There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · 2025-10-08T08:47:52-0500

BCP1928 said:
An appropriate measuring device. Maybe you should learn about them and determine which ones might have been available to ancient Egyptian craftsmen.

I don't think there is any that the ancients could have used. Certainly not to the micron level. That takes modern tech like a guage sensor or structured light. You can't do it with a ruler. You keep forgetting that the precision lines have to be cut into the object. Measuring is one thing. Cutting to that precision is another.

BCP1928 said:
Now you're beginning to catch on.

And tell me again what was the measuring tool that could be used to know when to stop rubbing. Why grind, rub and repeat 100 times when one or two passes with the lathe will get the symmetry down to the micron level. Thats how we normally do it.

BCP1928 said:
Because they didn't have it, they had to do without.

How do you know. This is denying their ability as ancient craftsman lol. Being creative with tech is just as creative. If someone found a vase from modern CNC machining in 5,000 years they would think this culture was very talented.

BCP1928 said:
That's a bare-face lie and you know it.

Actually its not as it uses the exact same logic as yourself. You object that I am denying the craftsmanship of ancients by suggesting they had modern type tech that helped them achieve the precision. Rather than their unaided freehands as an artist in sculpturing the vase.

Yet you are quite happy to allow that these ancients used other tools like chisels, grinders and some sort of wheel or lathe. The majority of people on this thread acknowledge that the symmetry and circularity in the vases was achieved by some sort of lathing or wheel.

This is the same thing as I am doing except I am taking it one step further and saying they had tools just like you say but just more sophisticated tools to achieve the high precision.

How is this different.

BCP1928 said:
All part of the craft of using hand tools, then and now.

Are you saying that the hand tools such as a chisel, pounders and rubbing achieved the near perfect symmetry and circularity. Or did they get help from some sort of lathe or wheel to ensure circularity.

BCP1928 said:
No, I don't see any logic. What I do see is a dishonest attempt to win an argument by constantly shifting your assertions about what constitutes "tech."

The assertions is exactly what it needs to be. Your saying the ancients were aided by tools and measurements to get the precision and not their bare unaided hands without tools. I am saying the same thing. Just making the tools more sophisticated to match the high precision.

Its logical because everyone recognises that precise symmetry and circularity are an obvious result and signature of a lathe and not unaided hands or hands with a chisel and pounding stone. The lathe and not the artists is what gets the precision because thats what lathes do and we recognise this.

The chisel or grinder is what helps get a certain level of shape and precision and not the bare hands. Same thing, the lathing helps get the better shape and precision and not the unaided hands or unguided hands with chisels and pounders in them.

What you want me to believe is that a human can create a precision machine part that we can only achieve with lathe machining but without a lathe or any machining. When its a logical and evidential fact is precise symmetry and circularity is the result of lathing of some sort. But you want to make a special case for these ancients otherwise we are denying the artistry lol.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-08T09:04:21-0500

stevevw said:
I don't think there is any that the ancients could have used. Certainly not to the micron level. That takes modern tech like a guage sensor or structured light. You can't do it with a ruler. You keep forgetting that the precision lines have to be cut into the object. Measuring is one thing. Cutting to that precision is another.

And tell me again what was the measuring tool that could be used to know when to stop rubbing. Why grind, rub and repeat 100 times when one or two passes with the lathe will get the symmetry down to the micron level. Thats how we normally do it.

Right, it saves a lot of work.

stevevw said:
How do you know. This is denying their ability as ancient craftsman lol. Being creative with tech is just as creative. If someone found a vase from modern CNC machining in 5,000 years they would think this culture was very talented.

Yes the "culture" but not necessarily the craftsmen themselves. QED, huh?

stevevw said:
Actually its not as it uses the exact same logic as yourself. You object that I am denying the craftsmanship of ancients by suggesting they had modern type tech that helped them achieve the precision. Rather than their unaided freehands as an artist in sculpturing the vase.

More lies. No one has suggested that they used nothing but their "unaided freehands."

stevevw said:
Yet you are quite happy to allow that these ancients used other tools like chisels, grinders and some sort of wheel or lathe. The majority of people on this thread acknowledge that the symmetry and circularity in the vases was achieved by some sort of lathing or wheel.

