There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

BCP1928 · 2025-11-08T13:48:37-0600

stevevw said:
Why should not he appologise for claiming the whole thread is pseudoscience. Is that not a gross misrepresentation. Is that not tarring good people as whackos. I am justified to call out the logical fallacy.. Stop moralising everything. You missed tons of inappropriate comment. You seem very selective in your moral outrage.

Explain how I was wrong in calling out the gross misrepresentation as excluding other peoples beliefs and views as whacko. This has been going on all thread and I never hear anyone call it out. Accusing good people of being whackos and ametuers and cranks and all sorts of ad hominems.

Do you want me to go back and make the list of gross and demeaning comments. Really is that the hill you want to die on. Give me a break.

You accused Warden in so many words of denouncing Christianity as pseudoscience. That is slanderous and disgusting.

stevevw said:
.

There you go, only certain views and beliefs are allowed according. Exactly my point. You call Ancient and Indigenous knowledge as well as Christianity pseudoscience. We now know your belief.

Nobody is calling "ancient and indigenous knowledge" pseudoscience, either--just your imaginary ideas about it.

sjastro · 2025-11-08T14:32:31-0600

stevevw said:
Why should not he appologise for claiming the whole thread is pseudoscience.

Why should @Warden_of_the_Storm apologise for stating the obvious, this is a bona fide pseudoscience thread.

The only debatable aspect now in this thread which has outlived its relevance by a considerable margin is whether you are that stupid, disingenuous or somewhere in between.
Your MO is to ignore inconvenient facts which contradict your nonsense and double down as if the facts never existed.
Other contributors have also effectively repudiated your nonsense only to be subjected to the same MO.
I will use my posts to summarize why this thread should have ended long ago and its ongoing existence is based on beating a dead horse.

The vase sub thread should have ended when you and your so called experts failed to take into consideration the actual capabilities of modern technology into producing granite vases.
When this was taken into account the odd scans using recognized metrology software shows the vases are nowhere near levels obtained by modern lathes. Then there is the issue of the provenance of the vases….
Despite this you continue to blow your trumpet about the amazing circularity and symmetry of vases based on amateur metrology software which tells you nothing about cylindricity or surface deviations which are the key parameters to determine if vases were made on modern lathes. Recognized metrology software having this capability revealed vases were not made on modern lathes yet your argument is to simply ignore this inconvenient fact.

The other sub-thread on the cutting of granite should have ended when you failed to answer why Khufu’s unfinished sarcophagus ended up the way it did if circular saws were used resulting in a machine finished surface with indications of a circular striations. The plaster cast on the unfinished surface revealing straight striations and a variable kerf is a clear signature of straight saw abrasion cutting and was one piece of evidence in formulating the theory of this cutting method.
As usual your response was to ignore the evidence and carry on as usual.

On those rare occasions when you put your foot in your mouth where even by your standards ignoring the facts is unsatisfactory, a spin story based on lies becomes a necessity.
When you inadvertently dropped the line of obelisks being produced in the 18th dynasty with simple tools it contradicted your conspiracy theory of 18th dynasty obelisks being forgeries as they were constructed with superior Old Kingdom technology.
A spin story based on lies that Old Kingdom obelisks which were made out of granite and were larger and more intricately detailed than 18th dynasty obelisks when the archaeological evidence shows the exact opposite.
Your spin story turned out to having more holes than the original conspiracy theory.

Then there is the spin story of lathe produced granite vases predating the Naqada period to address the discrepancy of the use of knapped tools in this period.
When one of your so called experts puts out a document of high precision granite vases from the Naqada period which you have cited on numerous occasions is not only contradictory but raises the question at the start of my post whether this is an example of incompetence or disingenuous behaviour.

This pseudoscience thread should be allowed to die a natural death.

stevevw · 2025-11-08T20:25:28-0600

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You really enjoy putting words in my mouth, and also for someone who rags on people being emotional and using such language, your entire wording reeks of nothing but emotional appeals to what you believe to be authorities.

