Good grief man. This paragraph doesn't respond to what I said in the slightest. There IS NO physical or textual evidence of the devices or techniques you have been claiming. No diagrams of lathes, no lathes, no texts describing lathing with 5 axes or 1. None. If there was you would have shown it as I have faith that the obsessive weirdos you quote would have dug around for it.
It relates directly to what you are saying because it cuts through the fallacy being made that because no tech is found that this must then refute that they were made in that time where we can;t find the method. Fullstop.
Your creating a fallacy that because I cannot produce how they were made therefore they must not have been made by that culture in that time.
The objects are the objects and their are theories for their construction that are not based on the things you have been pushing. Therefore, the artifacts themselves are not the evidence you can't produce.
This is strange logic. The fact is these vases are found in that time with that culture (Naqada) before the potters wheel let alone lathe tech for which the signatures clearly represent. So yes the objects are the objects found in a time where they should not have been found because of the signatures in the objects.
The vases and their signatures which suggests certain tech is a seperate issue to what was the method. We have one set of facts in the signatures and their presense in predynastic times. We have a seperate speculative issue of how they were made.
What is this thing and why are you showing it?
This thing is the inside bottom of one of the vases found under the Stepped pyramid where many of these precision vases were found. It shows circular machine marks like a vinyl record. A witness mark as to the method they were made. It resembles the circular machine marks on other precision vases.
A modern reproduction or fake.
Except it has good provedence being found in a dig by Petrie. The machine marks also match the machine marks in the image above it from a vase fragment from under a pyramid from predynastic Egypt. These machine marks are also found on several vases including those from the Petrie musum where some of the insides were not polished completely and left these witness marks of modern machining.
But at least you recognise the signatures is like modern tech and impossible to be caused by ancient tech. This is all I am doing. I am recognising the same witness marks except I am saying these are not fakes.
The other witness marks like circular and planing cuts I have shown are not fakes and found directly on the ancient works. No modern day person came along and made modern cuts in these works.
They don't speak for themselves. If they did we wouldn't be having this stupid conversation.
Yes they do. You just acknowledge that the witness marks of modern machining were impossible for the ancients and must be a modern fake. The signatures spoke for themselves that you reacted that this was impossible. You did not need anything else to come to that conclusion.
They are artisans. They are replicating or trying to reproduce an artisanal technique. (You really seem to completely miss the point of these experiments.)
Actually I don't think you understand whats going on really. Look at the videos of the experiments. Just like I asked you to look at the live tests on precision vases.
They state over and over again that they are comparing the signatures to the Egyptian works found to prove that this can be achieved by the orthodox methods.
For the 4th time: I didn't ask for blind tests. I never would have. It isn't even a method I learned in research training. Don't confuse medical testing with other fields of science.
I know but I am pointing out how the skeptics think and how they expect unreal criteria for those who propose any alternative knowledge. You are doing the same but in a different way. Like with the 'artist' as the go to explanation for everything.
A coverall explanation given almost supernatural abilities which explain what would otherwise be considered impossible.
I'm not a metrologist. I don't make high precision measurements. The only times I did were in teaching labs where the equipment was calibrated and secured. I have no idea if it is even possible to get the quality of measurement they claim to achieve with portable equipment or without hours of calibration. Instead I see hand held devices, etc.
But how does the hand held devices like a chisel or a pounder or box drill achieve such precision. If we have to calibrate out equipment to measure down to the precision in these vases then how did they achieve this. Was it guesswork, luck. Maybe one vase but not many.
The metrology is allegedly the expertise of these amateurs and it is not mine. The people who do know things are not satisfied with their work. Why should I be?
Ok so your acknowledging that the times you were attacking these metrologists and engineers as whackos you actually did know understand the expertise that was involved. You were just attacking them because of what the readings were saying and what they said about those readings being near impossible to produce with the orthodox methods.