More lies. I have never denied that some sort of wheel or lathe might have been used.

stevevw said:
This is the same thing as I am doing except I am taking it one step further and saying they had tools just like you say but just more sophisticated tools to achieve the high precision.

How is this different.

Because you are downgrading the ability of ancient Egyptian craftsman to use the tools that were known to be used by them or were possibly available to them.

stevevw said:
Are you saying that the hand tools such as a chisel, pounders and rubbing achieved the near perfect symmetry and circularity. Or did they get help from some sort of lathe or wheel to ensure circularity.

I don't know. The lathe question is certainly up in the air, though you have denied the possibility of any lathe that would be within the scope of their ability to construct. Their "culture" wasn't good enough for you.

stevevw said:
The assertions is exactly what it needs to be. Your saying the ancients were aided by tools and measurements to get the precision and not their bare unaided hands without tools. I am saying the same thing. Just making the tools more sophisticated to match the high precision.

And I am trying to explain to you why that is not necessary.

stevevw said:
Its logical because everyone recognises that precise symmetry and circularity are an obvious result and signature of a lathe and not unaided hands. The lathe and not the artists unaided steady hand is what gets the precision.

The chisel or grinder is what helps get the shape and not the bare hands. Same thing, the lathing helps get the better shape and not the bare hands.

You seem fascinated with "bare hands." I would tell you what to do with your "bare hands" but I don't think they would both fit.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-08T09:33:00-0500

OK, that was mean, and I apologise. so let me try and be more helpful. You will remember that I once explained to you that a common task for an apprentice machinist was to produce a 1” steel cube square and regular to 0.001” all around, using hand tools. The tools are, from left to right, a hacksaw, files, a square, calipers, a calibrated gage block and a vise.

These pictures show modern versions of these tools, of course but they were ALL AVAILABLE TO ANCIENT EGYPTIAN CRAFTSMEN WHO KNEW HOW TO USE THEM whether you like it or not.

sjastro · 2025-10-08T12:50:55-0500

@stevevw why do you continue to perpetrate this lie of Egyptian vases being made to near perfect symmetry?
Doubling down on this assertion without reliable evidence is also an exercise in rank stupidity.

At this stage no one knows the answer until an in depth study is performed using ISO 1101 approved metrology software for calculations.

stevevw · 2025-10-09T00:59:54-0500

BCP1928 said:
Right, it saves a lot of work.

Then why object to the suggestion that some sort of lathing was involved.

BCP1928 said:
Yes the "culture" but not necessarily the craftsmen themselves. QED, huh?

Ok so we find some precision vases 5,000 years ago and its the culture and not the craftman.

BCP1928 said:
More lies. No one has suggested that they used nothing but their "unaided freehands."

lol you suggested they were using a lathe or wheel. You suggested that a boring bar was used as a lathe to explain the precise synnetry and circularity.

#593
The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available.

BCP1928 said:
More lies. I have never denied that some sort of wheel or lathe might have been used.

Wait a minute you just literally said above that no one has suggested the ancients use nothing but their unaided hands. Now your saying they used the lathe as an aid to reach the precision.

BCP1928 said:
Because you are downgrading the ability of ancient Egyptian craftsman to use the tools that were known to be used by them or were possibly available to them.

How exactly. How exactly have I said anything different to you. Make up your mind. Did they use a lathe or not. If so your saying exactly what I am saying.

Its not downgrading any craftsmans skill. I am talking about the lathe achieving the near precise symmetry and circularity that everyone recognises is caused by a lathe. Yes they are good craftsman in being able to use a lathe. But its the lathe thats achieving the high precision.

BCP1928 said:
I don't know. The lathe question is certainly up in the air,

You just said you have never denied a lathe being used. You have been explaining how a lathe can answer the question of how the ancients achieved high precision in symmetry and roundness. You said even a 1950's lathe can do this as you have used one lol.

BCP1928 said:
though you have denied the possibility of any lathe that would be within the scope of their ability to construct. Their "culture" wasn't good enough for you.

