There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw said:

But you are using this to claim the entire box was made this way. Its a bit like transitions in evolution. One example of a simple transition is turned into creating all the complexity we see without showing this.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Like I said why go to all that trouble when they obvious had the ability to cut large flat pieces of granite with sharpe corners anyway.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Actually it wasn't. They didn't do the inside as it would take too long. At least another 2 years to get it anywhere near the precision on the (inside) which is way harder to get the vase walls down to a near perfect thickness.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Why do that when we have evidence of big wide cuts where they can just cut the box with sharp corners left from the machine cuts. Look at the flat surface and sharp corners on this cut.

View attachment 370404

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Ok at least your acknowledging that these signatures are modern looking and not that of primitive copper saws whose thickness in blade and with abarasion is much wider and less sharp than the super thin cut on the box. Are you saying the cuts are more forgeries.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Thats it blame the photos, forgeries anything but that they are real out of place signatures. I have shown ample images on this thread. Plenty for you to see and ponder. You can go an investigate it yourself.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Yes I like the Russians approach. Very down to earth and great effort. No other person bothers as much. I think it was Stocks experiment which was a big show on PBS I think. His experiement on cutting the block and the drill hole. Shows about 2 minutes of the process and then produces the final result and say look its easy lol.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Are you talking about Pi and Phi and all that which is not as obvious. But the squareness or paralellism is not hidden. You just have to do the basic measures. In fact like the vases just looking at it the signature radiates precision.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Actually Petrie was known as an Egyptologist. He also pioneered a systematic methodology in archaeology. Which was basically detailed measurements, illustrations and technical descriptions. He was maticulous in measuring every detail.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

You would think a machinest background would be idea for understanding the tool marks in granite and the mechanisms required to create such works like the vases and boxes.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

A human hair is around 0.003 inches. So 0.007 is only a couple of hairs off perfectly flat. Asl remeber that this is for the longest part of the box of 106 inches where there is more distance from each point to cover and make errors.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Not just that as Petrie said "Lastly after straightness, flatness and paralellism there is the question of ratio between dimensions or accuracy of proportions. This is far more difficult as it requires all the previous accuracies and in addition a truely divided scale, and an irremediable truth of work since nothing can be corrected by removing more material.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I don't think the box was made freehand and by naked eye. No person can feel or tell by the naked eye that a surface or plane is so precisely paralelle, aligned and flat.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Just the simple pressure of rubbing will leave deviations everywhere.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

That is what the OP is about. That ancients had more tech and knowledge that the primitive methods we attribute them. That theres a flaw in the narrative given. The same narrative you are claiming that these works were made with the primitive methods yopu keep showing examples of.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Actually it has around 18 sides when you could the lips. Like a step incorporated aroynd the entire box. A lot more dimensions, angles and paralells to incorproate.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Lol you cannot see the forrest through the tree. I am citing the signatures that point to advanced tech and knowledge to dispute your claims that they pounded, chipped and rubbed these works into mimicking these advanced signatures.

That is what the OP is about. That ancients had more tech and knowledge that the primitive methods we attribute them. That theres a flaw in the narrative given. The same narrative you are claiming that these works were made with the primitive methods yopu keep showing examples of.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I am referring to the precision vases where the wall thickness is uniform down to 1,000ths of an inch. Hardly any deviation in thickness. That means they had to do what they did on the outside but on the inside to then repeat the vase shape inside out. One vase being only 2mm thin that light can shine through the granite conglumerate.

Why you can't handle explaining what these signatures look like or represent. This is part of the investigation I am afraid. If you are to claim that these works can be done by the primitive methods then we need to work out what these signatures represent. Because they seem to point to a fairly sophistical way to work these stones.

Yes but are you not now saying that these modern signatures in other works must also be forged. Many of the precision vases have good provendence such as from the Petrie museum. The point ios there are many, many of these kinds of signatures. You can't keep saying they are all forgeries.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I have shown many of these so called gargabe photos. That in itself tells us that there is not some systematic widespread forgery going on at the very sites they appear. Rather cynnical.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

You could have asked where are these photos from. If true this is interesting. Instead you just dismiss them.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Besides I have told you where they are from. I gave links for you to check. How many times do I have to repeat myself for you to even acknowledge they are interesting and unusual and require further investigation. Instead of relegating them to garbage and whackery.

I am not complaining about their efforts. Its some of the best and most thorough and scientifically done. Its the claims that are made about the results that is the problem.

The witness marks in the handmade ones don't match the signatures. I gave you the article that categorised these works as different to the precision vases which were closer and at times surpassing modern CNC vases.

