you say the evidence is the evidence. Then why is one explanation more truthful or factual then another. In fact if we are truthful then we would have to admit that some of these signatures blantantly look like machining. Even if they prove not.

Tube drills and copper saws *ARE MACHINES* applied to rock.

We first have to admit the observations. Yet even the orthodoxy fails this first basic step in dismissing the obvious signatures. That there is a debate and resistence over this only shows that despite the evidence this comes down to belief.

Whatever worldview belief one has will determine what they allow as the explanation even if that means ignoring or dismissing the evidence.

Not interested in anything supported on "belief".

Commonsense lol, two eyes, ears and a mind that can understand stuff.

Common sense is laughable. It lures people into thinking they understand things that they do not actually understand. The whole apparatus of science is a carefully built set of methods to avoid falling into the trap of common sense and getting the wrong answer.

You don't need to be a rocket scientists to see a machine cut in stone before your eyes.

What you need is an expert on *ancient* stone working techniques.

As for the specialist stuff yeah, sure I leave that to the experts. I trust theyknow what they are talking about. I can or the average person can sort of understand the rational or basis. In the case of conspiracy you don't have to be a scientist and in fact a behavioural expert would be better as its more about human cognition then the science.

You don't leave it to actual experts. You follow the lead of plodding non-experts. That's the whole problem with everything you've presented in this thread.

By this logic you should also allow experts in other fields to have their say. Therefore depending on your field you cannot know all things relating to this thread. Commensense can tell a conspiracy otherwise it doesnpt explain how non experts can sport a conspiracy and not fall for it lol.

You are not paying attention again. What I said is that I have extensive professional experience in evaluating research methodology. I am familiar with good and bad methodology and I can detect it in paper I read. What experience do you have that is of any relevance to our discussions?

Here we go again with the semantics. It doesn't matter. Whatever negative meaning you want to use thats going to undermine the person and ideas.

Well you should. Who is more an expert on tooling or macining signatures. Someone who may have worked as a machinist and precision toolest for 50 years. Or an archeologist for 20 years. Or an academic without machining or tooling experience.

The idea of using academia to dismiss expertise is a false analogy.

But once again all the attention is on the semantics an dnot the point. That good people who are experts in what they were talking about were dismissed as amateurs without any evidence and no explanation. No reference to their work, nothing.

And again your utterly trash reading skill betray you. I literally said that I am not concerned about their amateur status. What I am concerned about is their expertise.

Thats why I think all this fixation on peer review is silly. Its an extention of the ad hominems over the credibility of individuals being called amateurs and psuedoscientists and all that.

Ok I don't care now. I think even if they were peer reviewed they would have been dismissed one way or another. There is obvious bias.

You brought up "peer review" claiming that the links you were providing were "peer review" and that those of us on this thread were just posting to social media. I'm trying to tell you know that the evaluations, cold and analytical, that you have seen some of us post about published sources you link are very much in the style and spirit of actual peer review. We don't have the knowledge to point out many technical errors, but we can spot bad methodology, etc. I have evaluated many published sources in that manner on this site including one where I actually was a legitimate expert (not telling which one).

The uploads to You Tube actually contain live tests recorded. Thats why I think they are better than peer review. They allow the average person to be the scientist. They upload results, scans, files ect for others to test for themselves.

They are videos of people taking measurements. Measurements are part of science but are not science by themselves. They are certainly no substitute for peer review of a written paper.

I think thats a level above social media comments.

There is the degrading comment about us just making social media comments. Knew it would come up eventually.

I can understand how its a good way to conduct a project.

It really isn't.

You can gain collaborations and funding and its independent. This is what I am talking about how more independents have been able to go out into the field and do research to give new perspectives on the orthodoxy.

Since archeology is not my field, I don't know how it is organized and who would constitute an "independent". (Talking about "orthodoxy" is wrong headed. That's not how this works.)

Yes and because some may sell stuff as part of doing a podcast or research is not wrong. There is no funding for the research and they are not lucky like some who can get grants.

One of them is also selling "custom tours" of Egypt. (It might be UnchartedX.)

