There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

[stevevw]

That is not true. Why do you lie?

How am I lying. What is untrue in what I said.

Read the full sentence you quoted.

How is that not making out he is an amateur when it comes to the marks on stone. What is the difference in knowing the strirations and marks on vases to the marks on other works as a machin ist and tooler who understands how marks are created and with what tools.

Calling the stone Egyptian does not matter. Its still a stone with machining marks.

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?

I linked his page and its full of papers dealing with the digitalisation of artifacts and shapes into 3D and the dealing with difficult shapes being digitalised into 3D. Seems the exact same process as working with the vases.

If Marian is working with different 3D objects including cultural works in digitising them for measuring why would he not understand the difficulties in mapping out the vases digitally for they reflect an acurate representation in digital 3D. He would have to know how the software works to be able to even do that.

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

But your still making a fallacy by demanding he be an expert in a particular aspect. When his expertise may have been in a certain aspect of developing the software.

The point is his credentials were not even checked full stop. Thats where the bias came in and you can't even acknowledge this. So why should I even bother with your doubling down trying to discredit him.

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

Your still missing the point. There was no "so far" as though an investigation was made prior. There was none at all so they did not know. They had decided he was an amateur without any investiogation. Thats the bias and from that they are disqualified on everything else that is said. Once bias is shown you cannot trust any further comment from the posters.

But listen to you. They 'seem like an amateur'. That is a unsure subjective claim. Yet you want to double down and declare him an amateur. Talk about credibility, I don't trust you full stop no matter what you say.

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

Ah the good old peer review. This does not automatically make it wrong. There was not even any reference to the content and it was dismissed. No likewise rigor in the objections or critical thinking. Just plain outright dismissal.

Why should I take the word of those who have already shown bias. They disqualify themselves from the get go.

In evaluating ancient egyptian artifacts!

Yes in evaluation the tooling and machining marks on ancient Egyptian artifacts. Or any object that has been made by a tool or machine.

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.

Well others have. Its stated that the files can be utilised as an open file. In fact third parties have already used them. Dr Max and Karoyl used the files existing on Olgas vases and the OG vase. They did not make the files but utilised the existing ones from the Vase scan project done by Nick Sierra and Alex Dunn.

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

How is it not the same measure when they measured the same vases and got the same results. They both found Olgas vases to be in the imprecise range. They both found the OG vase to be in the precise range.

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

I don't want to go through the whole fixation on microns of difference again. Its a red herring and does not negate that these vases are lathed.

For Karoyl 5 vases fell in the precise range.


For Dr Max several fell in the precise range using their own methods for median deviation errors.

Class Averages


The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <<RMSE>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <<dR>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).

Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.

The Vase scan project got the same results.
The original vase was put into a cartesian coordinant grid (X,Y,Z axis) and analysied in Polyworks for precision.
New Video – Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch! – UnchartedX

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

What are you talking about. Who said Marian had anything to do with the scoop marks. I said we have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodoxy such as the small dolerite pounders were not what was used to dig out the unfinished obeliske.

That evidence has nothing to do with Marian Marcis.

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

Yes as far as what tools or machining could produce such an object. Look at the parts. They are contain the same shape as vases, flat tops with wide lips, cone type bodies, flat bottoms. But also other angles and shapes associated with a vase.

Smith is a machinist and precision tooler and also makes the machines and tools to make the parts. This is hypocritical and double standard that you now want to question where a machinist is an expert. When people on this thread have claimed their own expertise in machining as part of the evidence they sight. Why did you not question others on machining wood and metal when they claimed it was expertise in making vases.

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

Lol you can see the precision compared to later vases by the naked eye. You can get a hand held guage and measure the circularity of the vase that shows high precision circularity enough that it was lathed. Most people agree they were lathed.

They are more precise than that which come 1,000 years later by using a Bore Stick on softer stone. Thats why I kept things simple and said that we can at least say these vases were lathed to pretty good standard.

I've seen it.

Then why are you objecting. He clearly knows what he is talking about. Theres a few videos actually where he goes into the technical aspects.

