Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You just provided the evidence by posting my very words which says I did not say the vases were made unguided. After you claimed I did. What more evidence do you need.

Yes, you did claim the ancients couldn't have done it without being guided. Which is a stupid and baseless claim which you have not presented any evidence for except for bad claims and bad science.

No not these vases and statues for example. Their level of tech in the dimensions has never been evidenced in any period of history. Not until around 500AD did we begin to have rudimentary Turing machines.

But even that this was not developed until mid 20th century. Then again the level of geometry and maths on these vases is computer level design which did not come around until the 1970s. But not advanced enough until even recently.

Which is a stupid and frankly baseless claim that is as much steeped in 20th century racism as it is in conspiracy theories. There were no 'Turing machines' from 500AD.

Are you now saying we have 1,000s of examples of perfectly created items like they were done on a computer throughout history before there was computers and machines.

We don't have 1,000s. It doesn't matter how many there are throughout history even if there is. Because its impossible for any of them to be made by freehand with guidence for a machine. If there are 1,000s then its just increasing the evidnece for machine guided tech before machines were invented.

I never said that we have "1,000s of examples of perfectly created items like they were done on a computer throughout history before there was computers and machines." I said that we have thousands of examples of pottery being made by human hands throughout history and throughout the world that shows it can be done.

Your insistence on them being made by advanced technologies undermines the history of artistry, pottery, the artisan class and the ability of humans to create in general.

Ah the question could be turned around and asked, why are you so bothered that you continually want to dispute it.

It matters to me because its part of finding the truth. Get as much evidence as you can and weigh it all up. Thats called science.

I have provided scientific analysis so you need to now dispute that and not create fallacies. I know a fallacy when I see one and your creating a giant one when you keep denying the evidence I linked in clear plain writing and tests by attacking the person and not addressing the content. Its called an ad hominem. Among the many others.

You're presenting anything that's close to the truth though. You're spouting off conspiracy theories left and right and comitting your own logical fallacies in the process. Pointing that out isn't not an ad hominem attack, it's pertinent facts.

You attacked Petrie as some whacko scientists until you realised he was one of the best archeologists in the world. So then you tried to undermine his work by claiming its too old. You attacked Dunn as engaging in fantasies and the evidence I linked as all sorts of misrepresentations. Then you attack me personally questioning my integrity and intellect instead of dealing with the content.

The only way to sort this is to deal with the evidence. At least reason that the evidence is wrong or inconclusive. Show me where its wrong or suggest an alternative explanation for the findings. But don't ignore them and attack the source.

Anyway like I said I don't see any sense continuing. We can agree to disagree and move on to something else and then come back to it. I don't want it to dominate. It is good to now go into other evidence so we have different lines to refer to. Just leave the evidence put so far in the (no conclusive evidence) basket for now until we get more data.

I have dealt with the content, by pointing out that each claim you make is just that: a claim. Petrie is no longer relevant at all, and hasn't been for a century and your insistence that he is is is nothing more than confirmation bias and appeal to authority. Dunn is suspect because of his conspiracy theories claiming that the Great Pyramid is a power plant, and again is nothing more than an appeal to authority from you. Your own posts are full of suspect logic, bad science and confirmation bias, since your own posts have shown that you are arguing from a place of incredulity to begin with and that means that you'll never be honest with your comments.

The alternative explanation and the simplest one is the one that we know: that humans made what we have seen with the tools they had on hand, as evidenced by their own contemporary artwork as has been found across the world. To pretend that they used anything else is spurious, reeks of 20th century racism, and is stupid logic.

I refuse to agree to disagree on this topic because as an amateur historian, people like you get on my nerve because you make the rest of use look bad. The only thing I've give you credence on is that this has gone on for too long. You've been shown to be wrong repeatedly yet refuse to accept it. Simple as.

 

[BCP1928]

I haven't contradicted myself because the evidence shows that for example the vases could not have been done without some guidence. No one has ever demonstrated they can achieve near perfection by sight and touch un guided. Many of these vases come from the pre Dynasty period.