Ok I don't think I put words in your mouth. I don't think you realise you do it in using extreme and absolute words with your claims. Or other qualifying words like "horrendous" when pointing out something.

We can all add little qualifiers to what we say. Its just a way of trying to make your words sound truer when they are not. Your better off adding reasoning to support your claim. Strong words don't give a false claim any truth.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
But let's actually try and be sensible adults here and go back on the actual OP topic, for whatever it's worth.

OK thats good. Rather than all the fallacies. I think this thread has more complaints and fallacies than addressing the content.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I'll repeat a phrase I've said numerous times here: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

This is a silly claim and overused. You don't even accept any evidence remember. You said "nothing in the slightest is true or fact or evidence in what I said". Why even bother with you Warden when notrhing I say means anything.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why is it that despite all of your claims about advanced technology existing from the Ancient Egyptians, a period that lasted over 3000 years, not including the near two-thousand year period from its decline to the present day, have we not found a single piece of, or even a single actual example of, said advanced technology?

Your don't listen do you. Why even bother explaining things to you anymore. You never listen and ignore everything and make out is all rubbish. Why bother.

Why is finding the tech going to prove the case. We are going back to something I already explained. If we don't find the gun will that mean no gun was used.

What if the tech is stone softening or weakening. What sort of machine do you think we would find for stone softening or weakening. Is there a massive stone softening machine.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why do we not see a single piece of artistic contemporary depictions of said advanced technology, especially for the building of the pyramids, which were huge things and worthy of being recorded?

Why do we not see any depiction at all of building the pyramids, making the hard stone vases, or cutting blocks. This is a silly line of arguement.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why do we not have Greek or Roman texts describing this advanced technology, which surely they would have found wondrous and wanted to record or even copy?

Why would they find anything. Did the Romans find big ramps or pullies or aqua lifts to build the pyramids. Wheres all the tech for building the pyramids. You would think such a massive project would at least be recorded. But nothing, absolutely nothing is said or shown.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why is there not a single piece of said advanced technology existing but only the rudimentary stuff still exists?

Whats the rudimentary stuff.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Where is the advanced technology you claim to exist?

This is a fallacious line of arguing. I have already shown that it does not follow that not finding the devices or method means we cann tell what method was used.

You seem to just ignore stuff and repeat the same fallacious arguements that have already been explained.

stevevw · 2025-11-08T20:41:10-0600

BCP1928 said:
You accused Warden in so many words of denouncing Christianity as pseudoscience. That is slanderous and disgusting.

See this is you butting into a discussion you were not involved in and misunderstanding it. Now your doing exactly what your accusing me of doing.

Go back and read what I actually said in its context and stop putting everything I say under a microscope looking for bad stuff all the time.

I actually used Christian belief or in the case of Warden Deistic belief as an example of an alternative knowledge that cannot be explained by the science. The point was in demanding peer review and science to prove alternative knowledge which may include experience and belief and transcedent knowledge is wrong as it belongs in another realm or category of reality.

So an obvious comparison is religious belief. In this case Christian belief which is common on this forum. So demanding science and then calling all alternative knowledge as whacko or pseudoscience is actually calling Christian whacko and pseudoscience.

By the way Warden is not a Christian. He is a Deist and thats completely different. But nevertheless I was not calling anyone anything. In fact it was the other way around. By making out the alternative knowledge of the ancients which included spirituality and belief in transcedent things as whacko it logically follows also calling Christianity as whacko. Why don't you object to this. Your very selective in your moral outrage. You also don't properly read posts.

BCP1928 said:
Nobody is calling "ancient and indigenous knowledge" pseudoscience, either--just your imaginary ideas about it.

Ok so if the ancients used spiritual knowledge or transcedent knowwledge. Some sort of knowledge that cannot be explained or verified by science. Then that knowledge is referred to as whacko and pseudoscience.