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

They have for some things. Its all relatively new so give them time. Watch this space lol.

And there have been no modelling of energy extraction.

What do you mean by modeling of energy extraction. How could this even be possible. We would have to work out what the method was. If it involved additional aspects like thermal or stress then who is going to allow such things in the pyramid lol.

How is it that the modelling for say theorectical physics is not always replicated yet accepted.

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

Well we know such stones have the effect. We know the pyramid itself creates the effect. Theorectically why would it not produce an effect of some sort.

 

[stevevw]

How many has he made?

How many have you or anyone on this thread made. At least he has made similar products requiring similar tech. Were you not using machining experience and expertise to determine the vases. How many have those claiming to be machinist have they made.

Now you ask if he has made vases and only apply it to those I present to undermine them. While never bothering to ask the same question of anyone on your side who claims machining expertise. Its bias once again.

The point is the opening and lip of a part he makes will have the same tech as one on a vase. Its a case of a different cutter that handles granite. But the principles are the same. Especially for the interior that is the most difficult.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How many have you or anyone on this thread made.

Irrelevant. (It is odd that you have moved towards questioning our credentials when you know that we have them and you won't even indicate what even remotely relevant experience or knowledge you bring to any of this.)

At least he has made similar products requiring similar tech. Were you not using machining experience and expertise to determine the vases. How many have those claiming to be machinist have they made.

Granite and metals are quite different materials. Granite would make a lousy bicycle hub. Mr. Smith doesn't have any experience working with ancient technologies. That's what actual experts on ancient stone working *would* know, but you are very eager to ignore their expertise.

Now you ask if he has made vases and only apply it to those I present to undermine them. While never bothering to ask the same question of anyone on your side who claims machining expertise. Its bias once again.

That you think of this as "sides" rather than seeking of truth is telling. There is an experience machinist on "our side", but you also seemingly ignore *his* expertise as well.

The point is the opening and lip of a part he makes will have the same tech as one on a vase. Its a case of a different cutter that handles granite. But the principles are the same. Especially for the interior that is the most difficult.

You assume a "cutter" when that isn't established

 

[Stopped_lurking]

How am I lying. What is untrue in what I said.

How is that not making out he is an amateur when it comes to the marks on stone. What is the difference in knowing the strirations and marks on vases to the marks on other works as a machin ist and tooler who understands how marks are created and with what tools.

Calling the stone Egyptian does not matter. Its still a stone with machining marks.

No but understanding the marks left by the egyptians tools matter.

I linked his page and its full of papers dealing with the digitalisation of artifacts and shapes into 3D and the dealing with difficult shapes being digitalised into 3D. Seems the exact same process as working with the vases.

Not making the code though.

If Marian is working with different 3D objects including cultural works in digitising them for measuring why would he not understand the difficulties in mapping out the vases digitally for they reflect an acurate representation in digital 3D. He would have to know how the software works to be able to even do that.

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

I know I've read his articles.

But your still making a fallacy by demanding he be an expert in a particular aspect. When his expertise may have been in a certain aspect of developing the software.

The point is his credentials were not even checked full stop. Thats where the bias came in and you can't even acknowledge this. So why should I even bother with your doubling down trying to discredit him.

Suit yourself.

Your still missing the point. There was no "so far" as though an investigation was made prior. There was none at all so they did not know. They had decided he was an amateur without any investiogation. Thats the bias and from that they are disqualified on everything else that is said. Once bias is shown you cannot trust any further comment from the posters.

You do you, what do you want me to say?

But listen to you. They 'seem like an amateur'. That is a unsure subjective claim. Yet you want to double down and declare him an amateur. Talk about credibility, I don't trust you full stop no matter what you say.

Ah the good old peer review. This does not automatically make it wrong. There was not even any reference to the content and it was dismissed. No likewise rigor in the objections or critical thinking. Just plain outright dismissal.

Why should I take the word of those who have already shown bias. They disqualify themselves from the get go.

Suit yourself.

Yes in evaluation the tooling and machining marks on ancient Egyptian artifacts. Or any object that has been made by a tool or machine.