Yeah I don't want to go into specific examples anymore. I have been there and done that and it never ends. I prefer another approach now. Something on a larger scale and perhaps along the lines of anthropology. Or even culture and belief. Looking at how populations of people were advanced and knowledgable way earlier than we think.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

The problem is we have already established that the methods on the wall paintings of some rotating bent stick with a flint cutter and weights was not the same method for the precision vases. We have tons and tons of the softer vases made this way all over the world and they look exactly how they should for such a primitive method.

There is no way such a method did the inide so precise let alone be adapted to shape the outside. As we have determined that requires a lathe and a pretty sophisticated one at that to get so precise.

So lack of evidence for what kind of tech and knowledge that created these witness marks does not negate that they show they are not made with the orthodox methods on the walls.

Thats another issue in working out what sort of tech and knowledge. It does not follow that the tech is the same as what we think it should be as far as modern CNC.

There may be some other method that actually messes with the very structure of stone that makes it easier to work with. Who knows. Indigenous peoples had knowledge about nature because they were immersed in it and not like us who are looking in from the outside. They may have known secrets about nature that are now lost.

Do you think if a signature in a rock that looks like a modern macining and we cannot find what did not that this changes the fact that the signature looks like modern machining. Does that mean we must accept the primitive tools even though they don't match because we cannot find what made these signatures.

Why can't we have two seperate categories. One that looks at the signatures from a technical perspective to determine whether the orthodox tools could leave such marks or achieve such results. As well as test for what sort of method and tool could produce such marks. Without necessarily assuming those were the methods. Just a deduction of forensic analysis to determine the signatures as a seperate category.

Then a different investigation as to what could of actually been the method. I think this expands beyond the tech and into culture. Like Indigenous knowledge modern western sciences could not understand the knowledge and dismissed it as superstition. But now we find they had deep understanding of nature and how it worked.

How they did it is not necessarily like how we do it today after 100s of years of gradual tech development that culminated in the industrial revolution.

It may be that there was a different kind of knowledge that understood nature at levels of physics and chemistry ect that has been lost. That doesn't mean they were scientists with degree levels of knowledge. Rather an immersed knowledge that came fro experiencing nature and reality. Becoming part of it that they came to understand how it worked and could manipulate it.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

When the precision symmetry and circularity was confirmed in the tests. The consensus is they were turned on a lathe.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

When the precision symmetry and circularity was confirmed in the tests. The consensus is they were turned on a lathe.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Yes many are. For example a number come from the Petrie museum. But some private vases have provenence going back to predynastics ie carbon dating and recorded in items found in digs at sites.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

The potters wheel was not invented back then in predynastic times. If there was some rudimentary version then it certainly could not produce such signatures. Not just that its all the signatures together. The circular saw cuts, the router and planer cuts, the sharp edged cuts with corners. The moving of mega ton blocks over mountains and out of quarries ect with supposedly hemp rope and wooden pullies.

The wooden sled that was suppose to move 1,000 plus ton blocks would be lucky to carry a 100 ton block. The boat that supposedly caaried these blocks is a faction their size and would be smashed to the bottom with such weight.

It is an ongoing investigation and I am not saying anything, predicting anything or claiming specific tech or reasons. Its all spectualtion as far as how and why.

All we can do is just collect data and the more the better. What I have shown with the images of out of place signatures deserve investigation rather than calling them 'imagination or fake' or worse doubling down to claim the orthodox story is fact when theres clear contradictions.

Yes theres tons. I think to begin with it sounds like you have not really done much research on this.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

This happens to be one of my areas of interest which is also related to biblical archeology ect. I have spent years researching. If you go into my threads on this you will see many examples of what many class as advanced tech and knowledge from the ancients all over the world.

If as the orthodox narrative claims that 100,000 years ago and even up to 300,000 years ago humans more or less had the same cognitive ability why is it a surprise that over that time we have had peaks of knowledge that was then destroyed or lost ofr whatever reason.

They use to think the Amazon was devoid of civilization. Now they are finding great works, pyramids, landscpae glyphs and sophisticated irrigation and networks of cities throughout south America. The same all over the world.

There was once a time when megaliths and these great precision works ruled the world. THese were the versions of great cities that people gathered around. They had their own version of advanced tech and knowledge. But it also seems they actually had some tech on par with today such as in physics and chemistry and how to manipulate nature itself to be able to achieve these great works.

Then it all disappears. All these cultures have a similar story. These great works were not theirs. They inherited them and they came from a time they say when the gods ruled the earth. I don't think it a coincident that these stories and works go together and tell us something about our past.

