There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw · Monday at 10:58 PM

BCP1928 said:
He would if there was any evidence for them.

What evidence does a Christian who believes in God use. Or a scientists who supports the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

BCP1928 said:
Why not, if there was evidence for them?

Because the evidence your talking about (empiricle and naturalistic) or material in nature. Is impossible to use to prove ideas like God or other immaterial beliefs. If it was verifiable by science then it would no longer be immaterial or supernatural. Or imatterially based such as consciousness beyond brain.

Science will relegate consciousness as a physical epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So how can it possibly even entertain possibilities that are based on immaterial causes that have no physical processes to measure. Or who interpret even miracles as some physical explanation that cannot be explained. Still physical in nature.

BCP1928 said:
Sure, but those are all religious positions. The methodological materialism of science is as indifferent to them as it is to theism.

Ok so how can it be used if its completely indifferent. It would be like using physics to explain the experience of beauty and love.

BCP1928 said:
Perhaps so, but nobody here is doing that. Mostly what we are doing is pointing out to you how lame your argument is. We don't need to deny "immaterial possibilities" iin order to do that, even if we knew what you thought they were.

You just agreed that "When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science".

So if this is the case when you dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe this is using material science to impose a material metaphysics on those who believe in a immaterial metaphysics as the basis for reality.

This automatically discounts and dismisses all explainations such as knowledge from belief, spirituality, conscious experiences of nature and reality as unreal and make believe.

This is not science but belief. This is imposing one metaphysical belief over another epistemically and ontologically ie the only true and real reality is a material one and the only way we can know reality is by material sciences or methological naturalism.

BCP1928 said:
Who knows? It's still kind of murky what it is you are trying to prove. The "immaterial worldviews of fundamental reality???" What does that even mean?

Its only murky if you want to restrict everything to the material and naturalistic worldview. Of course it will be because anything that cannot be measured in material terms will be unknown and unexplained.

But thats not because its unreal or does not exist. Only that the wrong method or paradigm is being used to understand this. Its like trying to use biology to understand psychology of the mind. Even worse, like using math to work out whether love is real.

stevevw · Monday at 11:29 PM

Hans Blaster said:
Then what is it about???

Well for one when the OP says theres giant flaw in the mainstream narrative of human history. This relates more to philosophy than science overall. Though it can include science as a method within the philosophy of epistemic and metaphysics compared to other ways to see human history and knowledge.

But it certainly is not a cold, hard factual thread of just objective science but also of philsophy of science. Otherwise all it would be doing in doubling down on the idea that it is the material science that is partly to blame for creating the flaw in the narrative by pushing this worldview over all else in this thread. It becomes another situation dominated by one methodology and epistemics in how we should see the world.

Hans Blaster said:
Which is determined by examining the things they made and the things they wrote.

Partly. Like I said you could look at the things they made and if the ancients did use say chemistry and messing around with the physics of material nature. If the ancients knowledge came from their belief and experiences how would you prove this.

We could perhaps prove the out of place signature is real and was caused by some sort of machining. We could prove the ancients purposely designed the pyramids to generate some sort of energy they used.

But you will not ever believe that this was the result of some transcedent knowledge.

So it is better to prove that there is transcedent knoewledge before trying to show in in specific examples that your never going to believe and will always want a material and scientific explanation for.

Hans Blaster said:
What in the Local Group is this? Your OP was about whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the "mainstream narratives". What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?

(Feel free to not try, as there is none.)

I can't even understand what you wrote. Whats the local group. What does "What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?" even mean.

The OP is not just about "whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the mainstream narratives". Its about why and how this is the case. Its about the out of place works which show a level of knowledge that the mainstream cannot account for. Its about how the orthodoxy is promoted over alternative explanations and why.

Which is all about philosophy, epistemics and metaphysics. Really its more about the clash of worldviews as to which narrative should be told about human history.

Hans Blaster said:
I prefer Euclidean geometry in a spherical coordinate system, but the natural geometry is a bendy spacetime. (Lousy nature.)

There it is the belief poopping out again. This is a beliefs, a metaphysical belief. When you call ancient knowledge lousy this is a belief and not science.

Hans Blaster said:
Clearly I am not in charge of of the natural geometry of reality. Sigh. Not sure what this would have to do with ancient civilizations. It was only "discovered/invented" in the 19th century by Riemann and ID'd with reality in the early 20th.