You keep saying "unguided." I am not sure what you mean by that, exactly. However, since it is possible to produce an object to any desired degree of accuracy with hand tools, provided that the right kind of measurement techniques are used, perhaps you are trying to tell us that the "lost technology" you are looking for is actually the technology of measurement. You should be looking at how measurements were made in these ancient cultures.

 

[stevevw]

I suggest you reread my post and furthermore you contradict yourself on a regular basis suggesting you are being disingenuous for not sticking to the same story.

I know what this is. Its attacking the person so not to deal with the evidence I linked.

I don't believe you unless you produce this video and point out where it explicitly states 21 cranes are required to lift the obelisk as it implies the load carrying capacity of these unidentified machines in known.

Well then that is a pity. What can we do. I am not going back to look through 10 hours plus of video. I fail to see why this is important. Is it because you want to prove I never linked that evidence or that the evidence is false or that I accused you of saying something that you didn't.

Why on earth would I refer to an example if I did not think that I had already mentioned it. I didn't just make it up out of thin air. I only say things I have read and linked as evidence.

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous handwave jobs I have ever come across. If Egyptians had machines to move obelisks, why do they depict scenes where obelisks are moved using manual labour?
The answer is very simple and logical because they did not have machines to move obelisks.

No its not simple and logic. We are talking about 1,000 to 1,500 ton blocks. Theres also the problem of how other blocks up to 800 tons were moved up hills and mountains and lifeted 20 feet or more and stood upright. The depitcions do not show any of this.

When we look at the depiction we find its doesn't support the carrying of mega blocks. The load in the paintings is actually a statue and is made of alabaster a softer and lighter stone. Experts have determined it only weights around 65 ton. That is a long way from 1,200 tons plus.

This example does not scale up to that degree of weight. The friction coefficency of such a heavy load digging into the ground or just crushing the sleigh is enough to count it out.

The Transportation of the Djehutihotep Statue Revisited

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Transportation-of-the-Djehutihotep-Statue-Ayrinhac/4e4f5c3213111817ab72e342e6dd6ed3535896fd

You also have the gall of claiming this is not enough evidence when your own standards are based personal incredulity and zero evidence.

I have also not made any claims about what the evidence represents as facts or that the evidence is conclusive. In fact I have said I don't know.

So when I say theres not enough evidence I speak from a far greater authority than yourself or anyone else on this thread for the simple fact I am the one posting all the evidence or most of it anyway. You post a pic that is a false representation of what is happening. No one has ever moved a 1,000 ton plus block in experiments. So we need more evidence.

Simple as that. The pic on the wall is not enough evidence to be confident it also applies to 1,000 ton plus blocks which is a completely different logistic problem that is even difficult for modern day. As I said we need lots of cranes.

For crying out loud do you try to comprehend your own links?

Why do you get so animated lol. Using language like "you have a gall', "the most rediculous thing" and "based on personal incredulity and zero evidence". All these absolute and emotive rhetoric and name calling is not a good way to conduct a discussion.

"For crying out loud" is also a song by Meatloaf lol.

What you are referring to are issues that were raised in the 1990’s,

Then that means we can scrap all the evidence from the 1990 video which basicallt came from a Nova special. I am pretty sure I seen a couple pics from that same show with the guy in the cowboy hat. Never trust a cowboy I reckon lol.

the ancient Egyptian drilling experiment I linked to was conducted in 2016 and the measurements of the spiral pitch on their granite core sample were as high 2.0 mm.
According to Dunne this would be “impossible” as it would require an ultra sharp cutting tool, a high RPM or a combination of both.

Is this the Russian video with no analysis on the experiment. This is not good evidence. What Petrie and Dunn were talking about is the spiral or hylical pattern like a "drunken screw" is what Petrie desribed the pattern as. Winding downwards like a screw thread would do. Also the downward lines dug into the granite cutting through both hartder conglomerates as deep as softer ones leaving a destinct cut into the granite.