How does this not follow that the same kind of knowledge is derived from religion in general including Christianity or Indigenous knowledge. How does it not apply as well. How does the same logical arguement not apply to all relaigion and trancedent knowledge of ancients and indigenous peoples.

It all cannot be peer reviewe or verified by science. So if not meeting the science standard equals pseudoscience its a logical followon.

Otherwise are you saying that no one thinks this knowledge is pseudoscience. then why are people calling it pseudoscience when its suggest such knowledge existed. If they are not saying that then they have to retract all objections to such knowledge being unreal and not a valid form of knowledge. Thus proving my case that such knowledge existed.

Did not Warden say absolutely everything I said is pseudoscience. I included the ancients rteligious beliefs and spirituality as a big part of that knowledge. So it logically follows that all religion and belief is pseudoscience.

In fact did not I use this exact analogy and logic to you earlier. I have repreated this logic about 10 times in this thread and you suddenly realise and get it completely out of context lol. Please read carefully what I say. I know I have poor grammar and spelling but its not that bad lol.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-08T22:54:30-0600

sjastro said:
This pseudoscience thread should be allowed to die a natural death.

I'd just like some acknowledgement that the sources used to support the OP thesis are drenched in pseudoscience and pseudoarcheology, especially that of the Donnelly/Hancock Atlantean/lost advanced civ. sort. I have directly asked for this but it has been ignored. I am also sick of the invocations of mystery "tech" and the diversions about naturalistic world views (and now indigenous knowledge that doesn't exist anymore).

We've had some fun giving the EU nonsense its due, but EU is an incredibly irrelevant bit of pseudoscience. But this rewriting of ancient history is one of the "big ones" that has a real impact on how people interact with the results of science.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-08T23:16:17-0600

stevevw said:
See this is you butting into a discussion you were not involved in and misunderstanding it. Now your doing exactly what your accusing me of doing.

Go back and read what I actually said in its context and stop putting everything I say under a microscope looking for bad stuff all the time.

I actually used Christian belief or in the case of Warden Deistic belief as an example of an alternative knowledge that cannot be explained by the science. The point was in demanding peer review and science to prove alternative knowledge which may include experience and belief and transcedent knowledge is wrong as it belongs in another realm or category of reality.

So an obvious comparison is religious belief. In this case Christian belief which is common on this forum. So demanding science and then calling all alternative knowledge as whacko or pseudoscience is actually calling Christian whacko and pseudoscience.

By the way Warden is not a Christian. He is a Deist and thats completely different. But nevertheless I was not calling anyone anything. In fact it was the other way around. By making out the alternative knowledge of the ancients which included spirituality and belief in transcedent things as whacko it logically follows also calling Christianity as whacko. Why don't you object to this. Your very selective in your moral outrage. You also don't properly read posts.

Ok so if the ancients used spiritual knowledge or transcedent knowwledge. Some sort of knowledge that cannot be explained or verified by science. Then that knowledge is referred to as whacko and pseudoscience.

How does this not follow that the same kind of knowledge is derived from religion in general including Christianity or Indigenous knowledge. How does it not apply as well. How does the same logical arguement not apply to all relaigion and trancedent knowledge of ancients and indigenous peoples.

It all cannot be peer reviewe or verified by science. So if not meeting the science standard equals pseudoscience its a logical followon.

Otherwise are you saying that no one thinks this knowledge is pseudoscience. then why are people calling it pseudoscience when its suggest such knowledge existed. If they are not saying that then they have to retract all objections to such knowledge being unreal and not a valid form of knowledge. Thus proving my case that such knowledge existed.

Did not Warden say absolutely everything I said is pseudoscience. I included the ancients rteligious beliefs and spirituality as a big part of that knowledge. So it logically follows that all religion and belief is pseudoscience.