Ah then you have not done your research. Its been around for millenia. In fact natural or sacred geometry, astronomy, and tracking other natural phenomena in nature was the form of communication that played the role or what we would use language and writing or mathmatics today.

It was symbolic and rather than just a 2D equation on paper they actually embodies the maths, and astronomy into their reality. Just as nature does.

We can even see this at Gobekli Tepe and the symbolism and geometry reflecting nature used 11,000 years ago.

stevevw · 2025-11-25T00:56:11-0600

Hans Blaster said:
How can you not get this. I've said it about a dozen times now. Nothing in this thread is a conspiracy. No one is calling anything that you have posted "conspiracy". You keep bringing "conspiracy" up as if the rest of us are accusing you or your principle source of "conspiracy thinking". We have not.

On the other hand, we have definitely called you and them out for pseudoscience. There is pseudoscience (some of it veiled) all over this thread. (And on a similar note, very little of what you bring up could be called "woo woo", but this recent discussion of "alternative knowledge" is getting close. I know how you like to accuse me of demeaning your content as "woo woo".)

Hum, then I am getting mixed messages. It seems just about every link the authors were made out as quacks. For example a couple of academics linked to Karoly (who was also labelled a quack) were said to be amateurs and did not know what they were talking about.

Christ King a 50 year veteran in engineering and precision tooling was made out to be a simple bike maker who did not know anything about machining. Dunn's idea of the pyramid having some ability to generate energy into pseudoscience.

Even Petrie was turned into outdated opinion.

If every person and article is tarred as being some sort of pseudoscience then thats more or less making the thread into being all pseudoscience. Or at least fixating on the credibility of the sources rather than the content and whether its supported by evidence or good arguements.

By fixating so much on the credibility of sources its taken time and energy away from the actuial content. In fact its prevented this thread from looking at the content they actually are supporting.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-25T01:08:45-0600

stevevw said:
For example a couple of academics linked to Karoly (who was also labelled a quack) were said to be amateurs and did not know what they were talking about.

Interesting characterization, can you show what was actually written about them?

stevevw said:
Dunn's idea of the pyramid having some ability to generate energy into pseudoscience.

Who has shown that the pyramids have generated any energy? Without positive corroboration this just conjecture.

stevevw · 2025-11-25T01:42:20-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It seems we need to have a talk about conspiracy.

A conspiracy is a coordinated plan to keep an action or knowledge from the public for a nefarious purpose. A conspiracy theory is the assignation of conspiracy to explain some event or condition.

I am not just meaning conspiracy. I am meaning the promotion of any misleading or misrepresentation of something. Using fallacies to misrepresent the facts or truths creates a false narrative like a conspiracy.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing that the ancients had lost advanced technology -- is not a conspiracy (or conspiracy theory).

Hum then the language doesn't match. Language has been used that dismisses even the idea of ancient advanced knowledge full stop. This is done by explaining away that knowledge using the orthodox narrative as the go to explanation for everything without any evidence. Then accusing those who suggest alternative ideas as not having any evidence. Double standards. Part of forcing the orthodoxy.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing the ancients had lost technology from a lost civilization -- is not a conspiracy.
Believing the ancients had assistance from extraterrestrials -- is not a conspiracy.

What. I am pretty sure I can find direct contradictions to this in this thread. If I had suggested that the ancients gained their knowledge from extraterrestrials I would be piled on lol. There would be cries 'see we told you this is all quackery' lol.

Hans Blaster said:
These are beliefs, they are not conspiracy. The various ideas expressed by the non-professional Egyptology people (from Dunn to Karoly) are not conspiracies, no matter how kooky or implausible.

Now I am really confused lol. So believing the ancients maybe messed around with nature, physics, chemistry, astronomy and had real effects is ok a position to hold. Or maybe if a culture gained this knowledge they passed it on and we should believe the ancients when they say that their ancestors had advanced knowledge.

This is all ok. Is that what your saying. That its a legitimate belief and position to take that may be based on the truth.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing that 9/11 was an inside job -- *IS* a conspiracy theory.

Huh, why. What if it was an inside job. Like I said usually when there is some questioning its based on some truth. This is usually some inconsistencies in what happened. Its not a complete baseless idea. As opposed to say the many other events that don't get questioned because there is nothing suspicious.