No this is the consensus opinion of mainstream archeology. The potters wheel and Bore stick did not come along until at least a 1,000 years after the Naqada people.

I deny that they would have had a modern CNC lathe. Obviously as computers and that level of high tech did not come in until late 20th century. But the signatures are the same as modern lathing.

I am actually saying the ancients were smart. I am praising them, highlighting their amazing ability. It is skeptics who are restricting these people to traditional ways and limiting the possibilities.

The ancients themselves claim that they had advanced knowledge that defied convention. If anything I am supporting their culture as I am not denying the possibility of this alternative advanced knowledge.

BCP1928 said:
And I am trying to explain to you why that is not necessary.

Actually you explained why it is necessary. You explained how the near precise symmetry and circularity was produced by lathing. That lathing explains this signature and not unaided hands without lathing and just chisels and pounders.

BCP1928 said:
You seem fascinated with "bare hands." I would tell you what to do with your "bare hands" but I don't think they would both fit.

lol my imagination is making me laugh.

Then after I posted my imagination ran wild lol. I could use my bare hands as you said and pull out a precision vase lol.

stevevw · 2025-10-09T09:03:36-0500

sjastro said:
@stevevw why do you continue to perpetrate this lie of Egyptian vases being made to near perfect symmetry?
Doubling down on this assertion without reliable evidence is also an exercise in rank stupidity.

Its not a lie though. You are complaining about some of the measures that are a little more imprecise. But that those measures like in the widest parts of the vase where there is more room for slight deviations is small fry still. We are talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of a piece of paper lol.

But at the best which in in many more places we are talking a hair or two.

So all the complaining about the so called imprecisement numbers are red herrings as far as whether or not this negates the fact that a lathe was used. We had some saying a 1950's lathe would do that is not as precise as modern machining.

To achieve some of these most precise symmetry, circularility, straightness and flatness down to a hair or two is well recognised as signatures of lathing. The more precise the more sophisticated the lathing as far as fixed and stable machining that will not move or deviate hardly at all.

So in reality its not a matter of whether a lathe was used but how sophisticated it was. Skeptics like to say 'no lathe' and it was all free hand with a few simple tools. Expert machine toolers and engineers doing the tests say the witness marks match modern machining to achieve such near precision.

In fact most on this thread have had to begrudgingly acknowledge some sort of lathing was involved. Even if that was a Bore stick type rotation. I have even linked evidence that mainstream archeology acknowledges that some sort of lathing must have been involved with these precision vases going back 100 years.

So all this objection does not negate that some pretty advanced methods were used at a time when the potters wheel was not even around.

sjastro said:
At this stage no one knows the answer until an in depth study is performed using ISO 1101 approved metrology software for calculations.

Give me a break. This was used. Its rediculous that you think somehow the proper software is going to suddenly show that the numbers are wrong in the metrology. Explain how the different software will change the measures in the vase. Change the measure for symmetry or circularity found.

How does this change the guage metrology that finds a hairs deviation in circularity or flatness. How does this change the circularity or concentricity found in the vase by structured light scanning. Do the numbers change somehow with the software.

The testers clearly state that these methods of testing are the 'Industry Standard'. They explain why they used the specific methods and software and why they chose this as being the best method.

Why is it that many have downloaded the files and none have complained like you. Why has absolutely no one formally objected but only you on some social media platform. This is all red herrings. Write a formal paper showing that they are using the wrong methods and send it in.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-09T09:04:08-0500

stevevw said:
Then why object to the suggestion that some sort of lathing was involved.

I don't. But your instance that it must be some "modern" type lathe is baseless.

stevevw said:
Ok so we find some precision vases 5,000 years ago and its the culture and not the craftman.

That appears to be what you are trying to prove, yes.

stevevw said:
lol you suggested they were using a lathe or wheel. You suggested that a boring bar was used as a lathe to explain the precise synnetry and circularity.

#593
The boring bar is generally used in a lathe, where a lathe is available.

Wait a minute you just literally said above that no one has suggested the ancients use nothing but their unaided hands.

You are the only one suggesting that they used nothing but their unaided hands. I'm not even sure you know what that means.

stevevw said:
Now your saying they used the lathe as an aid to reach the precision.

