There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T09:10:36-0500

stevevw said:
Yes exactly what skeptics do lol. Ironic that aint it.

Afterall these researchers are saying things you don't like. They are making the claims about lost advanced tech and knowledge.

It is you who are claiming these researchers are villians and whackos and living in fantasy land because they present something that refutes the orthodox pet theory lol.

Shouldn't you be discussing this with those who hold to this "orthodox pet theory" of yours? Nobody here is interested in defending it for them.

stevevw · 2025-10-12T09:38:02-0500

BCP1928 said:
Shouldn't you be discussing this with those who hold to this "orthodox pet theory" of yours? Nobody here is interested in defending it for them.

First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T09:47:51-0500

stevevw said:
First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

You presented the researchers' conclusions but they are not here to defend them. If you are not interested in defending them then why did you present them?

But that was not my point. You presented their work with the claim that it contradicts the "Orthodox view." You have been a little shifty about what that is, but as far as I can tell, no one here holds to what you think "the Orthodox view" is.

BTW, did you watch the video I just posted? What do you think of it?

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-12T10:05:10-0500

stevevw said:
First its not orthodox but very much unorthodox and thats why its being objected to on this thread.

Second its not my idea but the researchers findings that I have been linking all through this thread.

Third it is those who disagree with the researchers that need to discuss their objections with the researchers. I don't expect anyone to support the researchers claims or argue for them. I am just the relayer of the research findings. Don't shoot the messenger.

Have Karoly Poka gotten his PhD yet? Actual researchers will come around and interact with the findings when they are actually published in a decent journal. As it is right now it's all conjecture, and you are spreading it. It's going to be interesting if they ever dare to publish their findings.

stevevw · 2025-10-12T10:45:25-0500

BCP1928 said:
You presented the researchers' conclusions but they are not here to defend them. If you are not interested in defending them then why did you present them?

I do defend them lol. Thats the point. I would rather believe the researchers who have done the work and formally published the results. Than someone on a social media platform objecting to them. Until there is a formal refutation of their work thats all I can go with.

BCP1928 said:
But that was not my point. You presented their work with the claim that it contradicts the "Orthodox view." You have been a little shifty about what that is, but as far as I can tell, no one here holds to what you think "the Orthodox view" is.

Then why are they objecting to the view of those who propose these unorthodox ideas about ancient advanced knowledge. The two positions are clearly destinguished.

That is the orthodox tools and methods which are on the walls such as the Bore stick or bow drill method, chisels and pounders and rubbing.

Or some sort of lathing like modern machining.

There are two different industries. The Bore stick, pounding, chiseling and rubbing produce the imprecise vases as per tests and experiments done. The precision vases belong to a different method with different signatures which are more like modern day than the ancient methods as mentioned.

Simple as that. Except if these vases are from the pre dynastics and Naqada people. Then this is a problem and these vases are out of place artifacts or evidence of lost advanced knowledge because at that time there was no Bore stick, bow saw, potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe.

Sophisticated lathe because such tight tolerances of precision require a sophisticated lath that is tight, stable and the cutter is fixed or the vase is fixed and spinning at a fair speed. Or the cutter is very stable that it can handle high pressure to cut into granite. THis level of tech seems unreal for basically a mud brick and flint tool Neolithic culture according to the orthodox narrative.

BCP1928 said:
BTW, did you watch the video I just posted? What do you think of it?

Yes, its a good example of a bush lathe. Basic wheels, pullies, leverage ect. But thsi was not yet introduced to these ancient people. This is the point. Its not that later dyansties or in fact the potters wheel came from Mesopotamia to Egypt around 2600BC. But these vases go back 1,000 years earlier.

The weird thing is even the later Flywheel type lathing that wobbled could not produce such precision vases even in soft stones. So the tech 1,000 years later was not as advanced as the tech that went into these predynastic vases.

stevevw · 2025-10-12T10:52:15-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
Have Karoly Poka gotten his PhD yet? Actual researchers will come around and interact with the findings when they are actually published in a decent journal. As it is right now it's all conjecture, and you are spreading it. It's going to be interesting if they ever dare to publish their findings.

Yes from memory a PHD in Electro Engineering. His research has been featured in the Journal of Critical Care, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Symposium on Measurement and Control in Robotics.

The researchers come from diverse fields such as Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Manufacturing, Geology, Computer Science, History, Art, and Literature.

Christ Dunn has over 50 years experience in Engineering and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace and pioneered precision tooling methods. Other metrologists work in aerospace and precision tooling.

But how do you suppose its conjecture. How can hard data be conjecture. If a vase measures for good roundness its not conjecture but factual metrology.