Well others have. Its stated that the files can be utilised as an open file. In fact third parties have already used them. Dr Max and Karoyl used the files existing on Olgas vases and the OG vase. They did not make the files but utilised the existing ones from the Vase scan project done by Nick Sierra and Alex Dunn.

How is it not the same measure when they measured the same vases and got the same results.

The measure is decided by the method not the object of the result.

They both found Olgas vases to be in the imprecise range. They both found the OG vase to be in the precise range.

They didn't get the same results, they used different quality criteria. The 1968 vase is grouped with modern replicas, I know.

I don't want to go through the whole fixation on microns of difference again. Its a red herring and does not negate that these vases are lathed.

Perhaps they are but it has not been shown. I don't believe they are.

For Karoyl 5 vases fell in the precise range.


For Dr Max several fell in the precise range using their own methods for median deviation errors.

Class Averages


The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <<RMSE>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <<dR>> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).

Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.

The Vase scan project got the same results.
The original vase was put into a cartesian coordinant grid (X,Y,Z axis) and analysied in Polyworks for precision.
New Video – Scanning a Predynastic Ancient Egyptian Vase down to 1000th of an Inch! – UnchartedX


What are you talking about. Who said Marian had anything to do with the scoop marks. I said we have evidence of alternative methods besides the orthodoxy such as the small dolerite pounders were not what was used to dig out the unfinished obeliske.

I thought you referred to Marians article about using photogrammetry for estimating the effects of pounders. Did you mean some other article?

That evidence has nothing to do with Marian Marcis.

Ok, link that article then.

Yes as far as what tools or machining could produce such an object. Look at the parts. They are contain the same shape as vases, flat tops with wide lips, cone type bodies, flat bottoms. But also other angles and shapes associated with a vase.

The body's are in aluminium, not stone. They don't have surface deviations in the mm range. One material is highly ductile the other is not.

Smith is a machinist and precision tooler and also makes the machines and tools to make the parts. This is hypocritical and double standard that you now want to question where a machinist is an expert. When people on this thread have claimed their own expertise in machining as part of the evidence they sight. Why did you not question others on machining wood and metal when they claimed it was expertise in making vases.

Smith? Chris King? Where I involved in a dialogue with the others at the time?

Lol you can see the precision compared to later vases by the naked eye. You can get a hand held guage and measure the circularity of the vase that shows high precision circularity enough that it was lathed. Most people agree they were lathed.

So get it in a journal then.

They are more precise than that which come 1,000 years later by using a Bore Stick on softer stone. Thats why I kept things simple and said that we can at least say these vases were lathed to pretty good standard.

Then why are you objecting. He clearly knows what he is talking about. Theres a few videos actually where he goes into the technical aspects.

They have for some things. Its all relatively new so give them time. Watch this space lol.

What do you mean by modeling of energy extraction. How could this even be possible. We would have to work out what the method was. If it involved additional aspects like thermal or stress then who is going to allow such things in the pyramid lol.

They could have modeled a receiver in the chamber, and calculated the transmitted power as a function of the external field strength and wavelength.

How is it that the modelling for say theorectical physics is not always replicated yet accepted.

It is not accepted as true until it is experimentally verified, the chase after the Higgs boson stretched over decades.

We have built larger and larger colliders to verify physics.

Well we know such stones have the effect. We know the pyramid itself creates the effect. Theorectically why would it not produce an effect of some sort.

You do realise that granite is a common material? Today we have terrestrial medium wave radio wave sources that are in the 2 MW range (in Hungary), it can be picked up in the US in good conditions. Have anybody picked up any hungarian news on the radio inside the king's chamber?

Or is the granite blocks in Hungary laying vibrating on the ground, cracking as they vibrate at 560 kHz?

 

[stevevw]

Irrelevant. (It is odd that you have moved towards questioning our credentials when you know that we have them and you won't even indicate what even remotely relevant experience or knowledge you bring to any of this.)

This is all subjective and contextual. Someones an expert in machining, another an expert in software development, still another an expert Mason, Archeologist, Egyptologist, Engineer, Physicist, Chemist, Anthroplogist, Sociologist, Cultural expert ect ect ect.

