They use a different quality criteria, precise and imprecise means different hings for Maximus Energy and Karoly and the Artifact Foundation.
Not really. They both use the same criteria as in metrology. Just different methods. But each method comes to the same measurement. Its not as if guasge metrology is finding a crooked circularity and light scan is finding a near perfect circularity.
They are both finding near perfect circularity but with varying degrees of how far the method can measure down to ie 1,1000th of an inch and microns. But both are within the range of machining precision as opposed to hand made.
They are the same according to Maximus Energy
View attachment 371141
Olgas O1 cluster with the green Petrie vases.
I see what you mean. I pointed this out earlier that Olga cheated. She used modern tech (turning wheel with ball bearings to stablise vase to get precision in cirularity around the out only. This actually proves the case for modern tech lathing being needed to make these precision vases.
But as mentioned this level of tech was not available. Scientists against Myth which Olga represented aim was to show how the traditional method of the bore and bow stick method could replicate the precision vases and other works like Petrie's core No 7. But they introduced modern tech that was not available. Maximus mentions thyis.
Also notice how Olgas other vase is way out in the imprecise where she did not use the turning table. A number of Bealls vases were better than Olgas other vase and looked way more precise. Yet they were imprecise to the point of hand made.
A Note on the ‘Replica’ Vases
The ‘replica’ vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ were made by Olga Vdovina in collaboration with the antropogenez.ru. The objective of the replication effort was to show that it was possible to make stone vases using stone, wood, and copper tools known to ancient Egyptians.
I must point out that Olga Vdovina made the vase ‘O1’ using a plastic rotary table supported by a ball bearing to control the outer surface accuracy through rotation by painting the elevated spots with a sharpie marker – Fig. 29. The use of modern technology in making the ‘O1’ vase represented a significant deviation from the initial objective of antropogenez.ru to use only the tools available to the ancient Egyptians.
Nevertheless, both vases are classified as ‘IMPRECISE’ according to the proposed quality metric, despite the impressive outer surface circularity of ‘O1’ on only 5 thousandths of an inch. This remarkable circularity was achieved due to the use of the ball-bearing supported rotary table, which is a contemporary piece of technology that was not available to the ancient Egyptians.
Many fake artifacts have been produced since Napoleons invasion of Egypt, how well made the fakes are follow a distribution some of them are going to be trash and some of them are going to look fantastic. The ones that are of high quality have a much higher chance to be spared for posterity.
Even if they are 5,000 years old lol. The same logic and I think this is true. That even all cultures that came later and found these vases preserved them because of their unique beauty and precision. If the logic is that these precision vases have risen to the top because they are valued. Then this does not negate that vases 5,000 years old are genuine and have been preserved for the same reason.
So we have a selection of fake but nice and high quality vases, going through time. So people did care about precision even back then. I don't find it far-fetched that some fakes can be of very high precision.
But why. Why the precision. Why bother with making them so precise when the precision was not an important factor and would not be noticed or measured to check. Seems an unreal hassel and expense to go to for nothing.
These vases are not easy to make. Even modern CNC vase makers find it hard to get such precision without damaging their machines. Imagine back in the 1920s and 60s even. It was no small operation.
They are using different definitions of precise and imprecise.
Not really. One uses 0.020mm and the other 0.025 from memory. They deem a threshold in the tolerances allowed in precision machining. They all fall within that threshold of machine precision. That a lathe was used to achieve such circular tight finishes. As opposed to the wobbly traditional method.
That is not a statement where they guarantee their authenticity.
Fair enough. Though I think it does tell people or they will go away thinking they are authentic.
If the issue of genuine works is such a big problem then why don't people demand only fully autenticated examples go in museums so as to not create a false idea. Which more or less is the point of this thread. That the lack of clarity and false narratives and ideas are being allowed that is flawed.
That's not what I said, I said the act of taking measurements is not science by itself. Metrology is the science about measurements, and yes they do take many measurements but they also use that data in order to further our understanding how we should take measurements.
Huh. I though tests are tests. Just data, output, numbers, stats ect ect. Its collected first without making any spectulation about what they represent. These two aspect have to be kept seperate. So the metrology is just cold, hard factual numbers being collected. The more the better. I think some vases had over 100,000 data points of measure.
But thats all it is and all the metrology can be compared or reanalysed in the STL files and redone to check. But if the vase is X cm then this cannot be falsified. 30cm a ruler is 30cm no matter how you measure it. Near perfect circularity or perpendicularity is what it is and measured in the vases 3D reality.
The only way the cold hard data can be biased or abused is the speculation about what the data represents. Some may say the researchers are exaggerating the findings and its not as big a deal. People are seeing patterns in things that don't have what they imagine. Or to push as certain conspiriacy like aliens or God even. But thats a seperate issue which is subjective and not objective like numbers and math.
Why should anyone publish a paper refuting them when all they have done is put it up as podcasts and on their own webpages? What we write here carry as much weight as their findings, it is also public and readable for everyone.