They at least have some knowhow. I would rather trust them than someone on a social media platform.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T11:00:37-0500

stevevw said:
I do defend them lol. Thats the point. I would rather believe the researchers who have done the work and formally published the results. Than someone on a social media platform objecting to them. Until there is a formal refutation of their work thats all I can go with.

Where did they publish?

stevevw said:
Then why are they objecting to the view of those who propose these unorthodox ideas about ancient advanced knowledge. The two positions are clearly destinguished.

That is the orthodox tools and methods which are on the walls such as the Bore stick or bow drill method, chisels and pounders and rubbing.

Or some sort of lathing like modern machining.

There are two different industries. The Bore stick, pounding, chiseling and rubbing produce the imprecise vases as per tests and experiments done. The precision vases belong to a different method with different signatures which are more like modern day than the ancient methods as mentioned.

Simple as that. Except if these vases are from the pre dynastics and Naqada people. Then this is a problem and these vases are out of place artifacts or evidence of lost advanced knowledge because at that time there was no Bore stick, bow saw, potters wheel let alone a sophisticated lathe.

That you know about.

stevevw said:
Sophisticated lathe because such tight tolerances of precision require a sophisticated lath that is tight, stable and the cutter is fixed or the vase is fixed and spinning at a fair speed. Or the cutter is very stable that it can handle high pressure to cut into granite. THis level of tech seems unreal for basically a mud brick and flint tool Neolithic culture according to the orthodox narrative.

Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the "Orthodox narrative."

stevevw said:
Yes, its a good example of a bush lathe. Basic wheels, pullies, leverage ect. But thsi was not yet introduced to these ancient people. This is the point. Its not that later dyansties or in fact the potters wheel came from Mesopotamia to Egypt around 2600BC. But these vases go back 1,000 years earlier.

The weird thing is even the later Flywheel type lathing that wobbled could not produce such precision vases even in soft stones. So the tech 1,000 years later was not as advanced as the tech that went into these predynastic vases.

The precision of that lathe in the video depends on two things: the rigidity of the structure and the closeness of fit of the lathe centers in the countersinks in the workpiece. If the lathe bed is rigid and the centers a tolerably snug fit to the workpiece then there will be rotational symmetry to a high degree of precision. Those two constraints are exactly the same as the constraints on precision of rotational symmetry of work produced on a modern machine tool. Adding electric motors and a computer doesn't help.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-12T11:22:15-0500

stevevw said:
Yes from memory a PHD in Electro Engineering. His research has been featured in the Journal of Critical Care, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the International Symposium on Measurement and Control in Robotics.

The researchers come from diverse fields such as Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Manufacturing, Geology, Computer Science, History, Art, and Literature.

Christ Dunn has over 50 years experience in Engineering and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace and pioneered precision tooling methods. Other metrologists work in aerospace and precision tooling.

They at least some knowhow. I would rather trust them than someone on a social media platform.

Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject? What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

Hans Blaster · 2025-10-12T11:31:47-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject?

None, and that's the problem Steve runs from.

Stopped_lurking said:
What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

Dunn is an aerospace engineer who has written books about garbage-tier pseudo-Egpytology, notably one about how the Pyramids of Giza are "power plants".

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-12T11:40:22-0500

Hans Blaster said:
None, and that's the problem Steve runs from.

Dunn is an aerospace engineer who has written books about garbage-tier pseudo-Egpytology, notably one about how the Pyramids of Giza are "power plants".

I got a little suspicious when I realised that the egypt-interested mr Dunn I could find, had published in Analog magazine (which is a cool magazine for science fiction nerds and SF authors, not a serious scientific publisher). At this point I guess this only some kind of mental masturbation anyway.

stevevw · 2025-10-12T11:43:20-0500

BCP1928 said:
Where did they publish?

They have not published yet. The tests are only just done. More data has to come from more vases. That will give a more robust sample.

BCP1928 said:
That you know about.

Actually that everyone knows. This is the orthodox position not my position. Ther potters wheel and bore stick type tech was not introduced until around 2600BC. These vases are 3600BC.

In fact the weird thing is that we also know the Naqada cultures method of pot making which was the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel yet.

BCP1928 said:
Ah, yes. I had forgotten about the "Orthodox narrative."

The precision of that lathe in the video depends on two things: the rigidity of the structure and the closeness of fit of the lathe centers in the countersinks in the workpiece. If the lathe bed is rigid and the centers a tolerably snug fit to the workpiece then there will be rotational symmetry to a high degree of precision. Those two constraints are exactly the same as the constraints on precision of rotational symmetry of work produced on a modern machine tool. Adding electric motors and a computer doesn't help.