Try getting a grant for research on lost advanced tech lol.

What works will they cite in their proposals if they tried? Fingerprints of the Gods?

Lol that you moralise it is interesting. I think elaborating and imagining far fetched possibilities is a natural human tendency. We have to accept that. In some ways its a vessel which carries a truth or a grain of truth thats been taken to an extreme.

Sometimes its good like in making a great science fiction novel. Other times its out of place and unreal. But there are also a lot of blurred lines in between as well and thats part of what needs to be sorts. Thats metaphysical beliefs and not science.

What part of "I don't care about such things" do you not understand.

No thanks. I have heard of that one lol. When and if I am in the mood I will have a look. Thats the point. I think its important that we can indulge this kind of imaginative thinking as it actually is at the forefront of scientific thinking.

No, it isn't. I know about the forefront of scientific knowledge. I have lived their for a quarter century and made my contributions.

If it was not for the fact that we can indulge such far fetched ideas loosely based on some truths we would never discover anything new that was beyond what we could have believed at the time.

That some look at this like its a contagion and avoid it like the plague seems more about belief than being open minded to all sorts of possibilities. Based on the idea that people can entertain such things without being sucked in. The assumption that because they suggest or entertain such ideas they must have already been sucked in.

It is a plague. A pox on the thinking of socieity. It obscures and deflects from the actual cool things that did happen and it falsely fills holes where "I don't know" should be written.

Yes thats why I objected to your framing of Hancock. I disagree that he is a bad person.

I don't know how we find Hancock to be anything but a bad person after he's spent 30 years conning suckers with his ancient civilization cons to make money for himself. He is the lowest of the low in the pseudoscience arena.

THise who know him actually say the exact opposite. Yeah he may have some far fetched ideas. BUt a lot if actually supported or is not proposing anything and just posing questions and alternative possibilities.

I don't see a lot of people out there in the fields, diving on ruins, going to the sites and making direct observations. To label all his work and him as a person as bad or any single words is itself bad.

Actual archeologists do those things every day. Hancock is just making travelogue documentaries. He does no actual research.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

You can't work that out. Obviously you investigate first whether your claim stands up and is correct rather than making unfounded assumptions.

So far the claims seem true.

Its ironic because the objection is that these researchers are not using good science. Yet the very claims are not based on good science. Thus disqualifying themselves by their own logic.

What was the scientific claim?

Your throwing back on the person who is being attacked without justification in the first place. The accusation of amateur was in response to the evidence the accusor could have checked for themselves. Remember the accusation is they are an amateur and don't know what they are talking about.

Either they show their methods or their credentials.

So if your going to make the claim they don't then you better have good evidence and support for that. This includes doing your investigation if this is the case. Afterall they are the one who introduced the claim.

Do you claim that they are experts?

No thjey have not. Show me where Karolys explanation for why the new software was developed. No reference was made to this section of the video.

It was obviously not needed when the Artifact Foundation did their analysis.

They both used a measure for circularity and concentricity that used slices of the vase compared to each other and a central axis.

Their processes differ.

In the fact that where ever the guage metrology shows a certain precision measure for say circularity the scans did the same. They lined up. If the nech showed 1/1000 or 3/1000 of an inch from the gusgae metrology so did the scanning. It did not show a completely different measure.

Therefore any lathing is out of place for that time. To say that these high precision vases which are better than those that came 1,000 years later with the Bore stick on the walls is silly.

They are not that good from their own data, IMO

So at the very least we would logically conclude that if the later Egyptians got pretty good precision with Bore Stick tech. Then these predynastic vases must have also involved some sort of lathing or device that produced even better precision. Yet there was not even a potters wheel or Bore stick tech.

No its not. We have preliminary evidence of stone softening and casting or messing around with the texture and material of stones. We have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodox dolerite pounders on granite in the scoop marks that look like stone was softened.

No we don't have that evidence.

We have ample clear cut signatures of machining all over the stones. Why would we not be open to the possibility of advanced knowledge in working with the hardest stones. Afterall they had 10's of 1,000's of years of experience. Thats all they had to work with but stone up until the very later periods.