I am not saying that 9/11 was an inside job. But the idea that questioning whether something was an inside job is not a conspiracy itself.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing the CIA and the Mafia killed JFK -- *IS* a conspiracy theory.

Once again there is usually some basis. It may have been nothing to do with the marfia actually killing Kennedy. But it may be that the Marfia was associated with Kennedy and that fueled the speculation. Its never based on nothing and made out of thin air. Otherwise the conspirators have nothing to use as the reason.

Plus I think a fair number of what were considered conspiracies actually were proven true. So saying this situation or that situation is a conspiracy is unjustified as we don't know. Because the unlikely has been shown to be fact before then any conspiracy may be proven fact. We don't know the deep State and all the hidden stuff that power has kept from everyone.

Look at Epstein which is starting to come out now. People have no idea of what was going on behind closed doors. But usually where theres smoke theres fire.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing the USAAF found and covered up an alien space craft in July 1947 is a conspiracy theory.

What about now. Up to 30 top officials with top level clearence testifying under oath in congress. Soon more will come out. How many people need to testify before its believed.

What about all the sightings. Sure some were human made drones. But many unexplained. Direct images and video from military hardware. From individuals phones and cameras all over the world. Was this just mass hallucinations.

Hans Blaster said:
Believing that Dr. Faucci worked with the Chinese to create COVID-19 in the lab is a conspiracy theory.

As mentioned these conspiracies are usually based on grains of truth. It may not have been that Dr. Faucci helped the Chinese to create Covid. But his department were involved in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were working on the Covid virus. Two of the papers from that lab spoke about working on the virus and how this could create new unnatural mutations of the virus.

So its not based on nothing and there is even some questions still unanswered. Just like ancient legends are based on some truth of an event happening that has been elaborated on. So we should not be dismissing people who ask these questions. But encourage this as this will help find the truth.

Hans Blaster said:
There is no need to invoke "conspiracy" in this thread, so you can stop.

I am not the one evoking conspiracies. Any time I have mentioned this has been in response to someone making it about conspiracies or pseudoscience and I have to defend the sources. Have to explain its not actually a conspiracy or pseudoscience.

The fact we are arguing over whether this is the case or not is the evidence that the thread has been turned that way lol. And it was not me who did this.

Ophiolite · 2025-11-25T04:44:40-0600

stevevw said:
Hum then the language doesn't match. Language has been used that dismisses even the idea of ancient advanced knowledge full stop. This is done by explaining away that knowledge using the orthodox narrative as the go to explanation for everything without any evidence. Then accusing those who suggest alternative ideas as not having any evidence. Double standards. Part of forcing the orthodoxy

Is this, finally, your admission that your claims of conspiracy are based upon the fact that you did not understand the meaning of conspiracy? If so, it is one small step towards your development of critical thinking.

Aside: it is considered to polite to reply to personal messages, even if it is only to decline an offer of help. Perhaps courtesy is another word you are not familiar with.

stevevw · 2025-11-25T05:27:01-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Interesting characterization, can you show what was actually written about them?

OK so I did a quick word search for 'amateur' and this is what it found. I won't give the post number.

The comment on the researchers who were part of developing the software for Karolys vase scan project

my comment of your exalted individuals being part time amateurs in metrology coding

In regards to Christ Smith

"he is rank amateur when it comes to explaining striations on ancient Egyptian objects".

There were more. The word 'amateur' alone has been mentioned 27 times by others and not me. Thats not counting other similar words that discredit the researchers. May well be over a 100 or more references to demeaning the sources. Add in words like psuedoscience, grifters, conspiracy, Atlantis, fantacy ect for describing the sources and it starts to pile up.

Stopped_lurking said:
Who has shown that the pyramids have generated any energy? Without positive corroboration this just conjecture.

First we have the theorectical modelling. Which is the preliminary science supporting such a hypothesis. So theorectically tests should support the modelling. All that needs to be done is to physically test it in the pyramid.

But that is partly done already with tests that on acoustics which show sound is focused into the chambers and magnifies. Plus tests have shown the chambers were subject to stress and heat.

We also have evidence of a furnace, chemical smells and tested chemical residue leaking from the stones of the chambers.