I have no idea what they used. Like you, I'm just speculating.

stevevw said:
How exactly. How exactly have I said anything different to you. Make up your mind. Did they use a lathe or not. If so your saying exactly what I am saying.

Its not downgrading any craftsmans skill. I am talking about the lathe achieving the near precise symmetry and circularity that everyone recognises is caused by a lathe. Yes they are good craftsman in being able to use a lathe. But its the lathe thats achieving the high precision.

You just said you have never denied a lathe being used. You have been explaining how a lathe can answer the question of how the ancients achieved high precision in symmetry and roundness. You said even a 1950's lathe can do this as you have used one lol.

So what?

stevevw said:
No this is the consensus opinion of mainstream archeology. The potters wheel and Bore stick did not come along until at least a 1,000 years after the Naqada people.

I deny that they would have had a modern CNC lathe. Obviously as computers and that level of high tech did not come in until late 20th century. But the signatures are the same as modern lathing.

I am actually saying the ancients were smart. I am praising them, highlighting their amazing ability. It is skeptics who are restricting these people to traditional ways and limiting the possibilities.

The ancients themselves claim that they had advanced knowledge that defied convention. If anything I am supporting their culture as I am not denying the possibility of this alternative advanced knowledge.

Actually you explained why it is necessary. You explained how the near precise symmetry and circularity was produced by lathing. That lathing explains this signature and not unaided hands without lathing and just chisels and pounders.

lol my imagination is making me laugh.

Then after I posted my imagination ran wild lol. I could use my bare hands as you said and pull out a precision vase lol.

Really, I have lost track of what you are trying to prove by showing that ancient Egyptians used stonecutting lathes.

sjastro · 2025-10-09T14:59:28-0500

stevevw said:
Its not a lie though. You are complaining about some of the measures that are a little more imprecise. But that those measures like in the widest parts of the vase where there is more room for slight deviations is small fry still. We are talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of a piece of paper lol.

But at the best which in in many more places we are talking a hair or two.

So all the complaining about the so called imprecisement numbers are red herrings as far as whether or not this negates the fact that a lathe was used. We had some saying a 1950's lathe would do that is not as precise as modern machining.

To achieve some of these most precise symmetry, circularility, straightness and flatness down to a hair or two is well recognised as signatures of lathing. The more precise the more sophisticated the lathing as far as fixed and stable machining that will not move or deviate hardly at all.

So in reality its not a matter of whether a lathe was used but how sophisticated it was. Skeptics like to say 'no lathe' and it was all free hand with a few simple tools. Expert machine toolers and engineers doing the tests say the witness marks match modern machining to achieve such near precision.

In fact most on this thread have had to begrudgingly acknowledge some sort of lathing was involved. Even if that was a Bore stick type rotation. I have even linked evidence that mainstream archeology acknowledges that some sort of lathing must have been involved with these precision vases going back 100 years.

So all this objection does not negate that some pretty advanced methods were used at a time when the potters wheel was not even around.

Your cognitive dissonance has apparently affected your understanding of the English language. What part of my post(s) did you not understand where suspect software or its failure to analyse scans as 3D objects which is a given fact, cannot lead to any form of conclusion on how the vases were manufactured?

stevevw said:
Give me a break. This was used. Its rediculous that you think somehow the proper software is going to suddenly show that the numbers are wrong in the metrology. Explain how the different software will change the measures in the vase. Change the measure for symmetry or circularity found.

Stop making stupid ignorant comments on subject matters clearly beyond your level of understanding.
ISO 1101 is nothing more than a collection of letters and numbers to you, it defines zonal tolerances for 3D objects which is beyond the scope of the amateur software of Maximus.energy and Artifacts Foundation.

stevevw said:
How does this change the guage metrology that finds a hairs deviation in circularity or flatness. How does this change the circularity or concentricity found in the vase by structured light scanning. Do the numbers change somehow with the software.

If you had the necessary comprehension skills, the answer has been given on numerous occasions. Also don't let the facts get in the way when vase data analysed by Polyworks and Zeiss Inspector do not show 'hairs' deviation.

stevevw said:
The testers clearly state that these methods of testing are the 'Industry Standard'. They explain why they used the specific methods and software and why they chose this as being the best method.