Its just that tech came way later and thats why this is so controversial. Also we are talking about granite and not wood lol. Then your talking a different pressure and stability under massive pressure. Thats why precision tooling machines are often much bigger than the piece to ensure stability under high pressure.

Even todays CNC machines have difficulty making these vases to that precision. As mentioned two attempts were made to replicate the vases and on both occassions the company could not complete the vase because it was beyond their capabilities. One only drilled a straight tube drill on the interior because they could not machine the inside to the same precision.

So imagine a device 5,500 years ago machining granite like in that image I linked earlier like its fresh off a modern machine lathing marks. Not wobbly but precision rings cut sharply into the granite. Even leaving steps as though the cutter pulled back and went in again.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T11:56:33-0500

stevevw said:
They have not published yet. The tests are only just done. More data has to come from more vases. That will give a more robust sample.

Actually that everyone knows. This is the orthodox position not my position. Ther potters wheel and bore stick type tech was not introduced until around 2600BC. These vases are 3600BC.

In fact the weird thing is that we also know the Naqada cultures method of pot making which was the coil and slab method because they did not have the potters wheel yet.

Its just that tech came way later and thats why this is so controversial. Also we are talking about granite and not wood lol. Then your talking a different pressure and stability under massive pressure. Thats why precision tooling machines are often much bigger than the piece to ensure stability under high pressure.

Exactly as I have explained: rigidity is a key factor. I've turned metal on a springpole lathe--not as a regular thing you understand, but to verify the "Orthodox position" that it could have been done. It works just fine

stevevw said:
Even todays CNC machines have difficulty making these vases to that precision. As mentioned two attempts were made to replicate the vases and on both occassions the company could not complete the vase because it was beyond their capabilities. One only drilled a straight tube drill on the interior because they could not machine the inside to the same precision.

So imagine a device 5,500 years ago machining granite like in that image I linked earlier like its fresh off a modern machine lathing marks. Not wobbly but precision rings cut sharply into the granite. Even leaving steps as though the cutter pulled back and went in again.

Why would you expect it to be "wobbly?" Why would you expect the tool marks to be different? I don't know whether the ancient Egyptions had any particular kind of machine tools, but like I explained to you earlier with the 1" metal cube, they certainly had the knowledge and technical ability to construct them. We do know that they had a sophisticated understanding of measurement standards, calibration and precision sufficient to do the job.

stevevw · 2025-10-12T12:27:09-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
Your memory is playing a prank on you, he's got a MSc in electrical engineering not a PhD. Yes he got a article in the journal of critical care, but it is not related to metrology, arcehology or egyptology. Which of the researchers have published in any relevant subject? What is the relation between the vases and Chris Dunn? Who is Chris Dunn? Is he employed by the Artifact Foundation or a collaborator with Max?

The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.
Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok. The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests and findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-10-12T12:59:52-0500

stevevw said:
The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

So what did Sir Flinders Petrie publish that is peer-reviewed then? From a quick glance it is much less than one would think, the science of archeology have come a long way since his heyday.

stevevw said:
Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

So why did you bring him up in relation to the vases then? Can you link to that teams webpage, if possible please avoid video, it is not format best used to give tables or figures. What papers are you thinking of?

stevevw said:
Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

Nothing in relation to metrology, arcehology or egyptology though? It is not much that is actually published is it? It is one report in Scientific Reports, and perhaps one in Oil and Gas Journal, the rest I don't believe have been through peer-review. Not really relevant.

stevevw said:
I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

His name is Karoly. He's not an PhD, he hasn't published anything in metrology, arcehology or egyptology. His podcast is one the level of social media postings.

stevevw said:
Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.

Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. The only thing I could see was that he was a guest on a podcast, is his name on any article they published together?

stevevw said:
Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. Consulted on using PCA to find a reasonable symmetry axis.

stevevw said:
Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

I have not uttered a single ad hominem, please show where if you believe I've done so.

stevevw said:
Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok.

Because they have self-elected to use non-experts as peer-review by not publishing in scientific journals, I would be glad to read their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

stevevw said:
The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

That is just an effect of how they choose to disseminate their findings. Until they do, their calculations doesn't carry more weight than people "publishing" here.

stevevw said:
I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests anf findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.

No, it only shows your preference for non-peer-reviewed statements.