There are other bits of evidence such as the many deep shafts around the pyramid and what looks like a drainage system but not necessarily all for water. Evidence of copper piping and also electrodes. We also have possible written evidence on reliefs.

stevevw · 2025-11-25T05:47:20-0600

Ophiolite said:
Is this, finally, your admission that your claims of conspiracy are based upon the fact that you did not understand the meaning of conspiracy? If so, it is one small step towards your development of critical thinking.

I understood the meaning of conspiracy.

Using the idea that the alternative or advanced knowledge claim is a conspiracy to deny any truth that there is alternative and advanced knowledge is just one way to undermine peoples claims about advanced knowledge.

I am saying there have been several ways or tactics applied to undermine the sources besides trying to make out that what is being said is about conspiracies.

Besides someone literally said that X source has Hancock conspiracies all over it. Therefore the implication by associated is that it is also conspiracy lol.

I think its the other way around. I understand the difference. I don't think you understand how all these logical fallacies are being made about whats presented which are being turned into the equivalent of conspiracies, or pseudoscience or whatever other discrediting word or language is used.

I just showed one word 'amateur' as an example. The language doesn't lie and reveals what is actually happening lol.

Ophiolite said:
Aside: it is considered to polite to reply to personal messages,

What personal messages lol. If the person behind the sources credibility is attacked without any evidence is that fair. I am merely point out that if a persons credibility is attacked then this brings in the credibility of everyone. Its a silly way to go about establishing the truth of the content,

Ophiolite said:
even if it is only to decline an offer of help. Perhaps courtesy is another word you are not familiar with.

I don't know what your talking about lol. I have recieved no help, and I am just trying to defend those whom I linked from what I think is unjustified attacks on their credibility.

Stopped_lurking · 2025-11-25T06:26:09-0600

stevevw said:
OK so I did a quick word search for 'amateur' and this is what it found. I won't give the post number.

The comment on the researchers who were part of developing the software for Karolys vase scan project

my comment of your exalted individuals being part time amateurs in metrology coding

I looked at Marian Marcis (his was the only name I remembered) academic output, how much metrology coding have he done recently? Or ever?

If you give me the names of the ones I can check that too.

stevevw said:
In regards to Christ Smith

"he is rank amateur when it comes to explaining striations on ancient Egyptian objects".

Being good at making bearings (as a cyclist I know who he is) don't automatically give you insights into ancient egyptian techniques.

stevevw said:
There were more. The word 'amateur' alone has been mentioned 27 times by others and not me. Thats not counting other similar words that discredit the researchers. May well be over a 100 or more references to demeaning the sources. Add in words like psuedoscience, grifters, conspiracy, Atlantis, fantacy ect for describing the sources and it starts to pile up.

First we have the theorectical modelling. Which is the preliminary science supporting such a hypothesis. So theorectically tests should support the modelling. All that needs to be done is to physically test it in the pyramid.

No energy extraction was modelled. No mechanism for extracting the energy was hypothesized, the models did not include any granite stones.

So no, the simulation don't support that the pyramids were used for energy harvesting.

stevevw said:
But that is partly done already with tests that on acoustics which show sound is focused into the chambers and magnifies. Plus tests have shown the chambers were subject to stress and heat.

So what energy did the acoustic investigation say was extracted?

You are doing it again, you give references that don't support the contention that any energy was extracted.

stevevw said:
We also have evidence of a furnace, chemical smells and tested chemical residue leaking from the stones of the chambers.

There are other bits of evidence such as the many deep shafts around the pyramid and what looks like a drainage system but not necessarily all for water. Evidence of copper piping and also electrodes. We also have possible written evidence on reliefs.

So link the articles regarding energy extraction then, you're dancing around what you claimed.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-25T09:42:12-0600

stevevw said:
Well for one when the OP says theres giant flaw in the mainstream narrative of human history. This relates more to philosophy than science overall. Though it can include science as a method within the philosophy of epistemic and metaphysics compared to other ways to see human history and knowledge.

But it certainly is not a cold, hard factual thread of just objective science but also of philsophy of science. Otherwise all it would be doing in doubling down on the idea that it is the material science that is partly to blame for creating the flaw in the narrative by pushing this worldview over all else in this thread. It becomes another situation dominated by one methodology and epistemics in how we should see the world.

Part of the problem seems to be that you don't understand that all of our tools for examining the past (archeology, paleontology, history) are naturalistic in the fundamental nature. If you want ancient mysticism go find a place about ancient spirituality. This (P&LS on CF) is not such a place. When you post here you implicitly put forth for the evaluation using these naturalistic tools.

stevevw said:
Partly. Like I said you could look at the things they made and if the ancients did use say chemistry and messing around with the physics of material nature. If the ancients knowledge came from their belief and experiences how would you prove this.