I bring my own expertise in the fields of Sociology, Psychology and Cultural Studies including Anthropology. I also have experience in building and carpentry. But I don't claim to be an expert in those fields of machining and tooling. I understand the basic principles.

But the context is I presented King and others as the experts and not myself. I am able to read the credentials of King and his expertise. It is his credentials and expertise I am calling on. So someone with similar expertise can certainly dispute his opinion. But that has not happened yet.

When I say has not happened yet I mena I have only seen Kings credentials and no one has actually shown me these credentials and work. Unless you want me to just believe the claims without any support. That would be poor epistemics. Why would anyone take words alone as sufficent evidence.

In other words I not disputing that someone can have 4expertise on this thread. I am saying show men the same credentials as King where we can go to a site or reference and read about it other than from the person themselves ie independent of the person saying it.

Granite and metals are quite different materials. Granite would make a lousy bicycle hub. Mr. Smith doesn't have any experience working with ancient technologies.

Thats a blantant unsupported opinion. Were is the reasoning that this is the case. Where is the evidence that his knowledge of machining and tooling in metals cannot be applied to making similar shapes in stone.

Does not the same lathing for circularity work for both metal, wood and granite. Its just a case of the different cutters and the related mechanisms that will sustain the harder cut. But the same principles of cutting are involved.

But evenso you have and others have on this thread offered support for their arguements for or against lathing and maching from their own knowledge an dexperience in working with machining on wood and metals. So its bias anyway to start singling out King when the same criteria is not applied to others on this thread.

Let me ask, who would be more of an expert of the method used to create the vases. An Archeologist or a machinist and tooling expert who makes similar shapes.

That's what actual experts on ancient stone working *would* know, but you are very eager to ignore their expertise.

And you are very eager to dimiss King. Not only is he an expert in making similar shapes and understand the difference in mechanisms and tooling to achieve cuts in granite. He has been studying the very stone vases for years as well.

So he is both an expert machinist and has more than the average knowledge specifically on the Egyptian vases having studied them for years. I think he is more knowlegable than anyone on this thread as far as the vases are concerned.

But I also find it strange how it has come to having to defend good people as credible in the first place.

That you think of this as "sides" rather than seeking of truth is telling. There is an experience machinist on "our side", but you also seemingly ignore *his* expertise as well.

I have not. This is a falsehood. I acknowledge their experience and never said they had none. As mentioned above it is a case of showing me the independent evidence and not just the opinions on a social media site.

I was not the one who started to fixate on the credibility of everything I linked before it was investigated. I was not the one who started this scrutinising of the credentials of people when they were called amateurs and all other demeaning names.

I have been made to jump through loops left right and center. Demanding written independent evidence for good sources like peer review. Knocking down research because it was not peer reviewed.

Therefore I expect the same level of scrutiny and evidence for the credentials of those attacking the sources and people. The same level of criteria should apply. I have not once seen a paper, scientific article or even a reference or blod even with anyone on this thread showing independent evidence of their credentials.

I am not saying there is none. I am saying give me the same respect and standards as you deman of me. Show me peer review, scientific articles, of the work ect like it was demanded of those I have bene linking. Otherwise this is completely one sided and bias.

You assume a "cutter" when that isn't established

You assume he doesn't know the difference. He is part of the same project that actually went and got a granite vase made at a Chinese vase manufacturer. He has studied the application to granite. He has specialised in the granite vases for years now getting to know a lot of stuff about them.

 

[Hans Blaster]

This is all subjective and contextual. Someones an expert in machining, another an expert in software development, still another an expert Mason, Archeologist, Egyptologist, Engineer, Physicist, Chemist, Anthroplogist, Sociologist, Cultural expert ect ect ect.

Where was this sentence going?

I bring my own expertise in the fields of Sociology, Psychology and Cultural Studies including Anthropology. I also have experience in building and carpentry. But I don't claim to be an expert in those fields of machining and tooling. I understand the basic principles.

You've never spoken of it. In what way do you have expertise in those fields and how is it relevant to the discussion?