I'm sure they were really good at working with stone, I haven't said any in opposition to that.

They were involved in the field professionally. They were at the professor level in the field of software development and specially related to ancient culture. In the case of Smith he was actually making very similar objects to the vases in the metal parts he made. He knew everything there is to know about tooling and machining when it comes to creating objects.

What objects are similar to the vases?

Yet because this was not investigated and it was assumed they were amateurs because the underlying assumption was already made that anyone suggesting such possibilities must be doing psuedoscience and therefore amateurs.

Its so easy to make claims without actually providing the evidence. What part of Photogrammetry, Image Scanning, 3D reconstructions and Digitalisation of cultural images is not related to software development that can capture the vases.

If you read his scientific output, it is about the application of photogrammetry in different fields not writing code.

I would have though digitalisation and 3D reconstructions of cultural artifacts is exactly related.

This is what I am talking about unsupported claims that double down and still with no actual evidence. Remembering these experts are said to be amateurs. To say they have no idea is rediculous and bias when at the very least they cover fields related.

So what did Marian do in the code development? Is it published anywhere, a GitHub perhaps?

I think once theses good people are made out to be amateurs they will never live that down. Because acknowledging they know what they are talking about means admitting defeat and I don't think skeptics will do that.

Then this I think is part of the dismissal because KIngs case is a clear slam dunk case of bias.

No, if you just assert I'll respond with assertions

One you can't fob off with claims that he is not a expert in the fioeld. Yet was obviously made out to be one without proper investigation. Thus exposing the bias. Thus lending weight to the bias against others like Marcis.

See this is surely a subjective opinion. The scientists say it like they are not exaggerating. So who do I believe. You on a social media site or the direct words out of the scientists who did the tests.

Either they can produce the new technology, or publish about it or apply for a patent.

By the looks of it no one has tried yet. You have to get access to bring in machinery and all that. The last time this was allowed was to find any new cavities with Muon detectors. Or the acoustic tests mentioned.

But theorectically its a good possibilitiy. There are also some independent researchers like the vases who are gathering evidence. I have not mentioned these because they have no scientific papers yet.

It seems the only tests so far are the acoustic tests actually done inside the pyramid. But the tests showing that pink granite under stress of vibrations of some sort can produce piezoelectric effect is beyond doubt.

The combination of modelling that shows energy waves concentrated into the chambers already. Along with the potential effects of granite that is in those chambers supports the hypothesis so far. Certyainly nothing to be dismissed as Woo or conspiracy.

Yes but it was a certain energy wave and not any that is external to the pyramid. Did was not that the point. If it just captured the stuff that is everywhere then so what. Its that it captured a particular radio wave in a partuclar part of the pyramid as opposed to anywhere else.

Now what happens at that stage maybe something else that is added to enhance or utilised that energy into something else. But it seems the pyramid shape and its specific internal structure is able to capture certain radio waves. In a cavity that also has the potential for other energy manipulation in the material or with added acoustics or pressure or thermal treatment.

Actually there is but its all spectulation. This is the part we have to test in various ways. All the modelling and hypothesis is done. Its now a case of testing this on site. Its exaciting I think.

I thought you said that there was some evidence for that the pyramids was used as an energy sources. So far you have presented none.

 

[BCP1928]

Well you should. Who is more an expert on tooling or macining signatures. Someone who may have worked as a machinist and precision toolest for 50 years. Or an archeologist for 20 years. Or an academic without machining or tooling experience.

LOLOL! I've worked as a machinist and "toolest" for that long and you basically told me to go stuff it.

The idea of using academia to dismiss expertise is a false analogy.

But once again all the attention is on the semantics an dnot the point. That good people who are experts in what they were talking about were dismissed as amateurs without any evidence and no explanation. No reference to their work, nothing.

Thats why I think all this fixation on peer review is silly. Its an extention of the ad hominems over the credibility of individuals being called amateurs and psuedoscientists and all that.

Ok I don't care now. I think even if they were peer reviewed they would have been dismissed one way or another. There is obvious bias.