We could perhaps prove the out of place signature is real and was caused by some sort of machining. We could prove the ancients purposely designed the pyramids to generate some sort of energy they used.

And every one of these has been reasonably challenged. They have been addressed under the naturalistic paradigm which is the frame that you have used to present them. (As they are discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, this is enough.)

stevevw said:
But you will not ever believe that this was the result of some transcedent knowledge.

So it is better to prove that there is transcedent knoewledge before trying to show in in specific examples that your never going to believe and will always want a material and scientific explanation for.

You have invoked this repeatedly without justification. This is the wrong section to discuss such things and the "transcendental" (whatever that is, as it is poorly defined when ever I hear about it) isn't part of the material culture being examined.

stevevw said:
I can't even understand what you wrote. Whats the local group. What does "What about the this whatever it is had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?" even mean.

I should have put quotes in like this:

What about the "this whatever it is" had a thing to do with if we can find permanent settlements?

English has a funny (and fabulous) capability to create nouns out of groups of words that works in speech and is hard to write down unless you are very careful. (It is easier to do in the mother tongue with its crazy compound words.) I should have been more careful, but I couldn't make heads-nor-tails of your "this whatever it is" in the paragraph I was responding to. It really looked like some sort of spiritualist woo woo about the past.

As for "what in the Local Group?", I was so flabbergasted by what you had written such that "what on Earth?" was insufficient, even "what in the Galaxy?" wasn't enough to express my exasperated befuddlement, so I went to "what in the Local Group?" with several large galaxies and about a trillion stars.

stevevw said:
The OP is not just about "whether there were settled civilizations earlier than claimed in the mainstream narratives". Its about why and how this is the case. Its about the out of place works which show a level of knowledge that the mainstream cannot account for. Its about how the orthodoxy is promoted over alternative explanations and why.

Which is all about philosophy, epistemics and metaphysics. Really its more about the clash of worldviews as to which narrative should be told about human history.

Oh, so maybe you have been presenting a low-key conspiracy theory about the "mainstream narrative" all along. This is part of my problem with the author of the video in the OP. He's doing the same.

stevevw said:
There it is the belief poopping out again. This is a beliefs, a metaphysical belief. When you call ancient knowledge lousy this is a belief and not science.

Nope, I was only referring to the geometric aspect of nature and my disappointment that reality is a curved spacetime manifold. Unfortunately for me, I don't get to pick how Nature is, so GR it is. In that sentence I referenced GR tangentially, in the next one I was more explicit in a way that is obvious to those who aren't ignorant of the fundamental nature of the Universe.

stevevw said:
Ah then you have not done your research. Its been around for millenia. In fact natural or sacred geometry, astronomy, and tracking other natural phenomena in nature was the form of communication that played the role or what we would use language and writing or mathmatics today.

No, I learned it in school. The bit you just responded to was entirely about GR -- the geometry behind nature.

stevevw said:
It was symbolic and rather than just a 2D equation on paper they actually embodies the maths, and astronomy into their reality. Just as nature does.

Nature does lots of geometry starting with the Riemann geometry of spacetime. This, however, has nothing to do with ancient history, objects, or artifacts.

stevevw said:
We can even see this at Gobekli Tepe and the symbolism and geometry reflecting nature used 11,000 years ago.

It's way to late in this thread to expand to Gobekli Tepe. Perhaps at the beginning it would have been, but this is the "Egypt thread" now. The problem with GT, though, is that we don't know what their symbology meant, so anything you would post would be speculative.

BCP1928 · 2025-11-25T10:32:48-0600

stevevw said:
What evidence does a Christian who believes in God use.

None.

stevevw said:
Or a scientists who supports the idea of consciousness beyond brain.

Can't help you there. I suppose you are talking about substance dualism, which is not a fundamental Christian doctrine and not one I have a particular opinion about. So far, the scientific evidence suggests monism will turn out to be sufficient explanation for "mind" but it is not, to me, an important question.

stevevw said:
Because the evidence your talking about (empiricle and naturalistic) or material in nature. Is impossible to use to prove ideas like God or other immaterial beliefs. If it was verifiable by science then it would no longer be immaterial or supernatural. Or imatterially based such as consciousness beyond brain.