In fact did not I use this exact analogy and logic to you earlier. I have repreated this logic about 10 times in this thread and you suddenly realise and get it completely out of context lol. Please read carefully what I say. I know I have poor grammar and spelling but its not that bad lol.

"Transcendent" or "spiritual" knowledge doesn't cut stone. Craftsmen working with tools cut stone. The tool marks are there for you to see.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-11-08T23:25:40-0600

stevevw said:
Ok I don't think I put words in your mouth. I don't think you realise you do it in using extreme and absolute words with your claims. Or other qualifying words like "horrendous" when pointing out something.

We can all add little qualifiers to what we say. Its just a way of trying to make your words sound truer when they are not. Your better off adding reasoning to support your claim. Strong words don't give a false claim any truth.

OK thats good. Rather than all the fallacies. I think this thread has more complaints and fallacies than addressing the content.

This is a silly claim and overused. You don't even accept any evidence remember. You said "nothing in the slightest is true or fact or evidence in what I said". Why even bother with you Warden when notrhing I say means anything.

Your don't listen do you. Why even bother explaining things to you anymore. You never listen and ignore everything and make out is all rubbish. Why bother.

Why is finding the tech going to prove the case. We are going back to something I already explained. If we don't find the gun will that mean no gun was used.

What if the tech is stone softening or weakening. What sort of machine do you think we would find for stone softening or weakening. Is there a massive stone softening machine.

Why do we not see any depiction at all of building the pyramids, making the hard stone vases, or cutting blocks. This is a silly line of arguement.

Why would they find anything. Did the Romans find big ramps or pullies or aqua lifts to build the pyramids. Wheres all the tech for building the pyramids. You would think such a massive project would at least be recorded. But nothing, absolutely nothing is said or shown.

Whats the rudimentary stuff.

This is a fallacious line of arguing. I have already shown that it does not follow that not finding the devices or method means we cann tell what method was used.

You seem to just ignore stuff and repeat the same fallacious arguements that have already been explained.

You cannot be as dense as this to say that, on a thread where people are skeptical of all of what you suppose to be evidence and dispute what you claim, that asking for the actual tools you claim were used, is a "fallacious line of arguing", nor even asking for evidence from other groups who met the Egyptians.

You talk like you are that dense but I refuse to accept that you could be. Because if so... then what?

stevevw · 2025-11-09T00:50:07-0600

sjastro said:
Why should @Warden_of_the_Storm apologise for stating the obvious, this is a bona fide pseudoscience thread.

I was not saying he can't call out pseudoscience but that his claim was false that absolutely everything is pseudoscience. The simple fact I posted peer review science articles disproves this obvious misrepresentation.

Plus I have not made any crazy claims lol. I have basically tried to support things with reasoning and facts. When I says a signature looks like machining or med tech I am not saying it was caused by aliens or magic and am trying to argue a reasonable hypothesis based on the signatures.

In fact you are doing the same. Everyone is doing the same when they claimn the traditional methods.

sjastro said:
The only debatable aspect now in this thread which has outlived its relevance by a considerable margin is whether you are that stupid, disingenuous or somewhere in between.

Yet you show no evidence for the stupid or disingenous. How is it when I actually provide a rational. Is that rational stupid. If so then argue its stupid instead of just objecting.

sjastro said:
Your MO is to ignore inconvenient facts which contradict your nonsense and double down as if the facts never existed.

Thats calling the kettlle black lol.

sjastro said:
Other contributors have also effectively repudiated your nonsense only to be subjected to the same MO.

Here we go again with name calling.

sjastro said:
I will use my posts to summarize why this thread should have ended long ago and its ongoing existence is based on beating a dead horse.

If it should have ended long ago then why are you still here. Is it to save the stupid people. Leave if you don't like it. I think I said this a couple of times before and your still here lol. You must like it lol.

sjastro said:
The vase sub thread should have ended when you and your so called experts failed to take into consideration the actual capabilities of modern technology into producing granite vases.