Thats not saying that the gods made these works. But that the knowledge that is behind these great works is not the same kind as today. Its more indigenous and immersed in nature. Not inellect but experiential.

I also don't think its a coincident that experiential phenomena is the new area of scientific study such as consciousness and phenomenal belief ect.

Like I said there are different kinds of knowledge and science cannot tell us about some aspects of reality which may give us a deeper knowledge and understanding of nature and reality.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Have that been confirmed by other researchers, you mean? Who are part of the consensus? We speculating on a forum without access to primary data, is not scientific debate. The small amount of data we can see doesn't seem to support your position. The bracelet, the vase from UnchartedX(?).

Click to expand...

sjastro said:

Instead of wasting the Egyptologist Chris Naunton's time on reviewing this, I posed the hypothesis to GPT-5 and DeepSeek in not only analysing Petrie's work but any other information it might come across from other sources.

Their responses are in the my next post.

Click to expand...

That’s a sharp question. The short answer is: yes, there are indications that multiple craftsmen worked different sides of Khufu’s coffer, though we can’t pin it down with absolute certainty.

Here’s the reasoning:

---

Evidence from Petrie’s measurements (1883)​

• Petrie recorded slight asymmetries in wall thickness, squareness, and parallelism. For example, one long wall differs by a couple of millimetres from the opposite side.
• He noted that tool marks were not uniform — some faces show different patterns of striations or polish than others.
• If a single craftsman had executed the entire coffer, we might expect more consistent tool-mark “signature.”

---

Evidence from striation marks​

• Striation direction is not consistent across all faces. Some are nearly horizontal, others slightly diagonal, suggesting different work positions and working habits.
• Experimental archaeology (Stocks, 2003) shows that hand-sawing with copper plus sand produces distinctive rhythm and depth patterns that vary by operator. On ancient sarcophagi, these variations can be seen face-to-face.
• This supports the idea that different craftsmen — or at least different teams — worked on separate sides simultaneously.

---

Logistical considerations​

• The coffer is a single block of granite ~2.27 × 0.98 × 1.05 m, weighing ~3.5 tonnes.
• Moving and rotating it would have been difficult, so it makes sense that different teams stood at different sides, working simultaneously, instead of rotating the block for one mason.
• In Old Kingdom relief-carving workshops, we know tasks were divided among teams, with apprentices and masters working on different zones. The same pattern likely applied to sarcophagus dressing.

---

Inference​

• The subtle geometric inconsistencies (wall thickness variations of a few mm, non-perfect squareness)
  
  
• the differences in striation orientation
• the logistical need for multiple workers
  → strongly suggest that different craftsmen (or teams) worked on different sides of Khufu’s coffer.

---

Takeaway​

• The coffer shows the work of highly skilled teams, not a lone artisan.
• The fact that their results are still within ~1 mm over 2+ meters is a testament to extraordinary workshop coordination.

---

Would you like me to diagrammatically show (in plan view) how different teams might have been positioned around the coffer and how this would create the striation variations we observe? That could make the inference more tangible.

Click to expand...

Excellent question. The short answer is yes, that is a very strong and well-supported inference.

While we cannot know the individual craftsmen by name, the evidence strongly suggests that different teams or individuals worked on different sides of Khufu's coffer (the granite sarcophagus in the King's Chamber of the Great Pyramid). This conclusion is based on the meticulous work of archaeologists and engineers, most notably the father of modern Egyptology, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie.

Here’s a breakdown of the evidence and reasoning:

1. The Evidence of Dimensional Inconsistency

The most compelling evidence comes from the precise measurements of the coffer itself. Flinders Petrie conducted an exhaustive survey of the Great Pyramid in the 1880s, and his measurements of the coffer remain the standard today. He found:

• Variation in Wall Thickness: The thickness of the coffer's sides is not uniform. Most strikingly, the north side is significantly thicker than the south side. Petrie measured a difference of over 0.16 inches (over 4 mm), which is a substantial variance given the otherwise incredible precision found throughout the pyramid's construction.
• Statistical Improbability: For a single craftsman or a single team working in perfect unison with identical tools and techniques, such a systematic error across an entire panel is highly unlikely. It points to different teams working to slightly different tolerances or with slightly different plans.

2. The Evidence of Tooling Marks and Techniques

Although the interior and exterior are highly polished, the methods used to hollow out the interior left tell-tale marks.