Science will relegate consciousness as a physical epiphenomena caused by the physical brain. So how can it possibly even entertain possibilities that are based on immaterial causes that have no physical processes to measure. Or who interpret even miracles as some physical explanation that cannot be explained. Still physical in nature.

Of course. Let me give you an example: The Bible tells us that God spoke to Moses out of a burning bush which was not consumed by the fire. The event is regarded as a miracle. Now science has discovered a plant in the region, Dictamnus Albus, which exudes a volatile oil which will sometimes spontaneously combust and burn off without harming the plant. Does that mean to you that science denies the miracle?

stevevw said:
Ok so how can it be used if its completely indifferent. It would be like using physics to explain the experience of beauty and love.

You just agreed that "When someone uses material science to refute immaterial possibilities they are imposing a metaphysical belief and not science".

When someone tried to do that, they would be misusing material science. But since no one here is trying to do that you may be should find someone who is and argue with them. But you will have to develop some cogent arguments first.

stevevw said:
So if this is the case when you dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe this is using material science to impose a material metaphysics on those who believe in a immaterial metaphysics as the basis for reality.

I don't dismiss ancient or indigenous knowledge as unreal or make believe. In fact I have, we all have, shown a great deal more respect for it than you do.

stevevw said:
This automatically discounts and dismisses all explainations such as knowledge from belief, spirituality, conscious experiences of nature and reality as unreal and make believe.

Nope.

stevevw said:
This is not science but belief. This is imposing one metaphysical belief over another epistemically and ontologically ie the only true and real reality is a material one and the only way we can know reality is by material sciences or methological naturalism.

Nope. What you are talking about is metaphysical materialism which is a religious opinion, not a scientific one.

stevevw said:
Its only murky if you want to restrict everything to the material and naturalistic worldview. Of course it will be because anything that cannot be measured in material terms will be unknown and unexplained.

Unknown and unexplained by science. That's fine. Explaining or refuting that for which there is no physical evidence is not their particular gig. If you want knowledge of the supernatural you will have to get it in some other way.

stevevw said:
But thats not because its unreal or does not exist. Only that the wrong method or paradigm is being used to understand this. Its like trying to use biology to understand psychology of the mind. Even worse, like using math to work out whether love is real.

Just like you using a science like archaeology to work out your own theology so you can prove others' theology is wrong.

sjastro · 2025-11-25T18:33:25-0600

stevevw said:
But it certainly is not a cold, hard factual thread of just objective science but also of philsophy of science. Otherwise all it would be doing in doubling down on the idea that it is the material science that is partly to blame for creating the flaw in the narrative by pushing this worldview over all else in this thread. It becomes another situation dominated by one methodology and epistemics in how we should see the world.

Partly. Like I said you could look at the things they made and if the ancients did use say chemistry and messing around with the physics of material nature. If the ancients knowledge came from their belief and experiences how would you prove this.

We could perhaps prove the out of place signature is real and was caused by some sort of machining. We could prove the ancients purposely designed the pyramids to generate some sort of energy they used.

But you will not ever believe that this was the result of some transcedent knowledge.

So it is better to prove that there is transcedent knoewledge before trying to show in in specific examples that your never going to believe and will always want a material and scientific explanation for.

Material science is not some philosophical argument it is an actual science, I was a materials scientist working in forensic engineering.
Here is a case history of a head on car collision where the steering column disintegrated on impact impaling and killing the driver.
It is all about gathering evidence from various sources and forming a conclusion from the evidence.

Stage / Group	Sequence of Responsibilities
1. Police / Accident Investigators	- Arrive first and secure the crash scene- Coordinate emergency response- Collect initial evidence (photos, measurements, witness statements)- Retrieve vehicle data if available- Begin preliminary accident reconstruction- Notify the coroner/medical examiner when fatalities occur
2. Coroner / Medical Examiner	- Take custody of the deceased- Conduct autopsy and toxicology- Determine medical cause of death- Document injury patterns- Issue death certificate
3. Forensic Pathologists	- Perform detailed trauma and injury analysis- Assess whether injuries match collision dynamics- Provide findings to police and reconstruction experts- Offer expert testimony if required
4. Crash Reconstruction Experts	- Reconstruct crash mechanics using physics, scene evidence, and vehicle data- Determine speeds, trajectories, impact sequence, and forces- Link mechanical events to injury outcomes- Produce formal reports for investigators and insurers
5. Manufacturers / Forensic Engineering / Material Science	- Investigate suspected component, structural, or material failures- Conduct materials and metallurgical analysis (fracture, fatigue, corrosion)- Assess design, manufacturing, or maintenance-related defects- Provide engineering reports for investigators or insurers

The same principles apply to the investigation of ancient tooling to produce vases, stone blocks, statues, casing stones etc where evidence is gathered from various disciplines to form a conclusion.