Failure to consider what modern tech. The whole vase thing was relegated to whacko from the very first posts. The whole thread was already in the dust bin by skeptcs from the first few pages before I even began lol. We see the bias from the start as though even before anyone said anything it was already decided.

I mean some were resisting that even a lathe was used and insisted on unguided hand made. But then even they admitted a lathe must have been used. So I did convince some lol. How do we know other signatures are not the same.

I think even you admitted that a circular saw cut looked like a modern cut and must have been a fake that was done in modern times. Did you not. Which means you also seen the same modern looking signatuires as me. How am I wrong for doing this and yet everyone else is doing it.

Why do so many people agree with me that the signatures look machined or that they don't match the claimed traditional methods. From Petrie to todays engineers, archeologists and stone masons all agreeing. Are we all whacko.

sjastro said:
When this was taken into account the odd scans using recognized metrology software shows the vases are nowhere near levels obtained by modern lathes.

This is a strawman. I never said they were caused or made by modern lathes. I said the signatures looked like modern lathing and machining.

I even said several times it would be rediculous to say that there was some modern machines and computers lying around in ancient sites. They could never be lost as they would be so big and have lots of parts.

sjastro said:
Then there is the issue of the provenance of the vases….

Here we go again lol.

sjastro said:
Despite this you continue to blow your trumpet about the amazing circularity and symmetry of vases based on amateur metrology software which tells you nothing about cylindricity or surface deviations which are the key parameters to determine if vases were made on modern lathes. Recognized metrology software having this capability revealed vases were not made on modern lathes yet your argument is to simply ignore this inconvenient fact.

Hum yet one group used the standard industry software in the Dunn and Sierra testing.

But tell me I have two opinions here. You claim that the tests were not proper and could not determine whether it was lathed somehow by circularity and concentricity. Then why do all these independent groups of testers all say the same thing. That at least in some of the vases the high levels of circularity for example was the result of turning, rotating and lathing the vase.

Why should I believe a sole person on a social media sight over several independent groups who actually did the testing. Why is it that even people on this thread admit that lathing was involved.

sjastro said:
The other sub-thread on the cutting of granite should have ended when you failed to answer why Khufu’s unfinished sarcophagus ended up the way it did if circular saws were used resulting in a machine finished surface with indications of a circular striations. The plaster cast on the unfinished surface revealing straight striations and a variable kerf is a clear signature of straight saw abrasion cutting and was one piece of evidence in formulating the theory of this cutting method.
As usual your response was to ignore the evidence and carry on as usual.

Actually if you recall my response was that if you are using such logic (that signatures such as strirations that look or point to a giant copper saw).

Then the same logic will apply to the many other signatures I showed you that 'don't look like or point to a copper saw but machining'. You conviently ignore all this and select out one you think proves your case and then make it everything. Make it negate all the contradictory signatures that point to machining and not a giant copper saw.

sjastro said:
On those rare occasions when you put your foot in your mouth where even by your standards ignoring the facts is unsatisfactory, a spin story based on lies becomes a necessity.

How exactly have I dont this. Tell me. I have done exactly what you are doing. Looking at the signatures and making determinations on that.

sjastro said:
When you inadvertently dropped the line of obelisks being produced in the 18th dynasty with simple tools it contradicted your conspiracy theory of 18th dynasty obelisks being forgeries as they were constructed with superior Old Kingdom technology.

I actually said that at least some of the obelisks in later dynasties like the 18th dynasty are from earlier dynasties. I linked evidence for this in how Ramses II stamped his name on earlier works. Or by the different sigantures that match old kingdom obelisks.

I then said in response to your objection that this does not discount that later dynasties had advanced knowledge and tech. WE see it all through history. How does this negate that the earliest works show advanced knowledge and tech. How does this even negate the ancients having advanced tech and knowledge at any period before the tech and knowledge was available. Your creating a red herring.

sjastro said:
A spin story based on lies that Old Kingdom obelisks which were made out of granite and were larger and more intricately detailed than 18th dynasty obelisks when the archaeological evidence shows the exact opposite.