If your ancient Egyptian tech fantasy is true,
There you go, theres another example of how your deriding these experts and their numbers. The numbers speak for themselves. None of these experts have said anything about aliens, gods, or some supernatural power coming from the clouds or whatever. This is your every time and over and over again making it so lol.
how do you tell the difference between a modern reproduction/fake and an ancient object made with similar technology?
Obviously the provedence. But also by testing more and more vases until it gets to the point that skeptics cannot deny and use the idea that they are fake. Unless they want to start claiming all the vases in museums are fakes and those with provedence going back to Petries and other digs ect.
That would be a good method, but as I noted several days ago -- there are fakes in museums. Fake artifacts. Fake paintings, etc.
Yes so thats why more data is needed. But I think it has already been established. Some vases come directly from digs such as Petries. Some have been scanned on site under Mastaba 17 and the Stepped pyramid. Others have carbon dating to 3,500BC and still others have provedence as early as the 1800's. But admittedly the more the better to shut the skeptics down.
But as I mentioned the fixation on the vases overlooks the many, many other signatures and out of place works that suggest advanced tech and knowledge. Altogether this makes a strong case for ancient advanced tech and knowledge.
This is the third of four paragraphs responding to a simple statement I made that double-blind testing is for biomedical research. You just went and rambled on. I've seen live, informal debates where one party is just waiting for the other to stop talking before they resume whatever it was they were saying and don't respond to what was said. This feels an awful lot like that Steve. If you keep replying with non-responsive answers I am just going to point it out and ignore what *you* wrote.
Thats because what I am saying is going over your head. I am not just retalking about the "blind tests". Once again I am using that example like other examples of how skeptics demand unreal criteria when alternative ideas that are contrary to their worldview are proposed. Yet will not place the same criteria on themselves or on the expectation of the evidence required. Its been happening all through this thread.
Did I call for a specific test? (Show me where.) If these tests are necessary or enlightening they should be done in the proper controlled conditions. That is true no matter what the requirements are such as taking months to prepare a secure, stable space in the museum, set up and calibrate the equipment, etc. This fly-by-night stuff seems very amateur.
Once again I am not talking about that special test or any particular requirement. Rather its the unreal and inconsistent requirements being made by skeptics. In your case it is demanding peer review and certain criteria. While presenting support or making claims without the same level of criteria. By assuming and rideculing anyone including scientists or experts in their fields as whackos.
I am using the other posters example of unreal expectations along with your own to show how generally this is the double standard and hypocracy of the skeptics.
Then they should have multiple groups of experts designing test protocols and analysis protocols *before* the measurements and conducting independent analysis leading to the production of a written product.
Ah they already did and that was part of it. This shows you did not bother to even investigate and dismissed this out of hand as psudeoscience.
Which leads to...
If they aren't ready to submit their results to peer review then they need to SHUT UP and stop making videos and web pages and DO THE WORK first.
Lol you don't like it. It seems ok for the Scientists against Myths or the many experiments such as those from Robert Stocks sweating away in the Ciro sun trying to saw granite blocks and declaring "see it can be done" lol.
I think its good that they open up the actual testing process to the public. To anyone who wants to download the STL files and do their own research. Its gathering momentum and more experts are coming in. Its actually led to further testing and discoveries.
No, No, No. Nothing is "simple". You are talking about analyzing high-precision measurements for alleged high-precision signals. That is not some over-the-weekend quick hack job. The sources of error must be analyzed. The calibration must be analyzed. The reconstruction must be analyzed, etc., etc., etc.
And it is clearly not some over the weekend and backyard testing like we see from skeptics like Science against Myth. Yet their backyard experiements over the weekend are quite acceptable to skeptics.
This is ongoing science, calibration is done and recorded for you to see. Its been repeated many times by independent testers. It shows that you are biased in relegating all this work to "some over-the-weekend quick hack job".
The ideas presented in this thread have varied from the plausible (see OP) to the ludicrous. We've tried to show you the claims are not met by the evidence, but you double down.
Thats because your biased and clearly wrong. You have acknowledged the signatures are real and your are seeing the same thing the tests are showing. You just think they are frauds.