• The "Tube Drill" Evidence: Petrie observed and measured the spiral grooves left on the granite from the core drills used to hollow out the interior. He concluded that these drills used fixed-point jewel tips (like diamonds or other hard gems) and exerted tremendous pressure, effectively grinding through the granite with abrasive slurry.
• Differing Feed Rates: The spacing of these spiral grooves indicates the feed rate — how much material the drill bit advanced per revolution. Petrie noted that the feed rates differed between the north and south sides. This is critical: it suggests that the teams drilling from either end were working independently, with slightly different pressures, techniques, or tool setups, resulting in a measurable difference in their progress. They drilled until their holes met in the middle, leaving a slight "rib" or unevenness at the junction point.

3. The Logistical Inference

The construction of the coffer was a monumental task in itself.

• Material: It is made from a single block of immense, hard granite (likely from Aswan, over 500 miles away).
• Work Required: Shaping, hollowing, and polishing this block required an enormous amount of labor and time.
• Efficiency: It is a logical conclusion that to save time, multiple teams would work on the project simultaneously. The most efficient way to hollow it would be to have teams working on opposite sides, drilling and chiseling towards the center. The physical evidence of differing wall thickness and drill feed rates perfectly supports this logistical model.

What This Tells Us (The Conclusion)

This inference does not reflect poorly on the ancient Egyptian craftsmen. In fact, it tells us the opposite:

• 1. Advanced Project Management: It reveals a highly organized and complex division of labor. The project was too large for a single individual; it was a coordinated effort.
• 2. Incredible Skill Nonetheless: Despite the minor variances, the overall precision is staggering. The coffer is square, its corners are nearly perfect right angles, and its surfaces are incredibly flat and smooth. The variations we are discussing are minute but measurable, detectable only by the most precise survey equipment.
• 3. Human Element: It reminds us that we are looking at the work of human hands, not machines. Even the most skilled artisans working in teams will have tiny, measurable variations in their technique.

In summary, we can indeed infer that different craftsmen or teams worked on the sides of Khufu's coffer. The evidence from dimensional variance and tooling marks strongly supports the theory that multiple teams worked simultaneously on different sections to complete this incredibly difficult task efficiently, leaving behind a subtle but definitive signature of their individual methods.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

So if you found a perfect granite cube you would wonder how did they make such a thing, right. Especially being an ancient culture.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Oh yeah I remember this. This was part of the ongoing UAP investigation. There were also spheres I think.

Do you mean paralellism. How paralelle each layer is to the bottom. Except this would be from the top which was determined as axis A (horizontal). Is that what you mean.

To me having such particular formulas repeated on the vase would be like finding star formations that repeat a specific relation precisely. Say they formed a perfect cube over and over. You would begin to ask is that just random.

Thats different to spotting clouds that sort of look like something but not exactly. Pi and Phi are specific, unique numbers/ratios that must be incorporated into an objects design through their defined mathematical constant to achieve the specified proportions in that object.

Ok there you go. Its a matter of worldview. Others and I probably the majority of people coming from ancient cultures and still today have thought this geometry found in the vases ie Flower of Life, Golden ratio, Vesica Piscis, the Tree of Life and other related natural or sacred geometry as meaningful in some way.

Lol I think I have. You just say its meaningless.

So if the 8 year old draws a poerfect circle and only deviates by a hair or two you would not think how did they do that. What if they create a perfect plasticine cube lol. Maybe they were actually an alien kid.

As mentioned it was that the base unit calculated in the vase which was the opening that seemed to match exactly a 16Ghz electromagnetic wavelength in a vacuum. 1 U = 18.739mm is the base unit of the vase. This is within 2 microns of a 16 Ghz electromagnetic wavelength travelling in a vacuum by dividing the vase unit with the speed of light.

View attachment 370320

But there are different wavelengths. The vase was being linked to a specific wavelength.

This is interesting as its another piece of possible evidence for lost advanced knowledge and tech. As far as I understand the research shows its no accident. There are a number of ongoing research in various forms of energy created by the Giza pyramid.

You keep missing the point. Its the precision in creating the near perfect known shape. We already know the shapes and so did the ancients. Its the fact they were able to make this into a 3D shape to near precision.

No I was using the cube example for the precision shapes that are actually made. In some ways you could say we have a cube like structure in some of the granite boxes. Though rectangle (rectangular hexahedron). But even harder to make as the box is also made into a coffin. Its not just art and made freehand.

Rather like the vases a mathmatical and technical feat to be able to make it so near perfect in dimensions, angles, flatness, ect. Which we usually associate with machine precision like the vases. Theres only a few thousands of an inch in deviation.

By the way the slop is purposely incorporated yet the top and interior only varies a few 1,000th of an inch from perfectly flat and paralelle. The radius of corners is no bigger than the tip of a ball point pen.