But thats based on the assumption that these obelisks were made in the later dynasties. I provided evidence that early obelisks were inherited by later dynasties.

But so what. All this does is show that the Egyptians had the advanced knowledge and tech from the earliest dynasties and it was still going in later dynasties. The point is its the earliest dynasties had the tech and knowledge to produce better works 1,000 years before this.

sjastro said:
Your spin story turned out to having more holes than the original conspiracy theory.

Having some holes does not make it a conspiracy. It just means some things need correcting. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water by coming up with specific examples that don't match the timeline and then claiming the whole things conspiracy.

You still have no address many obvious signatures that show advanced knowledge and tech. So its nowhere near any big claims about conspiracy.

sjastro said:
Then there is the spin story of lathe produced granite vases predating the Naqada period to address the discrepancy of the use of knapped tools in this period.
When one of your so called experts puts out a document of high precision granite vases from the Naqada period which you have cited on numerous occasions is not only contradictory but raises the question at the start of my post whether this is an example of incompetence or disingenuous behaviour.

As I said your making a logical fallacy that because the knapped flint tools and the precision vases existed in the same culture that 1) the same culture made them 2) they could have been inherited like Djoser inherited them later 3) that both methods were happening at the same time. We see this today where we have both CNC and hand made vases being made still.

I also pointed out that its strange these vases exist in such a Neolithic culture where everything about them is primitive. They made pottery by the coil method. They did not even have the potters wheel. Yet according to archeologists these high circular vases came from the same people. A contradiction in the records.

I also pointed this fact out when you produced the primitive made knapped knife and tools. If a culture is capable of making such high precision vases in the hardest stones, Then why are their tools so primitive. Primitive tools make primitive vases.

Which then throws a big spanner in the orthodox narrative. But its not me who is admitting this. Its the mainstream archeologists. We see the signatures from later tech in the wheel and borestick on the walls and reliefs. The vases are not as precise.

How can a more precise vase come from a time when they made primitive flint tools by knapping. Yet produce better vases than those that came 1,000s of years later with supposed better tech and knowledge. It appears to be an out of place artifact.

sjastro said:
This pseudoscience thread should be allowed to die a natural death.

Your welcome to leave anytime. But your still hear loving every minute of it lol.

stevevw · 2025-11-09T01:06:35-0600

BCP1928 said:
"Transcendent" or "spiritual" knowledge doesn't cut stone. Craftsmen working with tools cut stone. The tool marks are there for you to see.

First and I am not saying this is how the vases were made. But the point of me using religion and especially Christianity is that potentially "Transcendent" or "spiritual" beliefs can be a force in the world that can defy scientific materialism or methological naturalism.

You do recall the miracles and coming back from the dead. Or the other God made events that changed history and reality.

Second It does not have to be that some spirit or supernatural force cut the stone. As I pointed out the spiritual or transcedent realm or the Indigenous realm of knowledge is immersed in a transcedent experience of nature itself. The common idea that natives and nature go hand in hand is because we say they understood nature very well. In ways we have lost and are rediscovering.

Its this conscious and experiential immersion in nature that reveals aspects of nature that could not be seen by the material sciences looking from the outside in.

So it may be they discovered some of natures secrets in utilising the natural forces around them to change nature itself. Such as their experience brought them knowledge of how stone changes in different situations with natural chemicals or energy manipulation.

It was not just observation but an immersion. Become part of nature itself and this was the only way such knowledge could have been gained. As its 1st person, direct and not third part science.

In that sense it was their spiritual, conscious experiences, transcedental and phenomenal beliefs that brought them to a deeper level that brought this knowledge. Just as the early Hebrews gained knowledge and changed reality due to being immersed and governed by a spiritual reality and not a material one.