You made claims about their credentials in post #656 and I asked about them in post #658 this discussion is not in any way an exercise in ad hominem. It is perfectly acceptable to ask for their credentials in metrology, archeology or egyptology, it is directly relevant for the discussion at hand.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T13:20:25-0500

stevevw said:
The good old logical fallacies again. I have lost count of the ad hominems lol. As I said last time this logical fallacy came up. If you want to play that game then Sir Flinders Petrie agreed with these researchers that these ancients had some sort of advanced knowledge and tech like a sophisticated lathe. You can't get a better credentialed expert of Egyptian artifacts.

And you have no idea what he meant by that because you have not got the technical background and because Petrie was working at the very beginning of our understanding about what ancient Egyptian craftsmen were capable of.

stevevw said:
Christ Dunn is associated with a seperate research team that did the guage and scan tests. He's a engineer and precision tooling and worked with NASA aerospace. A pioneer in precision tooling and published plenty of papers.

Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov is a physicists and engineer with Penn State Uni. Published plenty of papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Max-Fomitchev-Zamilov

I also mentioned other scientists that worked with Karoyl

Chris King Precision Components, with over 50 years of expertise in super high-precision manufacturing and machining across aerospace, medical, and biking industries.
Professor Marian Marcis PHD: Photogrametry, image scanning, 3D reconstruction and digitalisation of cultural heritage.
Johannes Bjorn Meyer PHD: Mathmatics, Geometry on negatively curved spaces, Signal Processing, and Medical research Engineering.
Marton Szemenyei PHD: Electrical Engineer, Computer Vision and Deep Learning research, Ai and 3D in Robotic perception.

Theres more but I can't be bothered having to address ad hominems.

Heres the thing. Your scrutinising these researchers while its ok that a few people on a social media platform can make objections and claims the research and testing is all wrong without any formal credentials or published work and its ok. The same level of scrutiny is not applied. So long as they are of the opinion that the researchers are wrong they don't need to be questioned. Their opinion is correct automatically.

I don't think thats consistent or fair. Like I said when a skeptic or objector does their own tests and research and then published their work refuting these researchers I will go with the researchers. Three independent published tests and findings all saying the same thing regardless of peer review is better than objections on a social media platform.

sjastro · 2025-10-12T17:24:54-0500

stevevw said:
Heres the thing. Despite all this they clearly state that these measurements verify the vase is on par with modern machining. Is this also a fairy tale.

It is nothing short of astonishing to find that the most ‘precise’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection (e.g. V18 and V4) are characterized by the circularity error <RMSE> = 0.6 thousands of an inch (15 microns) and the centering error <dR> = 0.1 thousandths of an inch (2.5 microns). The centering error of the vase V18 is actually below the resolving ability of the analysis methodology used (0.2 thousandths of an inch). The vases V4 and V18 appear to be 10 times more precise (in terms of the quality metric M) compared to the modern vases.

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. 20.

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.

What about the heat map is that not in 3D.

https://maximus.energy/index.php/2025/01/03/astonishing-precision-of-predynastic-egyptian-stone-vessels-a-metrological-study/?srsltid=AfmBOoqFSSQkLTGVmql9i2TFYsIi1RCBWHQRmE8ezmO1mkV3ZmSfgDwt

Here are the researchers lying again about the vases precision to MCN. According to your conspiract theory. They are repeatedly telling lies about the precision of these vases.

Structured-light scanning was used, a method that projects light patterns to create highly accurate 3D models, on around 30 of the vases. CT scans have been performed on 35, offering a deeper look at their internal structure and uniformity.

CT scans of a thin granite vase, revealed that both the top and sides are nearly perfectly round, with variations of less than one-thousandth of an inch, a level of accuracy rarely seen in ancient artifacts.

A separate study of 22 vases by Dr Max Fomitchev-Zamilov, a computer scientist from the Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology, uncovered shape errors as small as 15 microns, making them up to 10 times more precise than vases carved using modern machinery.

Dr Fomitchev-Zamilov also noted that many of the vases appeared to be perfectly centered, suggesting a highly controlled method for aligning and rotating the stone during carving, which is typically associated with machine tools like lathes.

MSN

Is this all lies. Is this what your saying. That all these researchers are lying. Or so dumb they have totally miscalculated these vases and all their numbers are wrong.

I still don't know what your point is. Are you saying these vases are not precise and were not machined on a lathe. What exactly are you saying with all these objections.

Since you mention the term dumb, it is an apt of description of your post.
This latest piece of nonsense is a rehash of the rubbish that has been refuted many times beforehand.
I wanted you to show me in the Artifacts Foundation video which you posted, what 3D calculations were performed, since this task is beyond your capabilities I suggested you contact Karoly for the answer.