The uploads to You Tube actually contain live tests recorded. Thats why I think they are better than peer review. They allow the average person to be the scientist. They upload results, scans, files ect for others to test for themselves.

I think thats a level above social media comments. I can understand how its a good way to conduct a project. You can gain collaborations and funding and its independent. This is what I am talking about how more independents have been able to go out into the field and do research to give new perspectives on the orthodoxy.

Yes and because some may sell stuff as part of doing a podcast or research is not wrong. There is no funding for the research and they are not lucky like some who can get grants. Try getting a grant for research on lost advanced tech lol.

Lol that you moralise it is interesting. I think elaborating and imagining far fetched possibilities is a natural human tendency. We have to accept that. In some ways its a vessel which carries a truth or a grain of truth thats been taken to an extreme.

Sometimes its good like in making a great science fiction novel. Other times its out of place and unreal. But there are also a lot of blurred lines in between as well and thats part of what needs to be sorts. Thats metaphysical beliefs and not science.

No thanks. I have heard of that one lol. When and if I am in the mood I will have a look. Thats the point. I think its important that we can indulge this kind of imaginative thinking as it actually is at the forefront of scientific thinking.

If it was not for the fact that we can indulge such far fetched ideas loosely based on some truths we would never discover anything new that was beyond what we could have believed at the time.

That some look at this like its a contagion and avoid it like the plague seems more about belief than being open minded to all sorts of possibilities. Based on the idea that people can entertain such things without being sucked in. The assumption that because they suggest or entertain such ideas they must have already been sucked in.

Yes thats why I objected to your framing of Hancock. I disagree that he is a bad person. THise who know him actually say the exact opposite. Yeah he may have some far fetched ideas. BUt a lot if actually supported or is not proposing anything and just posing questions and alternative possibilities.

I don't see a lot of people out there in the fields, diving on ruins, going to the sites and making direct observations. To label all his work and him as a person as bad or any single words is itself bad.

Yeah, I think we should lighten up on your sources. It's not their fault that you are trying to use them in an "argument from authority" about matters you don't understand in order to "prove" something about your own theology.

 

[stevevw]

So far the claims seem true.

I literally just showed you how two experts were made out as amateurs. King was made out to be am ameteur bike macker who know nothing about machining and tooling.

Marcis made out as an amateur without one reference to his actual credentials. Which showed he was actually a professor with the academic knowledge relating directly to software creation relating to ancient artifacts.

But you also missed the point. The claims were made without even checking the credentials. They were made by assumption. It did not matter what the credentials were because they were not even investigated.

What was the scientific claim?

The claim was they were amateurs. If you want to stand on the scientific method of rigorious fact based investigation. Then don't you think that using that epistemic standard should apply to investigating the credentials of people rather than basing conclusion on unsupported assumptions.

You can't claim scientific rigor if you can't be consistent and are instead being bias lol. It disquaifies the person full stop regardless of what they claim about anything else.

Either they show their methods or their credentials.

So why doesx this not apply to those making the claims that the researcher is an amateur. How do we know the person making the claim is not an amateur themselves. Thus making amateur claims. Why are we not demanding the accuser show their credentials. This seems double standards.

Do you claim that they are experts?

No I just posted the research and tests and then came all the ad hominems. Its only when people claimed they were amateurs that I had the need to defend them and question the accusers as to whether they have properly investigated things as there is obvious evidence they are experts if they checked.

I even gave the time stamp in the video showing Smiths explanation which comes straight out of a machinist and tooling manual from his expertise and experience. Anyone who would have known this would have realised. I also linked evidence of his reputation as one of the worlds leading machinist. Yet this still he is classed as an amateur.

It was obviously not needed when the Artifact Foundation did their analysis.

Just like the evidence showing Chris Smiths explanation it looks like Karolys was also skipped. There was absolutely no reference to it and therefore assumptions made that the whole software is wrong.

Yet their findings matched Dr Max's, which matched the Vase project which has matched all the metrology done. They all show the same precision.

Their processes differ.