Stage / Group	Sequence of Responsibilities
1. Archaeologists / Field Excavators	- Identify and document workshop remains, unfinished artifacts, tool marks, and quarry sites- Record context, stratigraphy, and dating- Collect samples of stone, residues, and copper fragments- Photograph and map tool marks and manufacturing traces
2. Egyptologists / Textual & Iconographic Analysts	- Examine reliefs, inscriptions, and tomb scenes depicting craft activities- Interpret terms for tools, materials, and workshop processes- Compare evidence across Old Kingdom sites (e.g., Giza, Saqqara, Abu Rawash)
3. Materials Analysts / Microscopy & Petrography Specialists	- Use optical microscopy, SEM, and thin-section petrography to study tool marks- Analyze abrasive residues (quartz sand, emery, corundum, etc.)- Determine stone composition (granite, diorite, schist, limestone) and hardness- Characterize copper alloy composition and hardness (pure copper vs arsenical copper)
4. Experimental Archaeologists	- Reproduce cutting, drilling, sawing, turning, and polishing using period-appropriate materials- Test copper saws, tube drills, bow drills, chisels, pounding stones, and sand abrasives- Document resulting tool marks for comparison with ancient surfaces- Assess labor time, wear rates, and practical feasibility of techniques
5. Engineering / Mechanics & Tribology Researchers	- Model cutting forces, abrasion mechanics, and tool–stone interactions- Quantify material removal rates using copper tools with added abrasives- Analyze efficiency of rotational drilling (tube drills), sawing, and pounding methods- Compare mechanical signatures with archaeological marks (striations, grooves, kerfs)
6. Forensic Archaeologists / Comparative Analysts	- Match experimentally produced tool marks with ancient examples- Evaluate consistency of patterns (circular striations, sawing kerfs, drill holes)- Identify whether the observed evidence fits known Old Kingdom techniques- Rule out or confirm exotic or anachronistic tool hypotheses
7. Synthesis by Interdisciplinary Research Teams	- Integrate archaeological, experimental, chemical, and engineering data- Produce coherent models explaining how specific artifacts (vases, sarcophagi, granite blocks) were manufactured- Publish findings for peer review and comparison with other sites and periods

By comparison we have a bicycle parts manufacturer claiming the striation patterns on vase fragments were not produced by known ancient Egyptian tooling or an engineer who thinks the pyramids could not have been built but were also power sources, none of which is evidence based but personal opinion.
Lets disguise this by bringing transcedent (sic) knowledge into the picture which ultimately explains nothing.

I'm sure the family of the crash victim would take greater solace in knowing the circumstances of the accident was based on the evidence rather than some unknown transcendent mechanism.

Hans Blaster · 2025-11-25T21:43:59-0600

stevevw said:
I am not just meaning conspiracy. I am meaning the promotion of any misleading or misrepresentation of something. Using fallacies to misrepresent the facts or truths creates a false narrative like a conspiracy.

Use the right words, especially if you know them. Looseness in speech is not a virtue.

stevevw said:
Hum then the language doesn't match. Language has been used that dismisses even the idea of ancient advanced knowledge full stop. This is done by explaining away that knowledge using the orthodox narrative as the go to explanation for everything without any evidence. Then accusing those who suggest alternative ideas as not having any evidence. Double standards. Part of forcing the orthodoxy.

Explanations are not evidence. Explanations *explain* evidence. The "orthodox narrative" is entirely based on evidence. The "alternative ideas" have the same evidence to work with. The question arises if one, the other, neither, or both work with the evidence.

stevevw said:
What. I am pretty sure I can find direct contradictions to this in this thread. If I had suggested that the ancients gained their knowledge from extraterrestrials I would be piled on lol. There would be cries 'see we told you this is all quackery' lol.