Not really. I see a group that has physically done tests, and then analysed the findings and lay out in a formal way their case. In fact they have only laid out the data and how this relates to the signatures and machining or traditional method.
So if someone wants to refute this like Olga and Scientists against myth you would want some physical testing or a formal article that is published somewhere. In stead on on a social media.
I mean technically I am claiming noting myself. I am arguing for the data linked and that it is what it claims. Others that want to refute that would need to do like me and find some sort of published work or do it themselves and publish it.
But like I said in the meantime I think its ok to argue some specific. But that does not represent as the same thing as a proper paper or a published formal analysis.
Because this is the arena Maximus Energy and the Artifact Foundation have chosen. They could instead send their manuscripts to a journal, if they wanted to interact with subject matter experts.
I don't think you understand modern science as far as the different ways its done now. The traditional is funding of some sort, backing or depending on your connections lol. But just like media and other areas more independents, crowd funding, podcasts generating interest and funding and expertise ect. This is how the funding came about to test the vases and begin the projects.
Its a good community way to do research and projects by tapping into a wider range of interest and funding. Most importantly it side steps the gatekeepers who want to restrict what is allowed to be published. Do you think whether right or wrong that such a project would ever be published by mainstream archeology lol. If this thread is an example then, no chance lol.
Measurements are not found by metrology, metrology informs those measuring how to take good measurements.
OK, whatever. The measures are the measures and the measures. They are measuring a physical object that only has one measure in its length or circularity. The metrology has found those measures in the vase and they come out very precise to the level of machining and not hand made.
Ok, so it is 6 cm long. what were the tolerances of the measuring equipment,
This is done in the calibration. For example in guage metrology they have a calibration sphere. For Maximus it was
Calibration
To ensure the validity of measurements, EMS, Inc. has calibrated the CT scanner by scanning a ruby T-stylus sphericity set (a NIST traceable metrological standard), which contained a small bead with the radius R = 1.99820 mm – Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. The metrological standard, a ruby bead with the radius R = 2.0026 mm.
how was the measurement setup, etc. They could try to get published in a metrology journal if they want, no one is stopping them.
Its not a case of stopping anyone. Just gathering more data.
But without good provenance, a measurement is inconsequential. A number in and of itself can not say that modern tech is needed, that is an interpretation.
As I keep saying we have precise vases with good provenance from the Petrie museum. Others will follow. I also linked the machine marks. So even without the measures we have a witness mark of machining. The machine marks don't come from the traditional method. We have already proven they leave a different mark. This is clear machining marks, circular strirations just the same as a modern bore lathing would leave.
Lathe Marks
Given these results, I conclude that the ‘PRECISE’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection were machined using advanced tools since the lathe marks are clearly visible on the inner surfaces of the vases where they were not polished away completely.
Fig. 11. Lathe marks on the inner surface of the vessel V18 from Matt Beall’s collection (left) compared to the lathe marks on the modern object M8 (right).
Abstract Predynastic Egyptian stone vessels (c. 4000–3100 BCE) offer unique insight into the remarkable technological sophistication of a culture that significantly predates Egypt’s unification. Hu…
maximus.energy
### The Granite Vases: Evidence of an Unknown Civilization and the Mystery of Missing Re-Engineering The paper-thin granite vases of ancient Egypt are among the most enigmatic artifacts ever...
www.facebook.com
So, which are the overlapping Petrie vases in Maximus Energys dataset and the Artifact Foundations dataset.
Write into Maximus lol. I did not do the testing. Its in the article in fact. I can't keep running around answering every little objection. Its not my job. If you think the tests are not proper then write to the testers lol.
The Maximus article breaks down the method and results. It tested modern CNC vases, Beall's 22 predynastic vases, and Olgas handmade vases. The tests found that 11 of Matt Bealls predynastic vases fell into the precision class on par with modern maching. Two surpoassed modern machining.
The Artifact Foundation found 5 vases in the very high precision and another 6 within modern machining from the Petrie museum. They also tested Olgas vases and found them less precise and in line with hand made. They also noted that Olga used modern tech.
Why are none of the Petrie vases in Maximus Energys dataset in his precise class while the Artifact Foundation say some are. This needs to be cleared up, these are questions that would hav arisen during peer-review most likely.
They are in the precise class. But unlike the vases from the Petrie museum which are the museums. Matt Bealls vases were on loan to the Petrie museum when tested. They were a different set of vases. But funny enough the split between precision machined and handmade less precise was fairly similar. Around 50%. If this continues there should be many precision vases found.
Not according to the surface deviation plots, you now the colorful depictions of vases that shows indents and ridges etc.
Yes the green is close to perfect and the dark blue and burnt orange are indents. I think the yellow is slightly raised. But the indents (dark blue) which is wear are to be expected for 5,000 year old vases. The raised aread may be buildups. But you have to remember the majority of the vase is near perfect and most of the deviation is only in 1,000ths of an inch amd still with machine leevel precision.
Your making out like its massive differences. One again just eyeing the vases you have to squint to see any deviation. Even then I don't think any can be seen. Whereas you look at Olgas vases or other softer vases and you see the deviations.