It doesn't matter. If they come to similar precision findings for circularity and concentricity then why does it matter. They all measured some of the same vases like Olgas and the OG vase. They all came to the same measurements. The different methods found the same measures.

They are not that good from their own data, IMO

What do you mean not that good in the measures they undertook. Or the measures are accurate and the results are not that good that show precision in circularity and concentricity.

No we don't have that evidence.

This is a good example of doubling down on the claims about the evidence. The evidence is the observations of the marks in the stones. Or the stones chemical makup ect.

Then we have the explanations which are an attempt to explain what the observations represent. So when you said we don't have the evidence your talking about a subjective explanation for what the evidence represents.

I gave the example of the scoop marks and scientific analysis which states that this was not caused by small dolerite pounders. So we have evidence of another method that we need to work out caused them. The hypothesis that stone was softend is one explanation and just as valid as the pounding method.

We have evidence of human intervention in the casting of stones by the fact that it contained chemistry that was not natural to the stone and was introduced by humans.

The tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature.
The stones contained diatomaceous earth which is not natural to limestone and used as an additive.

At the very least we have preliminary evidence that needs further investigation and certainly not as you claim "no evidence".

I'm sure they were really good at working with stone, I haven't said any in opposition to that.

Only that you limit their ability to pounding, grinding and rubbing over years and years and years and years and years lol. Never giving them any intellect above sheer manpower. Not worker smarter and only worker harder and harder to explain everything.

What objects are similar to the vases?

Stuff like this

Working with this

I think it involves all the elements of vase making or knowledge on tooling and machining surfaces and what it takes to shape objects. Certainly in the video he knew all the tools, mechanism, angles of how different parts of the vase could have been made with hand tyools and machining.

Difficulties in the interior, how fixed cutting would be needed for some parts, how speed would impact the work,, the stress involved. Every aspect of making such objects. And as a pioneer in the field with over 50 years experience.

If you read his scientific output, it is about the application of photogrammetry in different fields not writing code.

The digitalisation of artifiacts would require understand the software involved. Besides there were thress experts on this and from memory the others had direct software expertise. Together they were a team of experts who created the software.

Once again your making claims based off poor investigation and personal opinion. The fact is they made the software and it worked. It was not too different to the standard software.

It was adjusted to accommodate the vases which were unprecedented in their shape. They had no template to use for comparison. So had to create the software to best capture the vase and work out its central axis and orientation from the vase itself. You need to view the explanation.

So what did Marian do in the code development? Is it published anywhere, a GitHub perhaps?

Ha ha. Like I said you need to view the explanation.

No, if you just assert I'll respond with assertions

But it was not just an assertion. Chris Kings credentials are there to find. It only took me 5 seconds to find it as he is world famous.

Either they can produce the new technology, or publish about it or apply for a patent.

In the meantime we should not dismiss the preliminary work that so far supports an hypothesis until its disproven. Yet its being dismissed.

I thought you said that there was some evidence for that the pyramids was used as an energy sources. So far you have presented none.

Not as in any usuable energy as yet. That would require on site tests. Only the acoustic tests have been done and the modelling. Also the fact that such stones are proven to generate such effects. All the preliminary research is done. Its a case of working out if and how this was actually done.

I mean if its created with say theraml or stress of some sort. Then thats going to be hard. The outer casing stones may have contributed to the effect. So I don't know how they could substitute this. But still there should be some way of showing that the chambers can generate energy.

In the mean time there is ample evidence that the pyramids were used for more than a tomb. We have massive and smaller shafters, drainage, and systems all around the pyramids. We have evidence of thermal and stress to the chambers. We have tests showing rare chemicals in the chambers and we have evidence of a furnance for possible thermal treatment.

Like I sai independents are now in the field disccovering all this evidence that has been hidden form the public.

 

[BCP1928]

I literally just showed you how two experts were made out as amateurs. King was made out to be am ameteur bike macker who know nothing about machining and tooling.

Marcis made out as an amateur without one reference to his actual credentials. Which showed he was actually a professor with the academic knowledge relating directly to software creation relating to ancient artifacts.

But you also missed the point. The claims were made without even checking the credentials. They were made by assumption. It did not matter what the credentials were because they were not even investigated.