What a load of BS the software they used is not industry standard.

stevevw said:
Why is it that many have downloaded the files and none have complained like you. Why has absolutely no one formally objected but only you on some social media platform. This is all red herrings. Write a formal paper showing that they are using the wrong methods and send it in.

Another concept beyond your level of understanding involves echo chambers. Did it ever occur to you they are preaching to the converted and so why should any doubts be raised?

Since you are presenting their arguments here I'm asking you why did they not use professional approved software in the analysis?

sjastro · 2025-10-09T19:03:14-0500

To further illustrate that @stevevw doesn't know what he is talking about, here is the method used by Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy for determining circularity.

They are both using the method of least squares which is a curve fitting exercise.

By comparison circularity known as roundness in ISO 1101 uses MCZ (minimum circle zone) which is defined as all points fitting inside two concentric circles (Figure 81).

Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy use a curve fitting method which focuses on average error minimization, not maximum deviation where outliers or extreme values are averaged out.
In the ISO 1100 method all points are handled equally including statistical outliers, furthermore the more circular the cross section the less the radius difference between the concentric circles.

The least square method makes cross sections look more circular compared to MCZ which is used by all professional metrology software conforming to ISO 1101.
Given the near perfect symmetry and circularity nonsense spouted by @stevevw it's not surprising this is the case when amateur software is used.

stevevw · 2025-10-09T22:19:57-0500

sjastro said:
Your cognitive dissonance has apparently affected your understanding of the English language. What part of my post(s) did you not understand where suspect software or its failure to analyse scans as 3D objects which is a given fact, cannot lead to any form of conclusion on how the vases were manufactured?

Because the vases were analysed as 3D vases. We have several independent tests and 3D analysis has been included. You keep creating red herrings with this false idea that the vases must be analysed by some specific softward or they are wrong. They mention that new methods were created because these vases had no precedence to be able to measure the 3D surfaces.

You keep making out that this obviously and simple error you have created in your own mind makes all the independent tests from several research groups invalid. Yet they all speak in language that these vases have been verified as being 3D precise.

Your single objection is wiping out pages and pages of analysis that clearly contradicts your claim. They speak of industry standards in hardware and softeware for comparison to how they have analysed the software. I think I would rather believe the words spoken by the actual people doing the tests and that it is actually you who are in error.

We 3D Scanned Egypt's Oldest Vases | Micron-Level ...

Introducing Precision Metrology in the Study of Ancient Egyptian Stone Vessels

Surface variability (deviations from an idealized smooth surface) has been quantified for each object by comparing 3D scan data to a derived best-fit surface model. This innovative approach eliminates the traditional reliance on CAD models, which are currently the standard for analyzing manufactured parts. The best-fit model is generated by fitting a series of mathematical functions to the 2D profile of the scan data, creating a smooth, continuous surface that mathematically represents the artifact’s actual curvature. By comparing the scanned surface points (yi) to this derived best-fit surface (^y), we can quantify deviations across the entire object.

This process, developed to address limitations in conventional metrology, enables precise, artifact-specific analysis without prior design information.

Arc Scientific

arcsci.foundation

The 3D models of CAT scans of the ‘precise’ vases look like CAD models: their symmetry is so perfect that it is difficult to spot any surface profile variability when these models are rotated – Fig. 23-24.
https://maximus.energy/wp-content/u...ptian-Stone-Vessels_-A-Metrological-Study.pdf

If they can rotate a scanned vase in the software in 3D then they can analyse the vase in 3D. Simple as that.

sjastro said:
Stop making stupid ignorant comments on subject matters clearly beyond your level of understanding.
ISO 1101 is nothing more than a collection of letters and numbers to you, it defines zonal tolerances for 3D objects which is beyond the scope of the amateur software of Maximus.energy and Artifacts Foundation.

Yes so I figure out that the actual language being used is speaking on the vases in 3D language and not 2D. Your trying to use tech speak and the general laypersons ignorance to fool them with fallacies lol. In the hope that we won't see through your false analogies and misrepresentation of the findings.