Your experiemnet leaves nothing like this. This is from your experiment.

see how you can hardly see any lines dug in at all. Thats because the copper pipe cannot dig into the sides as nothing is fixed from the side of the pipe. It will rather dig into the base where the circular pipe meets the granite and not the sides of the shaft.

Here we can see some faint lines but they are not dug in nor spiral but rather horizontal just like the experimenters in the 1990s found.

This is the original core for comparison.

The scientists based their rig on an Egyptian relief which used a variation of the bow drill and used a circular stone weight which acted both as a flywheel making rotations easier due to inertia and as a weight to apply pressure on the granite.
Clearly Dunne has been proven wrong.

You mean Flinders Petrie and Dunn two of the worlds best. As far as I understand you linked a video which did not have any analysis attached. But what is the difference between the 1990 tests and the 2016 one. They both used a copper pipe. Its the copper pipe that is in dispute. It could not have left such marks as it does not cause a spiral patter but a horizontal one.

Which makes sense because its basically abrasing down evenly and slowly. To create a spiral patter you need a fixed point on the cutter that digs into the side and then spirals down as the plunger is forced down.

So now you are an expert on statistics.

No but we have expert testing and analysis which I linked and you have ignored.

First of all these extended number of vases were not tested using a laser scanner but were metrologically tested.

Yes not all have been subjected to laser testing. But that doesn't deminish the findings. The Metrology tests measured the dimensions of the vases down to 1.1000 of an inch and all came in near perfection. Some even more precise than the original vase tested. How is the laser going to refute the precision in the dimensions.

Secondly unless I am missed something there was no statistical analysis performed on this sample size of 12.

What do you mean stat analysis.

The whole point of the exercise should have been to show the element of luck being very low particularly if the Egyptians were aided by machines where the standard deviation would be expected to be small as would be the chances of outliers.
Instead it appears the vases were analysed in isolation which says nothing about the vases being made by hand or machine.

Yes it does by the simple fact that such perfection in even one vase but also others shows these particular vases were impossible to make by hand. An unguided hand cannot achieve that level of perfection across 1,000s of reference points.

There is no sense in testing all the vases because some are made inferior to others. Just because there are these perfect vases doesn't mean less perfect vases were also produced or that various methods were used. These vases may have been special for some reason.

The other problem is the sample size itself, to obtain a 95% confidence level you need a minimum sample size of around 30, but since your extended number includes vases of various dimensions the sample size needs to be considerably larger to be statistically significant.

No it doesn't. If you find one vase that is perfection and beyond human capability but rather meets the level of computerised guidence then you don't need another vase to back that up. Its like finding one watch on the beach to know that it was designed. You don't need 30 more to prove that.

Are you saying that because not enough vases have been sampled that the ones which are near perfect are not near perfect. Somehow if we find many that are not near perfect that this somehow undermines the perfect ones.

Wrong late period vases some 3000 years later are clearly superior to predynastic vases particularly surface finishes which have a polished appearance which predynastic vases do not.

Most of these vases come from either the pre Dynastic or first couple of Dynasties. Then they cease to appear. The same as the pyramids, statues, columes and Sarcophagus.

Astonishing Results: Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed

Uncharted X has provided an update on the vas scan project, which aims to analyze and scan ancient Egyptian vases to determine their age and origin. The team has scanned and analyzed more vases, and the results have shown that several of the vases have Precision manufacturing that is equal to or bet

www.thearchaeologist.org

There are some vases that are claimed to come later because they were found in a later Pharoahs tomb. But most say that these were found from earlier periods for which later Pharoahs like Ramses second often did.

These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization. Stoneware such as this has not been found from any later era in Egyptian history - it seems that the skills necessary were lost.