View attachment 370340 View attachment 370350

I think the Giza pyramid itself has some pretty precise dimensions. I am sure they knew some math.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Correct. Vases show precise regulation down the vase in those cross sections. It maintained very precise symmetry down the vase. The greatest deviation being at its widest. Yet still very, very small that it would not have mattered.

Yes and for hard stones its very, very hard. We see the natural shine in some of the black granite works that look machined polished.

Not necessarily and I think a bit cynnical. These vase measuring guys are qualified experts in their fields. Something you never admit for some reason. Second just because someone sees a pattern in something doesn't mean its whacko. Science does this all the time. Maths especially does it.

Like I said your discounting an entire worldview of the ancients and even today that sees the world in this way. Sees these patterns and math and it has important meaning.

Glad you said "seems" because your bias is showing through.

To you, not interesting to you. Your projecting.

No its not, once again this is what you think and not others. For example the near prefect flatness of the vase lip is also interesting. The Lug handles are very interesting in how they are perfectly positions on the vase and the surface between the handles is like it was turned and yet could not have been.

I think this is all a fallacy, red herring. Your complaining about a very, very small deviation which I don't think is going to make any difference to a wobble in the turning.

We could take any point and see its near precision to center and paralellism or perpendictularity to the flat top and know that it was turned. It has many signatures it was turned.

Yet some want to quibble about a slight percieved wobble. What are you saying that because there was a slight wobble (which I disagree) that it was not lathed. What is the point. This is all a red herring, a storm in a tea cup and does not change the fact that some pretty sophisticated turning was done.

What are you talking about. The precision has been demonstrated. It has been demonstrated byond doubt the vase was turned on some sort of lathe. The lug handle precision position has been demonstrated. The Phi and Pi have been demonstrated. The geometry (shapes in the vase) that we all recognise and not imagine) have been demonstrated in the vase. All by seperate independent tests.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Heres another example of a signature I find hard to reconcile with the orthodox explanation that these were created by pounting. They clearly look like scoop marks. As though the granite was somehow softened to be able to scoop out layers. Pounding doesn't leave such sharp edges and smooth scoops.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

The first image from Egypt around the unfinished obelisk. But they are seen all over the world such as in Sacsayhuaman Peru and Japan.

View attachment 370412

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Heres another example of a signature I find hard to reconcile with the orthodox explanation that these were created by pounting. They clearly look like scoop marks. As though the granite was somehow softened to be able to scoop out layers. Pounding doesn't leave such sharp edges and smooth scoops.

The first image from Egypt around the unfinished obelisk. But they are seen all over the world such as in Sacsayhuaman Peru and Japan.

View attachment 370412 View attachment 370413 View attachment 370414


View attachment 370415

Click to expand...

Metric (scale)	Petrie measurements (converted to metric)	CNC (typical industrial)	CNC (high-end / metrology)	Approx. improvement (Petrie → CNC high-end)	Notes
Squareness (perpendicularity) error per 1.0 m	~0.5–1.0 mm/m	0.05–0.1 mm/m	0.02–0.05 mm/m	~10–50×	Petrie recorded small but definite angular deviations; CNC holds angularity an order of magnitude tighter.
Flatness of base (length ~2.2 m)	~0.5 mm over 2.2 m	0.1–0.3 mm over 2 m	≤0.02–0.05 mm over 2 m	~10–25×	Large CNC plus lapping can achieve extreme flatness; Petrie’s result is still very respectable.
Parallelism (opposite faces, ~2.2 m span)	1–2 mm	0.1–0.3 mm	0.02–0.1 mm	~10–100×	Petrie’s tables show opposite faces slightly out; CNC machines keep faces parallel within 100 μm or better.
Wall thickness variation (average wall ~150 mm)	up to ~5 mm	0.1–0.3 mm	0.02–0.1 mm	~50–250×	Old Kingdom sarcophagi vary by several mm; CNC gives near-uniform thicknesses.
Lid seating / joint tolerance	~0.5–1.0 mm clearance	0.05–0.2 mm	0.01–0.05 mm	~10–100×	CNC can deliver precision mating joints; ancient craftsmen relied on careful fitting and possible shimming.
Surface roughness (Ra)	~5–15 μm	1–3 μm (diamond tooling)	<0.5–1.0 μm (lapping / polishing)	~5–30×	Petrie observed striations; CNC diamond polishing reduces roughness an order of magnitude further.
Repeatability / reproducibility	Not reproducible to micron level	±0.02–0.1 mm	±0.01–0.02 mm	n/a	CNC ensures repeatability across multiple pieces; ancient work shows great skill but lacks machine reproducibility.

Click to expand...