Just out of interest do you think Noahs Ark was advanced tech. It was directly designed by God lol.

sjastro · 2025-11-09T03:26:42-0600

stevevw said:
I was not saying he can't call out pseudoscience but that his claim was false that absolutely everything is pseudoscience. The simple fact I posted peer review science articles disproves this obvious misrepresentation.

Plus I have not made any crazy claims lol. I have basically tried to support things with reasoning and facts. When I says a signature looks like machining or med tech I am not saying it was caused by aliens or magic and am trying to argue a reasonable hypothesis based on the signatures.

In fact you are doing the same. Everyone is doing the same when they claimn the traditional methods.

Yet you show no evidence for the stupid or disingenous. How is it when I actually provide a rational. Is that rational stupid. If so then argue its stupid instead of just objecting.

Thats calling the kettlle black lol.

Here we go again with name calling.

If it should have ended long ago then why are you still here. Is it to save the stupid people. Leave if you don't like it. I think I said this a couple of times before and your still here lol. You must like it lol.

Failure to consider what modern tech. The whole vase thing was relegated to whacko from the very first posts. The whole thread was already in the dust bin by skeptcs from the first few pages before I even began lol. We see the bias from the start as though even before anyone said anything it was already decided.

I mean some were resisting that even a lathe was used and insisted on unguided hand made. But then even they admitted a lathe must have been used. So I did convince some lol. How do we know other signatures are not the same.

I think even you admitted that a circular saw cut looked like a modern cut and must have been a fake that was done in modern times. Did you not. Which means you also seen the same modern looking signatuires as me. How am I wrong for doing this and yet everyone else is doing it.

Why do so many people agree with me that the signatures look machined or that they don't match the claimed traditional methods. From Petrie to todays engineers, archeologists and stone masons all agreeing. Are we all whacko.

This is a strawman. I never said they were caused or made by modern lathes. I said the signatures looked like modern lathing and machining.

I even said several times it would be rediculous to say that there was some modern machines and computers lying around in ancient sites. They could never be lost as they would be so big and have lots of parts.

Here we go again lol.

Hum yet one group used the standard industry software in the Dunn and Sierra testing.

But tell me I have two opinions here. You claim that the tests were not proper and could not determine whether it was lathed somehow by circularity and concentricity. Then why do all these independent groups of testers all say the same thing. That at least in some of the vases the high levels of circularity for example was the result of turning, rotating and lathing the vase.

Why should I believe a sole person on a social media sight over several independent groups who actually did the testing. Why is it that even people on this thread admit that lathing was involved.

Actually if you recall my response was that if you are using such logic (that signatures such as strirations that look or point to a giant copper saw).

Then the same logic will apply to the many other signatures I showed you that 'don't look like or point to a copper saw but machining'. You conviently ignore all this and select out one you think proves your case and then make it everything. Make it negate all the contradictory signatures that point to machining and not a giant copper saw.

How exactly have I dont this. Tell me. I have done exactly what you are doing. Looking at the signatures and making determinations on that.

I actually said that at least some of the obelisks in later dynasties like the 18th dynasty are from earlier dynasties. I linked evidence for this in how Ramses II stamped his name on earlier works. Or by the different sigantures that match old kingdom obelisks.

I then said in response to your objection that this does not discount that later dynasties had advanced knowledge and tech. WE see it all through history. How does this negate that the earliest works show advanced knowledge and tech. How does this even negate the ancients having advanced tech and knowledge at any period before the tech and knowledge was available. Your creating a red herring.

But thats based on the assumption that these obelisks were made in the later dynasties. I provided evidence that early obelisks were inherited by later dynasties.

But so what. All this does is show that the Egyptians had the advanced knowledge and tech from the earliest dynasties and it was still going in later dynasties. The point is its the earliest dynasties had the tech and knowledge to produce better works 1,000 years before this.