There were not just a few of these. Apparently there were thousands found in and around the Step pyramid. The Step Pyramid is believed to be the oldest stone pyramid in Egypt - the first one built. It seems to be the only place where these kind of stone housewares were found in quantity,

Although Petrie found some fragments of similar bowls at Giza. Many of them have inscribed (scratched) onto them the symbols of the earliest kings of Egypt - the pre-dynastic era monarchs - from before the pharaohs. Judging by the primitive skill of the inscriptions, it seems unlikely that those signatures were made by the same craftsmen who fashioned the bowls in the first place.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

So while you go on about others logical fallacies you are blissfully unaware of your own, this latest one being the appeal to authority fallacy.

No its not appeal to authority because I also included their tests and analysis. I mentioned their credentials because people are trying to make their own ad homineem fallacies that these scientists and engineers don't know what they are talking about. So you have actually created a fallacy about a fallacy.

Your latest link confirms my suspicions that these so called scientists of which one clearly is not a scientist but an engineer while I have no idea of the others qualifications, have not analysed the results in a professional way.

An engineer is exactly what is needed to do the reverse engineering on these vases. An archologists can't. Nor can a geologists. Flinders Petrie is one of the worlds greatest archeologists who dicovered many of Egypts amazing works.

Sir Flinders Petrie, was a British Egyptologist and a pioneer of systematic methodology in archaeology and the preservation of artefacts. He held the first chair of Egyptology in the United Kingdom, and excavated many of the most important archaeological sites in Egypt.

Flinders Petrie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Despite the sample size being too small, they could have provided an average value and standard deviation for the various measurements to give some indications of the variances involved.

Not sure what you mean. These vases are one off, individually made. Like the stone walls in ancient Peru where each and evey block is cut to a specific size and shape rather than mass produced.

So each vase is measured against itself. The only thing you can compare is the geometry and math such as whether all the precision vases conform to the Sacred or Golden ratio or Pi. For which I know the 12 or so tested do.

You can't just take any vase because there are lots that are pretty good and average. They are not in the same league.

You still don’t get it.
Let me try to make it as simple as possible for you to understand , the history books tell us the decline in pyramid building is associated with a decentralisation of the political power of the pharaohs.
Whether this is right or wrong is immaterial, I did not make it up as you falsely asserted and if you continue to play dumb, then either it is not an act or you are trolling.

You keep missing the point. You brought up the point that the pyramid decline due to yes decentralisation but you said loss of authority or something.

But you brought it up to counter my point about how the precision vases and other works that mostly come from the pre dynasty seemed to stop and we see less quality works in later dynasties.


I said that this is a false representation because we are not just talking about pyramids but many items which are everyday and were still being produced. The ceasing of pyramid building did not stop the production of vases, statues and the other works.

 

[sjastro]

I know what this is. Its attacking the person so not to deal with the evidence I linked.

Well then that is a pity. What can we do. I am not going back to look through 10 hours plus of video. I fail to see why this is important. Is it because you want to prove I never linked that evidence or that the evidence is false or that I accused you of saying something that you didn't.

Why on earth would I refer to an example if I did not think that I had already mentioned it. I didn't just make it up out of thin air. I only say things I have read and linked as evidence.

You were assigned a very simple task of providing a link, your inability to do indicates you made it up or are incompetent.

No its not simple and logic. We are talking about 1,000 to 1,500 ton blocks. Theres also the problem of how other blocks up to 800 tons were moved up hills and mountains and lifeted 20 feet or more and stood upright. The depitcions do not show any of this.

When we look at the depiction we find its doesn't support the carrying of mega blocks. The load in the paintings is actually a statue and is made of alabaster a softer and lighter stone. Experts have determined it only weights around 65 ton. That is a long way from 1,200 tons plus.

This example does not scale up to that degree of weight. The friction coefficency of such a heavy load digging into the ground or just crushing the sleigh is enough to count it out.

The Transportation of the Djehutihotep Statue Revisited

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Transportation-of-the-Djehutihotep-Statue-Ayrinhac/4e4f5c3213111817ab72e342e6dd6ed3535896fd

I have also not made any claims about what the evidence represents as facts or that the evidence is conclusive. In fact I have said I don't know.