The claim was they were amateurs. If you want to stand on the scientific method of rigorious fact based investigation. Then don't you think that using that epistemic standard should apply to investigating the credentials of people rather than basing conclusion on unsupported assumptions.

You can't claim scientific rigor if you can't be consistent and are instead being bias lol. It disquaifies the person full stop regardless of what they claim about anything else.

So why doesx this not apply to those making the claims that the researcher is an amateur. How do we know the person making the claim is not an amateur themselves. Thus making amateur claims. Why are we not demanding the accuser show their credentials. This seems double standards.

No I just posted the research and tests and then came all the ad hominems. Its only when people claimed they were amateurs that I had the need to defend them and question the accusers as to whether they have properly investigated things as there is obvious evidence they are experts if they checked.

I even gave the time stamp in the video showing Smiths explanation which comes straight out of a machinist and tooling manual from his expertise and experience. Anyone who would have known this would have realised. I also linked evidence of his reputation as one of the worlds leading machinist. Yet this still he is classed as an amateur.

Just like the evidence showing Chris Smiths explanation it looks like Karolys was also skipped. There was absolutely no reference to it and therefore assumptions made that the whole software is wrong.

Yet their findings matched Dr Max's, which matched the Vase project which has matched all the metrology done. They all show the same precision.

It doesn't matter. If they come to similar precision findings for circularity and concentricity then why does it matter. They all measured some of the same vases like Olgas and the OG vase. They all came to the same measurements. The different methods found the same measures.

What do you mean not that good in the measures they undertook. Or the measures are accurate and the results are not that good that show precision in circularity and concentricity.

This is a good example of doubling down on the claims about the evidence. The evidence is the observations of the marks in the stones. Or the stones chemical makup ect.

Then we have the explanations which are an attempt to explain what the observations represent. So when you said we don't have the evidence your talking about a subjective explanation for what the evidence represents.

I gave the example of the scoop marks and scientific analysis which states that this was not caused by small dolerite pounders. So we have evidence of another method that we need to work out caused them. The hypothesis that stone was softend is one explanation and just as valid as the pounding method.

We have evidence of human intervention in the casting of stones by the fact that it contained chemistry that was not natural to the stone and was introduced by humans.

The tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature.
The stones contained diatomaceous earth which is not natural to limestone and used as an additive.

At the very least we have preliminary evidence that needs further investigation and certainly not as you claim "no evidence".

Only that you limit their ability to pounding, grinding and rubbing over years and years and years and years and years lol. Never giving them any intellect above sheer manpower. Not worker smarter and only worker harder and harder to explain everything.

Stuff like this

View attachment 373729 View attachment 373732

Working with this

View attachment 373730 View attachment 373731

I think it involves all the elements of vase making or knowledge on tooling and machining surfaces and what it takes to shape objects. Certainly in the video he knew all the tools, mechanism, angles of how different parts of the vase could have been made with hand tyools and machining.

Difficulties in the interior, how fixed cutting would be needed for some parts, how speed would impact the work,, the stress involved. Every aspect of making such objects. And as a pioneer in the field with over 50 years experience.

The digitalisation of artifiacts would require understand the software involved. Besides there were thress experts on this and from memory the others had direct software expertise. Together they were a team of experts who created the software.

Once again your making claims based off poor investigation and personal opinion. The fact is they made the software and it worked. It was not too different to the standard software.

It was adjusted to accommodate the vases which were unprecedented in their shape. They had no template to use for comparison. So had to create the software to best capture the vase and work out its central axis and orientation from the vase itself. You need to view the explanation.

Ha ha. Like I said you need to view the explanation.

But it was not just an assertion. Chris Kings credentials are there to find. It only took me 5 seconds to find it as he is world famous.

No doubt Chris King is an expert machinist--I don't think anyone has said otherwise. But like Petrie, he does not support your argument.

 

[stevevw]

LOLOL! I've worked as a machinist and "toolest" for that long and you basically told me to go stuff it.