Having some holes does not make it a conspiracy. It just means some things need correcting. Your throwing the baby out with the bath water by coming up with specific examples that don't match the timeline and then claiming the whole things conspiracy.

You still have no address many obvious signatures that show advanced knowledge and tech. So its nowhere near any big claims about conspiracy.

As I said your making a logical fallacy that because the knapped flint tools and the precision vases existed in the same culture that 1) the same culture made them 2) they could have been inherited like Djoser inherited them later 3) that both methods were happening at the same time. We see this today where we have both CNC and hand made vases being made still.

I also pointed out that its strange these vases exist in such a Neolithic culture where everything about them is primitive. They made pottery by the coil method. They did not even have the potters wheel. Yet according to archeologists these high circular vases came from the same people. A contradiction in the records.

I also pointed this fact out when you produced the primitive made knapped knife and tools. If a culture is capable of making such high precision vases in the hardest stones, Then why are their tools so primitive. Primitive tools make primitive vases.

Which then throws a big spanner in the orthodox narrative. But its not me who is admitting this. Its the mainstream archeologists. We see the signatures from later tech in the wheel and borestick on the walls and reliefs. The vases are not as precise.

How can a more precise vase come from a time when they made primitive flint tools by knapping. Yet produce better vases than those that came 1,000s of years later with supposed better tech and knowledge. It appears to be an out of place artifact.

Your welcome to leave anytime. But your still hear loving every minute of it lol.

This latest serving of yours has phrases "I actually said", "I then said", "I also pointed out this fact" etc is nothing more than preaching and an argument by repetition fallacy. Each one of your starting phases has been addressed and refuted with evidence on numerous occasions, but evidently the penny has never dropped. If you had the capability of understanding the points I made but disagreed with them present your counterarguments instead of this low brow argument by repetition fallacy which is just as wrong the first time round as it is the fiftieth.
Your lack of comprehension however is no excuse for dishonesty, resorting to lies to make a point is not an effective way to convert people to your way of thinking particularly when your motivation is through preaching.

I can only speak for myself but I suspect other posters in this thread have the same dilemma of deciding whether you are dumb, dishonest or somewhere in between.

stevevw · 2025-11-09T08:13:35-0600

sjastro said:
This latest serving of yours has phrases "I actually said", "I then said", "I also pointed out this fact" etc is nothing more than preaching and an argument by repetition fallacy. Each one of your starting phases has been addressed and refuted with evidence on numerous occasions, but evidently the penny has never dropped. If you had the capability of understanding the points I made but disagreed with them present your counterarguments instead of this low brow argument by repetition fallacy which is just as wrong the first time round as it is the fiftieth.
Your lack of comprehension however is no excuse for dishonesty, resorting to lies to make a point is not an effective way to convert people to your way of thinking particularly when your motivation is through preaching.

I can only speak for myself but I suspect other posters in this thread have the same dilemma of deciding whether you are dumb, dishonest or somewhere in between.

OK lets take the claim you made about the strirations on the granite box in the Kings chamber. You presented evidence that shows a giant copper saw was used to cut the box. The signatures or witness marks are the strirations that resemble a copper saw with sand/quartz abrasion.

I addressed this evidence by saying that this does not prove that machining was not used. That more than one method was used. You seem to think that this one piece of evidence you present somehow makes all the witness marks that look completely different to your example and more like machining.

If your going to be fair and use logic and reasoning then surely we have to also include all the signatures and not just your one to determine what method was used. Is this not fair epistemically. That we apply the same logic of looking at signatures as to what caused them and not just one example.

You seem to think your example represents all the signatures from saw cuts in Egypt.

Therefore if I show you images like you have of other signatures that contradict your claim. Is this not fair evidence that you need to address.

Search

Search

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

Hans Blaster

I march with Sherman

More options

BCP1928

Well-Known Member

More options

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

sjastro

Newbie

More options

stevevw

inquisitive

More options

Need help?

Similar threads