So when I say theres not enough evidence I speak from a far greater authority than yourself or anyone else on this thread for the simple fact I am the one posting all the evidence or most of it anyway. You post a pic that is a false representation of what is happening. No one has ever moved a 1,000 ton plus block in experiments. So we need more evidence.

Simple as that. The pic on the wall is not enough evidence to be confident it also applies to 1,000 ton plus blocks which is a completely different logistic problem that is even difficult for modern day. As I said we need lots of cranes.

This is taking spin doctoring to levels of sheer stupidity.
An inscription describes of the dimensions of an obelisk ship when converting cubits to metres revealed it was ~63 metres long and ~27 metres wide, more than enough to hold two unfinished obelisks, so your blathering about “alabaster” obelisks on smaller ships is irrelevant.

For all your nonsense which you are trying to pass off as informed comments you still cannot explain why Egyptians depicted using manual labour instead of machines to move obelisks.

Why do you get so animated lol. Using language like "you have a gall', "the most rediculous thing" and "based on personal incredulity and zero evidence". All these absolute and emotive rhetoric and name calling is not a good way to conduct a discussion.

"For crying out loud" is also a song by Meatloaf lol.

And here you are being a troll by gaslighting.

Then that means we can scrap all the evidence from the 1990 video which basicallt came from a Nova special. I am pretty sure I seen a couple pics from that same show with the guy in the cowboy hat. Never trust a cowboy I reckon lol.

Do I really have to explain the criticisms of a sample produced in the 1990s does not apply to one made in 2016.

Is this the Russian video with no analysis on the experiment. This is not good evidence. What Petrie and Dunn were talking about is the spiral or hylical pattern like a "drunken screw" is what Petrie desribed the pattern as. Winding downwards like a screw thread would do. Also the downward lines dug into the granite cutting through both hartder conglomerates as deep as softer ones leaving a destinct cut into the granite.

Your experiemnet leaves nothing like this. This is from your experiment.

View attachment 357276
see how you can hardly see any lines dug in at all. Thats because the copper pipe cannot dig into the sides as nothing is fixed from the side of the pipe. It will rather dig into the base where the circular pipe meets the granite and not the sides of the shaft.

View attachment 357277

Here we can see some faint lines but they are not dug in nor spiral but rather horizontal just like the experimenters in the 1990s found.

This is the original core for comparison.
View attachment 357285


You mean Flinders Petrie and Dunn two of the worlds best. As far as I understand you linked a video which did not have any analysis attached. But what is the difference between the 1990 tests and the 2016 one. They both used a copper pipe. Its the copper pipe that is in dispute. It could not have left such marks as it does not cause a spiral patter but a horizontal one.

Which makes sense because its basically abrasing down evenly and slowly. To create a spiral patter you need a fixed point on the cutter that digs into the side and then spirals down as the plunger is forced down.

Your analysis indicates you do not know what you are talking about, how many times does it need to be repeated before it gets through your thick skull the copper alone is not doing the cutting, it is in conjunction with sand and water.
Since you are deluding yourself into thinking the 2016 set up does not produce a spiral pattern here is an earlier 2010 experiment using the same set up which leaves no doubt.

The comparison with the Petrie 7G core is compelling, what do you notice about the pitch in the 7G core?
The pitch on the right hand side is larger indicating the feed rate or rate of penetration of the die through the granite is changing.
This totally contradicts Dunne’s ideas of the 7G core having been produced with a high speed tool and minimal wear on the die as it would result in a largely constant feed rate and pitch.

Note the change of pitch also on the experimental set up which is easily explained by wearing of the copper insert and variations in the RPM since it is manually performed.

No but we have expert testing and analysis which I linked and you have ignored.

Yes not all have been subjected to laser testing. But that doesn't deminish the findings. The Metrology tests measured the dimensions of the vases down to 1.1000 of an inch and all came in near perfection. Some even more precise than the original vase tested. How is the laser going to refute the precision in the dimensions.

What do you mean stat analysis.