But the context is I presented King and others as the experts and not myself. I am able to read the credentials of King and his expertise. It is his credentials and expertise I am calling on. So someone with similar expertise can certainly dispute his opinion. But that has not happened yet.

He's the guy who makes bicycle parts, right?

When I say has not happened yet I mena I have only seen Kings credentials and no one has actually shown me these credentials and work. Unless you want me to just believe the claims without any support. That would be poor epistemics. Why would anyone take words alone as sufficent evidence.

This is confusing, have you seen King's credentials or not?

In other words I not disputing that someone can have 4expertise on this thread. I am saying show men the same credentials as King where we can go to a site or reference and read about it other than from the person themselves ie independent of the person saying it.

what are you asking for?

Thats a blantant unsupported opinion. Were is the reasoning that this is the case. Where is the evidence that his knowledge of machining and tooling in metals cannot be applied to making similar shapes in stone.

Shape can be cut into wood. Being lather of wood doesn't make one knowledgeable in machining metals.

Does not the same lathing for circularity work for both metal, wood and granite. Its just a case of the different cutters and the related mechanisms that will sustain the harder cut. But the same principles of cutting are involved.

What cutters of stone?

But evenso you have and others have on this thread offered support for their arguements for or against lathing and maching from their own knowledge an dexperience in working with machining on wood and metals. So its bias anyway to start singling out King when the same criteria is not applied to others on this thread.

Let me ask, who would be more of an expert of the method used to create the vases. An Archeologist or a machinist and tooling expert who makes similar shapes.

The Egyptologist.

And you are very eager to dimiss King. Not only is he an expert in making similar shapes and understand the difference in mechanisms and tooling to achieve cuts in granite. He has been studying the very stone vases for years as well.

So he is both an expert machinist and has more than the average knowledge specifically on the Egyptian vases having studied them for years. I think he is more knowlegable than anyone on this thread as far as the vases are concerned.

How do you quantify that?

But I also find it strange how it has come to having to defend good people as credible in the first place.

You have put of a lot of frauds and grifters, like "Ben" of unchartedX or Dunn. What reservoir of presumptive trust you have started with is long gone.

I have not. This is a falsehood. I acknowledge their experience and never said they had none. As mentioned above it is a case of showing me the independent evidence and not just the opinions on a social media site.

I was not the one who started to fixate on the credibility of everything I linked before it was investigated. I was not the one who started this scrutinising of the credentials of people when they were called amateurs and all other demeaning names.

Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? (or was it "ancient advanced technology"?)

I have been made to jump through loops left right and center. Demanding written independent evidence for good sources like peer review. Knocking down research because it was not peer reviewed.

I generally don't read non-peer review science. It isn't worth my time.

Therefore I expect the same level of scrutiny and evidence for the credentials of those attacking the sources and people. The same level of criteria should apply. I have not once seen a paper, scientific article or even a reference or blod even with anyone on this thread showing independent evidence of their credentials.

You want to know *who* we are? That ain't gonna happen.

I am not saying there is none. I am saying give me the same respect and standards as you deman of me. Show me peer review, scientific articles, of the work ect like it was demanded of those I have bene linking. Otherwise this is completely one sided and bias.

we aren't making claims. Your advanced ancient techonology sources are.

You assume he doesn't know the difference. He is part of the same project that actually went and got a granite vase made at a Chinese vase manufacturer. He has studied the application to granite. He has specialised in the granite vases for years now getting to know a lot of stuff about them.

I could scroll up to find out who "he" is, but your posts are too long and I am done with this one.

 

[stevevw]

No but understanding the marks left by the egyptians tools matter.

The marks left by the Egyptians is the same marks the experts are trying to determine what made them. How are the marks any different because they are Egyptian. If they are made on a lathe it does not matter if they are Egyptian marks lol. They are lathing marks, not Egyptian marks.

Unless there is a special Egyptian lathing mark. Or maching mark. The machine cuts in granite such as the arc cuts are not Egyptian cuts but machined arc cuts. Similar mached arc cuts we may see later in history made by the same method. You don't have to be Egyptian to know this.