I did not say that. I said you make the claim without any evidence. Without showing how someone like Smith is wrong. If you are knowledgable about machining then you should have immediately recognised Smith as knowling what he was talking about and taken his opinion more seriously.

But then if we do take seriously the expert opinion of machinist and they contradict each other who is correct. Smith who actually worked on the project and done the examinations and testing. Or someone from a social media site who may have the knowledge but is disputing someone who also has the knowledge.

If anything you should be agreeing with Smith if your an expert. Because we definitely know Chris Smith is. Its there is black and white on the sites that show his work and reputation that I linked. I have not recieved such levels of confirming the work of those on this site.

Yeah, I think we should lighten up on your sources. It's not their fault that you are trying to use them in an "argument from authority" about matters you don't understand in order to "prove" something about your own theology.

Lol. I am not. The whole authority and credibility thing was initiated by skeptics. From the provenance to attacking sources and people involved. We have clear evidence of bias from the beginning.

The thread did not stand a chance lol. Everyone involved was already assumed as amateurs and Woo before any investigations were made.

 

[stevevw]

No doubt Chris King is an expert machinist--I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

Yes they have.

But like Petrie, he does not support your argument.

Smith certainly agrees with Petrie that lathing and machining was involved. He touches of the difficulties of creating some of the angles and inner surfaces and the need for some sort of fixed and very stable cutting involved. Which he suggests is getting into the more sophisticated lathing.

Evenso he speaks about a pretty stable basic lathing setup with bearings for stability. Certainly getting into a more advanced method than later methods and certainly not a level they had in predynastic Egypt. They did not even have the potters wheel let alone lathe.

 

[BCP1928]

Smith certainly agrees that lathing and machining was involved. He touches of the difficulties of creating some of the angles and inner surfaces and the need for some sort of fixed and very stable cutting involved. Which he suggests is getting into the more sophisticated lathing.

Right. By and large I recognize Smith as an expert machinist and I think his conclusions are at least plausible. Yours are not.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

I literally just showed you how two experts were made out as amateurs. King was made out to be am ameteur bike macker who know nothing about machining and tooling.

That is not true. Why do you lie?

In regards to Christ Smith

"he is rank amateur when it comes to explaining striations on ancient Egyptian objects".

Read the full sentence you quoted.

Marcis made out as an amateur without one reference to his actual credentials. Which showed he was actually a professor with the academic knowledge relating directly to software creation relating to ancient artifacts.

Cite which article by him you believe supports this "...with the academic knowledge relating directly to software creation relating to ancient artifacts.". In which article did he create any software?

But you also missed the point. The claims were made without even checking the credentials. They were made by assumption. It did not matter what the credentials were because they were not even investigated.

The claim was they were amateurs. If you want to stand on the scientific method of rigorious fact based investigation. Then don't you think that using that epistemic standard should apply to investigating the credentials of people rather than basing conclusion on unsupported assumptions.

So far they seem to be amateurs, when you don't tendentiously twist others words.

You can't claim scientific rigor if you can't be consistent and are instead being bias lol. It disquaifies the person full stop regardless of what they claim about anything else.

So why doesx this not apply to those making the claims that the researcher is an amateur. How do we know the person making the claim is not an amateur themselves. Thus making amateur claims. Why are we not demanding the accuser show their credentials. This seems double standards.

No I just posted the research and tests and then came all the ad hominems. Its only when people claimed they were amateurs that I had the need to defend them and question the accusers as to whether they have properly investigated things as there is obvious evidence they are experts if they checked.

Because the claims are not published in scientific journals, therefore it becomes an issue of why we should believe them.

I even gave the time stamp in the video showing Smiths explanation which comes straight out of a machinist and tooling manual from his expertise and experience. Anyone who would have known this would have realised. I also linked evidence of his reputation as one of the worlds leading machinist. Yet this still he is classed as an amateur.

In evaluating ancient egyptian artifacts!

Just like the evidence showing Chris Smiths explanation it looks like Karolys was also skipped. There was absolutely no reference to it and therefore assumptions made that the whole software is wrong.

I've seen it, it doesn't seem to be true you can import the public STL files and do the analysis with standard tools, if you try.