What about the heat map is that not in 3D.

https://maximus.energy/index.php/2025/01/03/astonishing-precision-of-predynastic-egyptian-stone-vessels-a-metrological-study/?srsltid=AfmBOoqFSSQkLTGVmql9i2TFYsIi1RCBWHQRmE8ezmO1mkV3ZmSfgDwt

Point out what heat map is being referred to.

sjastro · 2025-10-12T18:08:59-0500

stevevw said:
Yes exactly what skeptics do lol. Ironic that aint it.

Afterall these researchers are saying things you don't like. They are making the claims about lost advanced tech and knowledge.

It is you who are claiming these researchers are villians and whackos and living in fantasy land because they present something that refutes the orthodox pet theory lol.

I will give you credit for one thing, no one can doubt your ability in maintaining misunderstanding posts at a consistently high level.

Over the years Hans and myself have responded to individuals with pet theories particularly electric universe fanatics who elevate certain individuals to untouchable status, where even the mildest criticism or scrutiny of their works is met with accusations of making ad hominem attacks.
Evidently it went over your head, the post was referring to you as my comment of your exalted individuals being part time amateurs in metrology coding was met with the same accusations but as @Stopped_lurking has shown to be an accurate assessment.

As an interesting side story the ultimate achievers, Noble Prize laureates, can also turn out to be whackos and cranks when they stray outside their field of expertise.

The Nobel disease has been defined as "an affliction of certain Nobel Prize recipients which causes them to embrace strange or scientifically unsound ideas, usually later in life."*

Click to expand...

Major examples.

Pierre Curie (Physics, 1903) — His support for psychic medium Eusapia Palladino.[8]

Marie Curie (Physics, 1903 and Chemistry, 1911) — Her support for Eusapia Palladino (though less so than Pierre, see above).

John William Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (Physics, 1904) — Paranormal, ghosts[9][10]

Philipp Lenard (Physics, 1905) — Deutsche Physik [11]

Joseph Thomson (Physics, 1906) — Psychic, dowsing and paranormal[12]

Alexis Carrel (Physiology or Medicine, 1912) — eugenics and Nazi racial theories.[13]

Charles Richet (Physiology or Medicine, 1913) — ESP, paranormal, dowsing, ghosts [14]

Albert Einstein (Physics, 1921) — Endorsed a psychic in 1932.[15][16]

Erwin Schrödinger (Physics, 1933) — Quantum mysticism and global consciousness[17][18][19] and cruelty to cats

Otto Stern (Physics, 1943) — Psychokinesis and Pauli effect[20]

Ernst Boris Chain (Physiology or Medicine, 1945) — Evolution denial [21]

Wolfgang Pauli (Physics, 1945) — Pauli effect, psychokinesis and paranormal[22][23]

Hideki Yukawa (Physics, 1949) — Intuition and mysticism superior to logic and reason, anti-science and Taoist relativism[24]

Linus Pauling (Chemistry, 1954, and Peace, 1962) — Vitamin C quackery/orthomolecular medicine [25]

William Shockley (Physics, 1956) — Racialism and eugenics [26]

James Watson (Physiology or Medicine, 1962) — Promoter of racialism [27][28]

Eugene Wigner (Physics, 1963) — Quantum mysticism[citation needed]

John Eccles (Physiology or Medicine, 1963) — Quantum consciousness [29]

Julian Schwinger (Physics, 1965) — Pushed cold fusion as late as 1991.[30]

Alfred Kastler (Physics, 1966) — Paranormal[31]

Hannes Alfvén (Physics, 1970) — Plasma cosmology [32]

Ivar Giaever (Physics, 1973) — Global warming denial [33]

Brian Josephson (Physics, 1973) — Psychic and paranormal phenomena.[34] Cold fusion.[35] Water memory and homeopathy.[36][37]

Nikolaas Tinbergen (Physiology or Medicine, 1973) — Crank theories of autism [38]

Kary Mullis (Chemistry, 1993) — Generally barking mad. AIDS denial, alien abduction, Aliensdidit, astrology, astral projection, conspiracy theories, cosmic raccoons, global warming denial, ozone denial. Possibly related to his heavy use of LSD.[39][40]

Walter Gilbert (Chemistry, 1980) — AIDS denial [41]. Although there are claims he is no longer skeptical of the claim HIV causes AIDS. The source for that seems to be a message board post that no longer exists.