Not making the code though.

I am sure his expertise came in valuable in developing the software. You don't know whether he knows coding as part of the areas he specialises in. So you can't make these absolute claims without evidence. This is what I mean by the double standards. You double down without showing this is the case.

I know I've read his articles.

Then show he has no understanding of coding. From what I understand Marian specialises in the 3D digitalisation of ancient and cultural artifacts. That is transforming 3d objects into the digital space. I would say that includes knowledge of coding in digitalising objects into ,amagable software programs.

Nevertheless he may offer a specific expertise in the process of relating artifiacts in the software. The unusual and unprecedented shapes and how best to accommodate this in specific aspects of the software.

The point is we don't know and your making claims without evidence based on your unsupported opinion. All the researchers were called amatuer and I know the others have software expertise.

Dr. Márton Szemenyei, PhD is an assistant professor at the Department of Control Engineering and Information Technology

Rólunk – Vision

deeplearning.iit.bme.hu

Suit yourself.

lol fair enough. Everyone can suit themselves.

You do you, what do you want me to say?

Just be fair and honest. Thats all. So long as the criteria is fairly applied to all.

Suit yourself.

Now its just not acknowledging the bias.

The measure is decided by the method not the object of the result.

Yes and the different ways the vase can be measures all come to the same result. Whether you use a professional ruler like Petrie 100 years ago. Or the guague metrology that monitors the vase directly through sensors. Or the different scanning techniques such as structured light, X ray or Photgrametry.

The end result is the come to the same measures. Just some are more refined and down to the micron. But the micron level today is not disputing Petries measures. They are actually confirming them with even tighter precision.

They didn't get the same results, they used different quality criteria. The 1968 vase is grouped with modern replicas, I know.

So are you saying that if they took one of the vases from say Karoyls results and applied Dr Max's and the Vase Scan Projects methods that they would come to a different measure for circularity for example. Some will find it with good circularity and the other will find poor circularity for the same vase.

Perhaps they are but it has not been shown. I don't believe they are.

I am glad you say "don't believe" as there is ample evidence they were lathed or turned on something to achieve such high precision.

Part of Karoyls scanning was to scan the best example of an 18th dynastic alabasta vase made with the Bore Stick method depicted on the walls. I linked this vase before here. As Christ King says the Alabasta vase clearly matches the Bore Stick method. Which could grind out a softer vase but because it was a wobbly device you can see it is lop sided.

So we accept that the pretty good finish from the 18th dynasty using a form of lathe in the Bore Stick produced softer vases.

Yet in the British museum they have two preynastic large precision hard stone vases sitting just under a picture of the same 18th dynastic relief implying they were also made by the Bore Stick method. Quite deceptive. They never state how the predysnastic vases were made. Just that they were for Royalty.

So if the soft alabasta vase shows evidence of a simple lathing mechanism that created 18th dynasty vases. Then why all of a sudden argue that there was no lathing involved in far superior vases with better circularity.

Its inconsistent and double standards. Somehow ancients by sheer freehand grinding, poundin g and rubbing made better vases than later ones which we know were made using Bore sticks and not freehand.

I thought you referred to Marians article about using photogrammetry for estimating the effects of pounders. Did you mean some other article?

Lol I actually forgot this was Marians work. I didn't refer to it because of Marian but as an example of evidence showing that the small dolorite pounders was not the method.

Ok, link that article then.

I already have.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

The body's are in aluminium, not stone. They don't have surface deviations in the mm range. One material is highly ductile the other is not.

Do the use similar principles for setting the cuts, the angles of the arm and how a machine can manovour to cut such shapes.

But I keep saying this is hypocracy. Others have cited their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metal and there was no issue. Why are you now making it an issue. This is why I don't trust what is said as its double standards.

Smith? Chris King? Where I involved in a dialogue with the others at the time?

Sorry King. No people were using their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metals to argue their case and it was all acceptable then. Funny how the goal posts change when it comes to the people I link.

So get it in a journal then.