Yes it does by the simple fact that such perfection in even one vase but also others shows these particular vases were impossible to make by hand. An unguided hand cannot achieve that level of perfection across 1,000s of reference points.

There is no sense in testing all the vases because some are made inferior to others. Just because there are these perfect vases doesn't mean less perfect vases were also produced or that various methods were used. These vases may have been special for some reason.

No it doesn't. If you find one vase that is perfection and beyond human capability but rather meets the level of computerised guidence then you don't need another vase to back that up. Its like finding one watch on the beach to know that it was designed. You don't need 30 more to prove that.

Are you saying that because not enough vases have been sampled that the ones which are near perfect are not near perfect. Somehow if we find many that are not near perfect that this somehow undermines the perfect ones.

You are making yourself look like a complete fool on discussing a subject you know nothing about.
The samples are made to “near perfection” then you go on to state they shouldn’t test all of them since some are inferior.
This is the whole point of the exercise not only are machines supposed to produce vases to “near perfection” but also be reproducible in which case all samples are tested.
If there is a large variation the case for vases being machine produced is seriously diminished.

The other point is the sheer stupidity of your remark that if one vase is tested and found to be “perfect” you don’t need to test another vase to “back it up”.
Visually you couldn’t tell if a vase is dimensionally perfect and the selection is random with the possibility an inferior one is selected.
Do you think your scientist’s would stop there and declare vases could not have been machine produced, no they would continue testing.
If you only back up tests on vases that are inferior you are creating a bias, or in the worse case testing until you get a result you are looking for which is unethical.

Most of these vases come from either the pre Dynastic or first couple of Dynasties. Then they cease to appear. The same as the pyramids, statues, columes and Sarcophagus.

Astonishing Results: Ancient Egyptian Granite Vases Analyzed

Uncharted X has provided an update on the vas scan project, which aims to analyze and scan ancient Egyptian vases to determine their age and origin. The team has scanned and analyzed more vases, and the results have shown that several of the vases have Precision manufacturing that is equal to or bet

www.thearchaeologist.org

There are some vases that are claimed to come later because they were found in a later Pharoahs tomb. But most say that these were found from earlier periods for which later Pharoahs like Ramses second often did.

These bowls and stone dishes/platters are some of the finest ever found, and they are from the earliest period of ancient Egyptian civilization. Stoneware such as this has not been found from any later era in Egyptian history - it seems that the skills necessary were lost.

There were not just a few of these. Apparently there were thousands found in and around the Step pyramid. The Step Pyramid is believed to be the oldest stone pyramid in Egypt - the first one built. It seems to be the only place where these kind of stone housewares were found in quantity,

Although Petrie found some fragments of similar bowls at Giza. Many of them have inscribed (scratched) onto them the symbols of the earliest kings of Egypt - the pre-dynastic era monarchs - from before the pharaohs. Judging by the primitive skill of the inscriptions, it seems unlikely that those signatures were made by the same craftsmen who fashioned the bowls in the first place.

Ancient Egyptian Stone Technology - Lathe Turning - Spirit & Stone

www.theglobaleducationproject.org

Your ridiculous quote mining does not change the fact late period vases have vastly superior finishes to predynastic vases.

No its not appeal to authority because I also included their tests and analysis. I mentioned their credentials because people are trying to make their own ad homineem fallacies that these scientists and engineers don't know what they are talking about. So you have actually created a fallacy about a fallacy.

It is an appeal to authority because you accept their work on blind faith and any criticism of it as an ad hominem attack.

An engineer is exactly what is needed to do the reverse engineering on these vases. An archologists can't. Nor can a geologists. Flinders Petrie is one of the worlds greatest archeologists who dicovered many of Egypts amazing works.

Sir Flinders Petrie, was a British Egyptologist and a pioneer of systematic methodology in archaeology and the preservation of artefacts. He held the first chair of Egyptology in the United Kingdom, and excavated many of the most important archaeological sites in Egypt.

Flinders Petrie - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Another nonsensical irrelevant comment as I was referring to the methodology on how they presented their results.