Richard Smalley (Chemistry, 1996) — Creationism, Intelligent Design and evolution denial[42][43]

Louis J. Ignarro (Physiology or Medicine, 1998) — Herbalife [44]

Luc Montagnier (Physiology or Medicine, 2008) — Homeopathy, water memory, autism quackery, AIDS cured by nutrition and vaccine hysteria [45][46][47]

stevevw · 2025-10-12T22:06:50-0500

Stopped_lurking said:
So what did Sir Flinders Petrie publish that is peer-reviewed then? From a quick glance it is much less than one would think, the science of archeology have come a long way since his heyday.

Your only proving my point that no matter who I put you will want to discredit them all. It only proves your biased.

Stopped_lurking said:
So why did you bring him up in relation to the vases then? Can you link to that teams webpage, if possible please avoid video, it is not format best used to give tables or figures. What papers are you thinking of?

All the tests and files are on this site under Vase Scan Resources. I am pretty sure I linked this before.

Ancient Precision: Confirmed!
Led by Chris Dunn, Alex Dunn and Nick Sierra, the team gathered in a precision lab in Danville IL to do a hands-on metrology inspection of several vases. Not only that, but many more of the remarkable ancient, hard stone vases that come from pre-dynastic and early dynastic ancient Egypt have been scanned via structured light and CT-Xray, and the results are frankly astonishing.

https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/11/02/ancient-precision-confirmed/

Stopped_lurking said:
Nothing in relation to metrology, arcehology or egyptology though? It is not much that is actually published is it? It is one report in Scientific Reports, and perhaps one in Oil and Gas Journal, the rest I don't believe have been through peer-review. Not really relevant.

Dr Max is an expert in metrology ans scientific testing. Being an archologists or Egyptologists is the wrong industry for precision testing which is more to do with engineering and precision tooling. I am pretty sure the skeptics on this page are also not archeologists and Egyptologists. Yet their opinion is being claimed as credible to dispute these researchers. Its gross hypocrac y.

I did not say that any of this is at the stage of peer review. This is the testing that will go into the papers. You have to do the testing first. The testing of vases only started to gather interest 12 months ago.

Stopped_lurking said:
His name is Karoly. He's not an PhD, he hasn't published anything in metrology, arcehology or egyptology. His podcast is one the level of social media postings.

But his tests done with experts I named was performed at the Petrie museum. Proper formal tests with proper equipment and then the results published on open source for anyone to review and dispute. Which has not happened yet.

No one is disputing these findings except those on this social media site. At least they have performed the tests and formerly published the findings for critique. Like I said theres an open source go and refute the findings and send it in.

Stopped_lurking said:
Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. The only thing I could see was that he was a guest on a podcast, is his name on any article they published together?

Then you will have to explain why he is there in the background as part of the team testing the vases at the Petrie museum. Yes he was also a expert consultant on the project. Look Karoly is even pointing to him for you. He looks like he is also sick of all these ad hominems lol. Though he puts on a brave face.

The funny thing is in looking at this pic is that skeptics use the Russian guys who do experiments in their backyard to show that these precision vases can be made by hand The vases Olga made which were tested. Yet they are happy to use them and never expect they produce peer review. Just the experiment alone in the backyard is used as evidence to refute any advanced tech. Hypocrites.

Stopped_lurking said:
Not involved in the scanning or calculations of the vases. Consulted on using PCA to find a reasonable symmetry axis.

They actually helps develop the software (Petriescope) to calculate the precision in the vases. They played the most crucial role as the software is what establishes the precision and needs to be accurrate. The most important part. Thats 3 PHD scientists.

I find this funny. That probably half if not 2/3 of this post and this entire thread is now dedicated to logical fallacies. Expending all this time and energy on ad hominems.

Ironically or rather hypocritically those creating these fallacies have not themselves established their credibility and expect everyone to just accept their words as though it has been peer reviewed. Like I said at least these researchers have expertise and have actually done tests and published the results for others to formerly refute. Not on some social media page.

Stopped_lurking said:
I have not uttered a single ad hominem, please show where if you believe I've done so.

Above. Ad hominems are attacking the source, authors, researchers and not addressing the actual content (test results) and how they are wrong. You spend more time on attacking the source than showing their results are actually wrong. Your aim is to discredit the source to discredit the results. While I might add not showing your own credentials in doing any of this like its some social media blog.

Stopped_lurking said:
Because they have self-elected to use non-experts as peer-review by not publishing in scientific journals, I would be glad to read their findings in peer-reviewed journals.

You missed the point. Your complaining about the lack of experts doing the tests but your doing this yourself without establishing you are an expert to make these claims that they are not experts. It works both ways. I am using your own fallacy on you. If these researchers are not experts then the same applied to you. Your not an expert to determine their not experts lol.