We don't need to. We can check it out ourselves and see the measurements. Numbers don't lie.

They could have modeled a receiver in the chamber, and calculated the transmitted power as a function of the external field strength and wavelength.

This is what they said was next

The team is now looking at how pyramidal nanoparticles can be used in new and innovative ways to create new technologies such as nanosensors and highly efficient solar cells. The team also plans to do further simulations of the Great Pyramid using radio waves at shorter wavelengths.

Chambers in Egypt's Great Pyramid concentrate radio waves – Physics World

Computer simulations reveal electromagnetic properties of huge structure at Giza

physicsworld.com

It is not accepted as true until it is experimentally verified, the chase after the Higgs boson stretched over decades.

I think this is a bit different. But nevertheless no one was calling the idea of the Higgs boson as psuedoscience. It was expected that it would be found because the modelling was correct.

You do realise that granite is a common material? Today we have terrestrial medium wave radio wave sources that are in the 2 MW range (in Hungary), it can be picked up in the US in good conditions. Have anybody picked up any hungarian news on the radio inside the king's chamber?

Or is the granite blocks in Hungary laying vibrating on the ground, cracking as they vibrate at 560 kHz?

Or Quartz watches that only need a shake to get the electro charge going. Its a common material but potententially a material that can be utilised to generate electrical effects.

 

[stevevw]

Where was this sentence going?

The same place this silly game of credendials is going, nowhere. My point was someone may be an expert in one aspect say machining. While another is an expert in chemistry or Egyptology.

There can be more than one experts and a sinle expert on one aspect is not an expert on other aspects. Then when you get two people claiming an expert on the same aspect who is right lol.

Thats why I like everyone to participate as their own expert. For some aspects like the obvious melted stone or clear cut machine marks you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this. Nor recognise an expert in a particular area that you can use to support the case. Its all relative and contextual. Just saying your an expert does not mean much unless your specifying exactly what.

You've never spoken of it. In what way do you have expertise in those fields and how is it relevant to the discussion?

I have been alluding to this thrughout this thread. Whatever is to do the the philosophical aspects such as the epistemics of how knowledge is developed within cultures or as a human cognition or behaviour output is my specialist area.

Which is really what the OP is all about and not the specific examples that require machinist in one situation, Chemist in another, physicists in another ect. We can go on forever with these specific examples and I thought this may help support the case of advanced lost knowledge.

But the real area of research that we can determine whether there is lost advanced knowledge is the study of knowledge itself and how it is developed in many different ways and having different dimensions by humans over history.

He's the guy who makes bicycle parts, right?

Lol I hope your kidding. Because that grossly underestimates his ability. You do realise he actually pioneers and makes the machines and tools that make the parts lol. Is a well known machinist and precision tooler at Aerospace level. I linked his credentials earlier.

This is confusing, have you seen King's credentials or not?

Yes I linked them earlier.

Chris King the framebuilder
For anyone not familiar with Chris, his hubs and headsets (made right here in Portland) are considered to be the best in the world and they have been ridden to three Tour de France victories by the US Postal Service and Discovery Channel teams.

Chris King the framebuilder

[Chris and an old friend.] While at the Chris King Tour de France party last night, I heard someone mention that a guy rolled up on a bicycle made by Chris King himself. In all my years in the bike industry, including a stint as a King employee, I was surprised I'd never heard about this before.

bikeportland.org

Chris King Technology

After nearly fifty years in business, CKPC continues to be one of the premier makers of top-shelf hubs, headsets, and bottom brackets made in a leading-edge facility by a lot of folks who care a great deal about what they do.
It’s All Ball Bearings: Chris King Precision Components Factory Visit – Josh Weinberg

what are you asking for?

Show similar support for the persons expertise like I have shown for King. I am not just saying "king is an expert who knows what he is talking about" and then offering no independent support. I have linked the support showing his credentials and ability.

I want you or whoever is claiming the expertise for machining, or tooling in relation to the vases to link independent evidence of their credentials. If you are demanding evidence, evidence and more evidence for everything I say.