Yet their findings matched Dr Max's, which matched the Vase project which has matched all the metrology done. They all show the same precision.

They don't, it is not even the same measure.

It doesn't matter. If they come to similar precision findings for circularity and concentricity then why does it matter. They all measured some of the same vases like Olgas and the OG vase. They all came to the same measurements. The different methods found the same measures.

What do you mean not that good in the measures they undertook. Or the measures are accurate and the results are not that good that show precision in circularity and concentricity.

Their own data belies their claims of precision. Look at the mm surface deviations reported.

This is a good example of doubling down on the claims about the evidence. The evidence is the observations of the marks in the stones. Or the stones chemical makup ect.

Then we have the explanations which are an attempt to explain what the observations represent. So when you said we don't have the evidence your talking about a subjective explanation for what the evidence represents.

I gave the example of the scoop marks and scientific analysis which states that this was not caused by small dolerite pounders.
So we have evidence of another method that we need to work out caused them.

No, that is not a conclusion that can be drawn from Marians article.

The hypothesis that stone was softend is one explanation and just as valid as the pounding method.

We have evidence of human intervention in the casting of stones by the fact that it contained chemistry that was not natural to the stone and was introduced by humans.

The tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone.
The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature.
The stones contained diatomaceous earth which is not natural to limestone and used as an additive.

At the very least we have preliminary evidence that needs further investigation and certainly not as you claim "no evidence".

Only that you limit their ability to pounding, grinding and rubbing over years and years and years and years and years lol. Never giving them any intellect above sheer manpower. Not worker smarter and only worker harder and harder to explain everything.

Stuff like this

View attachment 373729 View attachment 373732

Working with this

View attachment 373730 View attachment 373731

I think it involves all the elements of vase making or knowledge on tooling and machining surfaces and what it takes to shape objects. Certainly in the video he knew all the tools, mechanism, angles of how different parts of the vase could have been made with hand tyools and machining.

So making stainless steel bearings and aluminium bodys make you an expert on ancient egyptian manufacturing? Why?

Difficulties in the interior, how fixed cutting would be needed for some parts, how speed would impact the work,, the stress involved. Every aspect of making such objects. And as a pioneer in the field with over 50 years experience.

The digitalisation of artifiacts would require understand the software involved. Besides there were thress experts on this and from memory the others had direct software expertise. Together they were a team of experts who created the software.

Still is this software public? Their own analyst (Stine Gerdes) thinks their claims of precision are smoke.

Once again your making claims based off poor investigation and personal opinion. The fact is they made the software and it worked. It was not too different to the standard software.

It was adjusted to accommodate the vases which were unprecedented in their shape. They had no template to use for comparison. So had to create the software to best capture the vase and work out its central axis and orientation from the vase itself. You need to view the explanation.

Ha ha. Like I said you need to view the explanation.

I've seen it.

But it was not just an assertion. Chris Kings credentials are there to find. It only took me 5 seconds to find it as he is world famous.

I know who he is, I bike both on the road and on a mountainbike.

In the meantime we should not dismiss the preliminary work that so far supports an hypothesis until its disproven. Yet its being dismissed.

They are completely free to make the investigations and publish them in a journal.

Not as in any usuable energy as yet. That would require on site tests. Only the acoustic tests have been done and the modelling.

And there have been no modelling of energy extraction.

Also the fact that such stones are proven to generate such effects. All the preliminary research is done. Its a case of working out if and how this was actually done.

I mean if its created with say theraml or stress of some sort. Then thats going to be hard. The outer casing stones may have contributed to the effect. So I don't know how they could substitute this. But still there should be some way of showing that the chambers can generate energy.

In the mean time there is ample evidence that the pyramids were used for more than a tomb. We have massive and smaller shafters, drainage, and systems all around the pyramids. We have evidence of thermal and stress to the chambers. We have tests showing rare chemicals in the chambers and we have evidence of a furnance for possible thermal treatment.

Like I sai independents are now in the field disccovering all this evidence that has been hidden form the public.

So why don't do the science and publish it?