But they are experts and that's the other fallacy of a false representation. Dunns team are experts in the very metrology thaty has measured the vases having expensive knowledge and experience in NASA level precision tooling. The vase signatures are compared to modern tolerances of precision tooling. The exact industry and expertise needed. Better than archeologists and Egyptologists.

The Artifact Foundation has experts on the team. PHD level in the software that measures the precision. Expertise like Dunn in Christ Smith who also has expertise knowledge and experience in engineering and precision tooling at the aerospace level. Dr Max is a physicist and well positioned to be dealing with micron precision.

The only thing I agree on is that it would be better if these results were at the stage of peer review. Its not that they are not willing. IN some ways they are already open for peer review in that they are open to the public to review and critique formerly. But as I said more testing is ongoing to build a robust data base to then be able to make a stronger case.

Only one museum has been tested. As a big part of the objection is providance then more museum vases are needed to be tested to ensure these vases were common part of the pre dynastics.

Stopped_lurking said:
That is just an effect of how they choose to disseminate their findings. Until they do, their calculations doesn't carry more weight than people "publishing" here.

Thats a unsubstanciated claim. How they choose to disseminate their findings is rigorous and factual. In fact I find it one of the most credible ways of doing things in science. That they actually have the live tests to see the actual readings for yourself. You can't fake an instrument in front of people. When the results are repeated independently at least 3 times thats good science.

So therefore just like the testers anyone who wants to refute these tests needs to do the same and formerly retest their results to see if they come to a different findings. Not sit in some laounge chair on social media complaining or creating some numbers conspiracy that in without any formal published article.

I could go on social media claiming all sorts of stuff and that others have got it wrong. Its full of stuff like that lol.

Stopped_lurking said:
No, it only shows your preference for non-peer-reviewed statements.

Its the only stuff we have at the moment. The idea of precision vases only became a thing around 8 years ago. But no one offically started until 2023 and even then no one had tested museum vases until 2025. Its literally happening now as a new area of research. So these tests are really the first ones.

So you have to deal with whats available and what stage its at and what is being claimed. I have also pointed out that mainstream archeology has known of the out of place works for decades but either hid it or did not bother to look into it. These vases were talked about as precise and beyond the predynastics tech 100 years ago by Petrie. \

Other articles just on the Naqada or predynastic Egyptians generally have always mentioned these vases as being the peak of the pottery and vase making and being made by some sort of lathe. Its just that no one bothered to measure them with modern tech until recently.

Stopped_lurking said:
You made claims about their credentials in post #656 and I asked about them in post #658 this discussion is not in any way an exercise in ad hominem. It is perfectly acceptable to ask for their credentials in metrology, archeology or egyptology, it is directly relevant for the discussion at hand.

Believe me it is. Yours is just one in a long line of logical fallacies I have had to deal with lol. Anyway it doesn't change the fact its an ad hominem that you are spending more time, over half this post on the credibility of sources and nothing on the actual content and whether it is correct or not.

BCP1928 · 2025-10-12T22:36:17-0500

stevevw said:
Your only proving my point that no matter who I put you will want to discredit them all. It only proves your biased.

All the tests and files are on this site under Vase Scan Resources. I am pretty sure I linked this before.

Ancient Precision: Confirmed!
Led by Chris Dunn, Alex Dunn and Nick Sierra, the team gathered in a precision lab in Danville IL to do a hands-on metrology inspection of several vases. Not only that, but many more of the remarkable ancient, hard stone vases that come from pre-dynastic and early dynastic ancient Egypt have been scanned via structured light and CT-Xray, and the results are frankly astonishing.

https://unchartedx.com/site/2023/11/02/ancient-precision-confirmed/

Dr Max is an expert in metrology ans scientific testing. Being an archologists or Egyptologists is the wrong industry for precision testing which is more to do with engineering and precision tooling. I am pretty sure the skeptics on this page are also not archeologists and Egyptologists. Yet their opinion is being claimed as credible to dispute these researchers. Its gross hypocrac y.

I did not say that any of this is at the stage of peer review. This is the testing that will go into the papers. You have to do the testing first. The testing of vases only started to gather interest 12 months ago.

But his tests done with experts I named was performed at the Petrie museum. Proper formal tests with proper equipment and then the results published on open source for anyone to review and dispute. Which has not happened yet.

No one is disputing these findings except those on this social media site. At least they have performed the tests and formerly published the findings for critique. Like I said theres an open source go and refute the findings and send it in.

Then you will have to explain why he is there in the background as part of the team testing the vases at the Petrie museum. Yes he was also a expert consultant on the project. Look Karoly is even pointing to him for you. He looks like he is also sick of all these ad hominems lol. Though he puts on a brave face.