Not sure what you mean. These vases are one off, individually made. Like the stone walls in ancient Peru where each and evey block is cut to a specific size and shape rather than mass produced.

So each vase is measured against itself. The only thing you can compare is the geometry and math such as whether all the precision vases conform to the Sacred or Golden ratio or Pi. For which I know the 12 or so tested do.

You can't just take any vase because there are lots that are pretty good and average. They are not in the same league.

This has already been discussed, get yourself an education on how statistics is applied and stop making ignorant personal based opinions.

You keep missing the point. You brought up the point that the pyramid decline due to yes decentralisation but you said loss of authority or something.

But you brought it up to counter my point about how the precision vases and other works that mostly come from the pre dynasty seemed to stop and we see less quality works in later dynasties.


I said that this is a false representation because we are not just talking about pyramids but many items which are everyday and were still being produced. The ceasing of pyramid building did not stop the production of vases, statues and the other works.

Fine then on this topic you have answered my question you are not playing dumb.
I have wasted enough my time on you and will only respond to your posts if they are sufficiently coherent to do so.

 

[BCP1928]

What about the measurement technology? It is possible to produce an object to any desired degree of accuracy with hand tools, provided that the right kind of measurement techniques are used. Perhaps you are trying to tell us that the "lost technology" you are looking for is actually the technology of measurement. You should be looking at how measurements were made in these ancient cultures.

 

[stevevw]

And there's not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim expect for bad post hoc logic.

Why do you make such absolute claims. Its silly as a shred of evidence means a little bit of evidence and there certainly is if we are honest. For example like I said the vases and status faces add up to high precision geolmetry that only a computer can find. In other words no human could have created such precision by hand without some guidence.

Now we could say its inconclusive but to say this is not a little bit of evidence at least for further inquiry is rediculous and denial.

Update on the vases. A electron microscope and metals analysis on the vases. They found that the curcular at the base had a perfect circle within 3 to 4 microns. Thats so tin\y it may as well be a perfect circle. I don't think humans can create perfect circles by free hand.

It zoomed in on tool marks of another piece at 200 microns to discover any metals embedded from tools. The interesting thing is they found absolutely no copper. What they did find is pure Titanian which is not within Granite and would have had to have been refined.

Its only early days and more testing needs to be done. But these are interesting finds.

It's not impossible... because it's been shown that people can build it. We have thousands of different works of art from the ancients. Are you going to say that every single one of them had advanced tech and knowhow that somehow mysteriously disappeared only for us to find out about in the 21st century?

No. There are actually 10's of 1,000s. There were 40,000 vases and pieces of vases and vessels just in one tomb in the Stepped Pyramid. I am saying that there is a class of vases and other works like statues that are of the highest precision beyond free hand.

There are 1,000s of other works that are not of this standard which mostly come from later periods. You would think it be the other way around where the less quality would come earlier and it improved later. But it seems there were a range of quality. So there may have been different methods. Some with common basic tools and others beyond being done by the basic tools.

You don't even know what a logical fallacy is so stop pretending you do.

How can you say such an absolute claim once again. You can look up what a logical fallacy is and its easy. Your engaging in an Ad Hominem by attacking the person rather than dealing with the evidence. You have demeaned Petrie, Dunn and myself and not engaged in the content. Thats a classic Ad Hominem if ever I have seen one.

So answer the question put to you:
Why does it matter to you so much to claim that ancient humans somehow couldn't do a thing worth a damn with their own hands,

This is another logical fallacy, a strawman. I never said these ancient humans could not do a damn thing as you put it.

that you have to keep repeating this tired, outrageous and frankly stupid view that every ancient civilization somehow had great and grand technology,

Heres another, not sure what you call it. BUt when you use extreme words like 'outrageous and stupid its not very rational but extreme rhetoric to label anyone who has a opionion on this especially when they support it with the science.

yet it all mysteriously disappeared and not one contemporary person bothered to write down or illustrate it being used? Why is it seemingly impossible for you to accept that simple, normal, regular humans could do the amazing things you're saying were impossible for them to do?