Then likewise show me the independent evidence when anyone claims Smith or anyone is not an expert and instead an amateur. The same rule should apply if someone is going to make claims that someone is not an expert or claims to know more than the experts.

I have seen nothing. No independent evidence showing the expert credentials. Just personal claims. Its only fair.

Shape can be cut into wood. Being lather of wood doesn't make one knowledgeable in machining metals.

Lol and yet some on this thread claimed wood working methods could apply to the granite vases. I know some have also referred to metal lathes as supporting their arguements for how lathing was or was not involved in the granite vases.

Why does not lathing wood involve the same principles. If you want to shape a circular opening in the mouth of a vase. How is this not a similar process of routing out the mouth opening whether wood or granite or metal. Just that the cutter on wood will be of a softer metal compared to the diamond cutter for stone.

The setup will also be difference as far as the mechanisms involved to achieve the same cuts. More heavy duty machines for granite to take the stress. Different cutting heads and arms ect. But the end result cut is the same. Both cut circles, cones, flat surfaces and bore holes for openings. The same principles apply.

What cutters of stone?

Well obviously a diamond tipped cutter would be needed for granite. As opposed to say a soft metal cutter. Various wood working heads. But the principle is the same. Push the cutter into the block with a guide that will shape the body, bore out the opening, cut a flat top and lip to the opening ect.

It may be that the cutting machine head turns in some cases for intricate work. Or the object turnd and the cutter is applied and guided. But the principle is the same.

The Egyptologist.

Why. To what evel do they know machining or tooling or even Masonary. Do they specialise to the same level that a machinist would in understand the machinimg and tooling involved.

I think this is silly logic. Because then if the Egyptian works needs other investigation like chemistry or phsyics on electromagnetism. Are we to always say the Egyptologist is more an expert in everything.

They are more a general knowledge on particular types of works on a superficial level as to which culture or cultural signatures for identifying artifacts. They are the ones that usually cite the orthoddoxy for everything. Even stuff they know little about. They are not gods of all knowledge lol.

How do you quantify that?

By the simple fact that we can look up his credentials and look at his involvement with the vases. Visiting the museums, participating in the tests and ongoing analysis. I linked videos showing him at work lol.

Is there anyone on this thread who has been involved at that level specifically with Egyptian predyanstic vases. I doubt it. Otherwise please come forward lol. That I have to spell this out just shows how the obvious is even resisted. This goes back to the fact I have linked independent support and others have not.

You have put of a lot of frauds and grifters, like "Ben" of unchartedX or Dunn. What reservoir of presumptive trust you have started with is long gone.

So you have just acknowledge the bias. Your now automatically tarring everyone like you percieve Ben and Dunn. Even though you have not even shown you are correct about Ben and Dunn. This is just doubling down on bias.

Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? (or was it "ancient advanced technology"?)

But I have not cried wolf. Thats the conspiracy you have created lol. Not once have I mentioned any conspiracies. You are the one created the whole conspiracy that this thread is conspiracy and you just admitted its done purely by asociated and not actually investigating.

I generally don't read non-peer review science. It isn't worth my time.

Of course your time is precious. Thats why you can spend lots of time on threads like this.

You want to know *who* we are? That ain't gonna happen.

Then your only doubling down that your going to demand double standards. That I jump through loops and provide all this rigorious evidence and credentials for my sourses. But you can come along and make little claims all over the place without citing one bit of support. As I said its bias and double standards from the start. This thread had no chance.

we aren't making claims. Your advanced ancient techonology sources are.

Your making claims all over the place and you don't even realise it lol. I guess if you think a mere claim by words is like peer review then you don't need any support for your claims.

Every time someone says "no that not evidence" they are making a claim that requires independent evidence. You just made several in this very post. You claim an Egyptologist knows more about the tooling involved in making vases. You supplied absolutely no evidence. This has been happening all through this thread and you cannot even see this. Thats a interesting.

I could scroll up to find out who "he" is, but your posts are too long and I am done with this one.

Then why bother even posting lol.

Your probably a bit like me and getting sick of the whole thing now. Its become a thread on credibility and once it gets to that point we may as well forget the whole thing.