View attachment 371493

The funny thing is in looking at this pic is that skeptics use the Russian guys who do experiments in their backyard to show that these precision vases can be made by hand The vases Olga made which were tested. Yet they are happy to use them and never expect they produce peer review. Just the experiment alone in the backyard is used as evidence to refute any advanced tech. Hypocrites.

They actually helps develop the software (Petriescope) to calculate the precision in the vases. They played the most crucial role as the software is what establishes the precision and needs to be accurrate. The most important part. Thats 3 PHD scientists.

I find this funny. That probably half if not 2/3 of this post and this entire thread is now dedicated to logical fallacies. Expending all this time and energy on ad hominems.

Ironically or rather hypocritically those creating these fallacies have not themselves established their credibility and expect everyone to just accept their words as though it has been peer reviewed. Like I said at least these researchers have expertise and have actually done tests and published the results for others to formerly refute. Not on some social media page.

Above. Ad hominems are attacking the source, authors, researchers and not addressing the actual content (test results) and how they are wrong. You spend more time on attacking the source than showing their results are actually wrong. Your aim is to discredit the source to discredit the results. While I might add not showing your own credentials in doing any of this like its some social media blog.

You missed the point. Your complaining about the lack of experts doing the tests but your doing this yourself without establishing you are an expert to make these claims that they are not experts. It works both ways. I am using your own fallacy on you. If these researchers are not experts then the same applied to you. Your not an expert to determine their not experts lol.

But they are experts and that's the other fallacy of a false representation. Dunns team are experts in the very metrology thaty has measured the vases having expensive knowledge and experience in NASA level precision tooling. The vase signatures are compared to modern tolerances of precision tooling. The exact industry and expertise needed. Better than archeologists and Egyptologists.

The Artifact Foundation has experts on the team. PHD level in the software that measures the precision. Expertise like Dunn in Christ Smith who also has expertise knowledge and experience in engineering and precision tooling at the aerospace level. Dr Max is a physicist and well positioned to be dealing with micron precision.

The only thing I agree on is that it would be better if these results were at the stage of peer review. Its not that they are not willing. IN some ways they are already open for peer review in that they are open to the public to review and critique formerly. But as I said more testing is ongoing to build a robust data base to then be able to make a stronger case.

Only one museum has been tested. As a big part of the objection is providance then more museum vases are needed to be tested to ensure these vases were common part of the pre dynastics.

Thats a unsubstanciated claim. How they choose to disseminate their findings is rigorous and factual. In fact I find it one of the most credible ways of doing things in science. That they actually have the live tests to see the actual readings for yourself. You can't fake an instrument in front of people. When the results are repeated independently at least 3 times thats good science.

So therefore just like the testers anyone who wants to refute these tests needs to do the same and formerly retest their results to see if they come to a different findings. Not sit in some laounge chair on social media complaining or creating some numbers conspiracy that in without any formal published article.

I could go on social media claiming all sorts of stuff and that others have got it wrong. Its full of stuff like that lol.

Its the only stuff we have at the moment. The idea of precision vases only became a thing around 8 years ago. But no one offically started until 2023 and even then no one had tested museum vases until 2025. Its literally happening now as a new area of research. So these tests are really the first ones.

So you have to deal with whats available and what stage its at and what is being claimed. I have also pointed out that mainstream archeology has known of the out of place works for decades but either hid it or did not bother to look into it. These vases were talked about as precise and beyond the predynastics tech 100 years ago by Petrie. \

Other articles just on the Naqada or predynastic Egyptians generally have always mentioned these vases as being the peak of the pottery and vase making and being made by some sort of lathe. Its just that no one bothered to measure them with modern tech until recently.

Believe me it is. Yours is just one in a long line of logical fallacies I have had to deal with lol. Anyway it doesn't change the fact its an ad hominem that you are spending more time, over half this post on the credibility of sources and nothing on the actual content and whether it is correct or not.

OK, so you've got some vases which appear to have been made by techniques which the ancient Egyptians were not known to use.

How do you get from there to Atlantis?

stevevw · 2025-10-12T23:15:19-0500

This is a short video and I know that there will be cries of whackery. But its fun and you might learn something.

Let me know if there is any sense to what is said about the different signatures of works. Where a later culture may have come along and found these megaliths from a earlier people and reused them and even worshipped them. But orthodoxy has it that the same people that found these megaliths made them.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Active Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Beardo

Active Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

The Worldwide Megalithic Wall Mystery #podcast #science #history #ancient​

Similar threads

The Worldwide Megalithic Wall Mystery #podcast #science #history #ancient