I just don't think these researchers are lying when they say they analysed these vases in their 3D forms and not just 2D that it renders pages of anaysis as wrong based on such an obvious and simple error. I think you are mistaken and have not yourself understood their methods and how they incoporated 3D analysis.

From what I understand they more or less created new software to analysis these vases in 3D because they had no recedent to go by as far as precision tooling and machining is concerned. To say that these projects that wanted to use the latest tech in show that these vases are precise would neglect the most obvious measure which would be required to support their precision (3D) metrology and analysis seems too obvious a thing to be missed.

sjastro said:
If you had the necessary comprehension skills, the answer has been given on numerous occasions. Also don't let the facts get in the way when vase data analysed by Polyworks and Zeiss Inspector do not show 'hairs' deviation.

But other methods were used as well. Besides exactly what level of deviation would Polyworks and Zeiss inspector show. How can all the research groups with different independent hardware and softeware all come to the same findings of up to hair thickness precision. Its the different methods coming to similar findings that refutes your claim. All the methods cannot be wrong.

Those that are independent and different will lend support for the other methods that find similar precision.

sjastro said:
What a load of BS the software they used is not industry standard.

I have your opinion and I have theirs actually in a paper with actual research, tests and analysis published formerly.

sjastro said:
Another concept beyond your level of understanding involves echo chambers. Did it ever occur to you they are preaching to the converted and so why should any doubts be raised?

Like I said mainstream archeology recognises the precision and that this is from some sort of lathing or wheel. They even cheat with wheels to try and get similar precision lol. The idea that these vases involve some sort of tech beyond the orthodoxy is mainstream and not just a small group of whackos lol.

Have you ever considered that this 'echo chamber' might also be coming from skeptics and cynnics. The gatekeepers who want to preserve a certain paradigm or worldview about human history and knowledge.

This is just as likely as you claim the conspiracy groups. In fact if we look over the history of science we see that it was actually the ideas that contradicted the consensus and were deemed whacko that ended up becoming the fact. So I would not be too quick to lump those who are open to alternative ideas are in an ech chamber.

sjastro said:
Since you are presenting their arguments here I'm asking you why did they not use professional approved software in the analysis?

If you read the articles as I linked part of above they actually address and explain this very point. Hopw about you explain why their methods are not valid. Remembering that this is new software created to analysed these vases.

In other words they are not only preficent in using the standard industry software but they are skilled enough to create new industry standards of software to properly analyse the vases in full 3D form as they are unrecedented objects that required new methods of anaysing. .

stevevw · 2025-10-09T22:27:12-0500

sjastro said:
To further illustrate that @stevevw doesn't know what he is talking about, here is the method used by Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy for determining circularity.

View attachment 371306

They are both using the method of least squares which is a curve fitting exercise.

By comparison circularity known as roundness in ISO 1101 uses MCZ (minimum circle zone) which is defined as all points fitting inside two concentric circles (Figure 81).

View attachment 371307

Artifacts Foundation and Maximus.energy use a curve fitting method which focuses on average error minimization, not maximum deviation where outliers or extreme values are averaged out.
In the ISO 1100 method all points are handled equally including statistical outliers, furthermore the more circular the cross section the less the radius difference between the concentric circles.

The least square method makes cross sections look more circular compared to MCZ which is used by all professional metrology software conforming to ISO 1101.
Given the near perfect symmetry and circularity nonsense spouted by @stevevw it's not surprising this is the case when amateur software is used.

I give up. You win lol. I can't keep doing this techno stuff. Your killing me with science lol. I have two different claims. In fact I have several independent groups saying these are 3D anaysis and they speak in 3D language about the vases precision in the shapes like spheres and cyclinders.

They appear to have done the 3D metrology and software analysis in the language they use over and over and over again.

If you claim that I am not technically able to go into the specific then why are you throwing this stuff at me.

Like I said write a paper. You have half done it already it seems. Finish it and send it in to the research groups to point out this obvious error they all overlooked and that you are the only one who spotted it lol.

Search

Search

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

Arc Scientific

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

Need help?

Similar threads