Others have acknowledge the signatures in the fact that some sort of lathe was used. They just don't accept that the vases that have these signatures are from the predynastic time they are being attributed to. Or they want to argue red herrings about small detail that does not change the fact that these vases have modern maching marks on them.
We've tried to show you that the "thought leaders" in the community of video makers you cite are all deeply embeded in abject nonsense and you take it as personal attack.
And I have clearly showed that this precision in the vases and other works was well recognised going back 100 years. They just did not do and further tests like today. Like everything we are looking closer at Egyptian history. More independent researchers are out there in the field. The gatekeepers no longer have the keys lol and we are hearing more about these amazing works in more detail.
Yes I agree there are the fringe loonies but you are relegating everyone to that box. Many of these researchers are doing good science. This shows that you are more or less being the opposite 'thought leader' except pushing false narratives that tar everyone as whackos for simply suggesting such ideas.
We tried to pry you away from it by showing that the base ideas that drive this "work" are deeply tied to racism and colonialism, but you just react as if we called you a racist. (we didn't).
This idea of "we tried" to save you from the delusion idea is itself exactly what you are accusing me of. That just suggesting such alternative ideas and knowledge is something you need to help people get away from lol. That its not the proper way to think.
I would imagine if we were on a Christian tops like the resurrection of Christs body defying physics you would be also trying to rescue people from such deluded thinking and beliefs. Thats why you are here on a social platform and not a science one and defending the true knowledge isnt it. Helping people be enlightened lol.
What more are we to do? How many times shall we gently lead you through the swamp of nonsense your posts derive from only to be told that we are dogmatic and attacking people unjustly. This has to end at some point and if bluntness is the only way to do that, then I guess that is the form my replies must now take, so be it.
Lol that form was taken from the very first pages. There was no gentle leading. It was whackos from the start lol. Then it was name calling like how can you be so stupid or ignorant followed in between with its psudoscience I tell you, Dunn is a Quack I tell you. Then I post evidence from guess what "PEER REVIEWED science and we can here crickets lol.
This is not some gentle and neutral leading. This is narrative based on your own worldview belief that is once again being pushed onto those who have alternative worldview that are open to alternative ways of knowling like God, like miracles, like supernatural stuff. You know the stuff you automatically relegate as whacko.
Am I clear enough now lol. This has never been about facts, objective reality and being neutral and open. This has been about epistemic superiority and dogma. Which ironically is exactly what the OP is about. Your only prove the OP lol.
It was a video made for only those in the Cult of the Ancient Tech. For the rest of us it was...
There you go again. Slipping in the word "cult" is part of creating the narrative that its all whacko and psuedoscience. But thats your worldview assumption and belief. You only accept certain findings and the tests that go ith them If the findings support your worldview then there little scrutiny of the testing. If it doesn't then every little step is scrutinised and rideculed. Thats how it works.
In this case you find it boring. You admit you are not a metrologist or engineer. But this is still science so its interesting to those who are metrologists. Its interesting for anyone who wants to see what the scientists do and watch their tests. Its interesting for anyone who is into Egyptian history and their amazing works.
But you rtelegate this as boiring . Thats ok thats your opinion, But its the relegating it as "Boring" as a way to argue that its nothing and meaningless that is the problem. You are using that to deminish and even ridecule the way others see this as real science and important.
Which goes back to what I said above how this is not science itself but imposing your worldview and opinion over others as though you hold the epistemic and metaphysical truths.
I know doing this the right way is boring. But that is science. Deal with it.
There you go. You just confirmed once again what I am saying lol. That some how these tests and researchers are not real and just psuedoscience and not doing things the right way. While I might add that skeptics on this thread are quite happy to offer their own unqualified and unsupported opinion via the same level of testing and analysis that these so called whackos are doing.
Generally we copuld say that there are two sides to this issue of vases. One is myself who has at least offered links to many iondependent tests and analysis whether right or wrong. On the other hand all I have seen from skeptics is complaints and unsupported claims that this is all whacko.
Hypocrical and double standards.