Quite possibly. It would all come down to if the evidence supports an ET theory or does not. This is the problem with playing with the bright flames of pseudoscience -- it can burn you.

stevevw said:
Now I am really confused lol. So believing the ancients maybe messed around with nature, physics, chemistry, astronomy and had real effects is ok a position to hold. Or maybe if a culture gained this knowledge they passed it on and we should believe the ancients when they say that their ancestors had advanced knowledge.

This is all ok. Is that what your saying. That its a legitimate belief and position to take that may be based on the truth.

It's not OK. It is a poor position to take as it is not supported by evidence. Just because it isn't a conspiracy doesn't mean it isn't a dumb idea.

stevevw said:
Huh, why. What if it was an inside job. Like I said usually when there is some questioning its based on some truth. This is usually some inconsistencies in what happened. Its not a complete baseless idea. As opposed to say the many other events that don't get questioned because there is nothing suspicious.

I am not saying that 9/11 was an inside job. But the idea that questioning whether something was an inside job is not a conspiracy itself.

That's exactly what the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy theory is Steve.

stevevw said:
Once again there is usually some basis. It may have been nothing to do with the marfia actually killing Kennedy. But it may be that the Marfia was associated with Kennedy and that fueled the speculation. Its never based on nothing and made out of thin air. Otherwise the conspirators have nothing to use as the reason.

Conspiracy theories are built by frantic putting of unrelated factoids together because "it just makes sense." JFK was murdered by dissolusioned communist (and former defector to the USSR) with an Italian infantry rifle from the window of the schoolbook warehouse that he worked at.

stevevw said:
Plus I think a fair number of what were considered conspiracies actually were proven true. So saying this situation or that situation is a conspiracy is unjustified as we don't know. Because the unlikely has been shown to be fact before then any conspiracy may be proven fact. We don't know the deep State and all the hidden stuff that power has kept from everyone.

Wow. You even bring up extra conspiracy theories without prompting like "the Deep State".

stevevw said:
Look at Epstein which is starting to come out now. People have no idea of what was going on behind closed doors. But usually where theres smoke theres fire.

And his co-conspirator was convicted of conspiracy. But we aren't talking about criminal conspiracies we are listing nut-job conspiracy theories so that you can understand what one is and how ancient Egyptian potter manufacture is not one.

stevevw said:
What about now. Up to 30 top officials with top level clearence testifying under oath in congress. Soon more will come out. How many people need to testify before its believed.

What about all the sightings. Sure some were human made drones. But many unexplained. Direct images and video from military hardware. From individuals phones and cameras all over the world. Was this just mass hallucinations.

None of those have anything to do with the conspiracy theories about the Roswell "incident". (And many of them have already been discredited. My favorite is the "UFO" tracked by a fighter jet over the ocean that turns out to be a bird.)

stevevw said:
As mentioned these conspiracies are usually based on grains of truth. It may not have been that Dr. Faucci helped the Chinese to create Covid. But his department were involved in funding the Wuhan Institute of Virology who were working on the Covid virus. Two of the papers from that lab spoke about working on the virus and how this could create new unnatural mutations of the virus.

Not all coronaviruses are SARS-CoV-2 and that virus was first isolated from the Wuhan hospitals, not in a lab source.

stevevw said:
So its not based on nothing and there is even some questions still unanswered. Just like ancient legends are based on some truth of an event happening that has been elaborated on. So we should not be dismissing people who ask these questions. But encourage this as this will help find the truth.

I am not the one evoking conspiracies. Any time I have mentioned this has been in response to someone making it about conspiracies or pseudoscience and I have to defend the sources. Have to explain its not actually a conspiracy or pseudoscience.

Conspiracy and pseudoscience are not the same thing. We have repeated called out the pseudoscience you have posted here. We (the "not you" posters) have not claimed anything is "a conspiracy". That is only you complaining that we are calling things conspiracies that were not in fact or implication. That failure on your part is why I wrote the post you just replied to. Is it starting to sink in?

stevevw said:
The fact we are arguing over whether this is the case or not is the evidence that the thread has been turned that way lol. And it was not me who did this.

See last paragraph. It is because you have incorrectly introduced the term "conspiracy" in you accusations when we call out the pseudoscience in your posts.

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

inquisitive

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

I march with Sherman

Well-Known Member

Newbie

I march with Sherman

Similar threads