Because the evidence is mounting that simple tools were not used on certain works. Do you want me and others to pretend the evidence is not there and just assume what you believe is the case. Or is it good to look at the evidence and find out whats going on.

The question should be why are you creating all these fallacies and not once even mentioning this evidence like its toxic. Like you cannot even bring yourself to look at it let alone question it.

 

[BCP1928]

Why do you make such absolute claims. Its silly as a shred of evidence means a little bit of evidence and there certainly is if we are honest. For example like I said the vases and status faces add up to high precision geolmetry that only a computer can find. In other words no human could have created such precision by hand without some guidence.

Now we could say its inconclusive but to say this is not a little bit of evidence at least for further inquiry is rediculous and denial.

Update on the vases. A electron microscope and metals analysis on the vases. They found that the curcular at the base had a perfect circle within 3 to 4 microns. Thats so tin\y it may as well be a perfect circle. I don't think humans can create perfect circles by free hand.

It zoomed in on tool marks of another piece at 200 microns to discover any metals embedded from tools. The interesting thing is they found absolutely no copper. What they did find is pure Titanian which is not within Granite and would have had to have been refined.

Its only early days and more testing needs to be done. But these are interesting finds.

View attachment 357310

View attachment 357311

No. There are actually 10's of 1,000s. There were 40,000 vases and pieces of vases and vessels just in one tomb in the Stepped Pyramid. I am saying that there is a class of vases and other works like statues that are of the highest precision beyond free hand.

There are 1,000s of other works that are not of this standard which mostly come from later periods. You would think it be the other way around where the less quality would come earlier and it improved later. But it seems there were a range of quality. So there may have been different methods. Some with common basic tools and others beyond being done by the basic tools.

Nothing is beyond being done by basic tools if you've got patience and the ability to measure accurately.

 

[stevevw]

You were assigned a very simple task of providing a link, your inability to do indicates you made it up or are incompetent.

This is taking spin doctoring to levels of sheer stupidity.
An inscription describes of the dimensions of an obelisk ship when converting cubits to metres revealed it was ~63 metres long and ~27 metres wide, more than enough to hold two unfinished obelisks, so your blathering about “alabaster” obelisks on smaller ships is irrelevant.

Listen if you are going to treat others like garbage for simply giving their views then its not worth discussing things. I don't go around calling people stupid, spin doctors ect. This seems to be a common tactic I have noticed with people attacking others for even suggesting this evidence.

OK so the ship fits the obelisk. So what. I never said you were stupid or a spin doctor when you claimed that these mega blocks of 1,500 tons could be moved and lifted high to load on the ships of be put in place.

You may have your ship and now you need to find how they lifted the mega blocks, transported them up mountains and across miles and put them into place. I don't use the word stupid but if there is any rediculous claim its that somehow a couple of pics equates to moving mega ton blocks.

For all your nonsense which you are trying to pass off as informed comments you still cannot explain why Egyptians depicted using manual labour instead of machines to move obelisks.

Once again a logical fallacy. In no way does not being able to explain the evidence show anything like the moving of these large mega blocks. Where are the pics of them lifting these mega blocks. If I use your logic that a pic proves they moved these blocks with ships then the same logic shows lack of pics for the rest equals no evidence them moving these mega blocks by human power alone.

And here you are being a troll by gaslighting.

Its just one personal attack after the other. When people resort to personal attacks you know they are having problems dealing with the evidence.

Do I really have to explain the criticisms of a sample produced in the 1990s does not apply to one made in 2016.

I was speaking to someone on your side of the skeptic who like you are claiming the truth. They supplied the evidence of that 90's experiment as concrete evidence I was wrong. Which shows even your side can get it wrong and present false evidence. Therefore why I am resisting the fallacies presented until further evidence is presented.

Your analysis indicates you do not know what you are talking about, how many times does it need to be repeated before it gets through your thick skull the copper alone is not doing the cutting, it is in conjunction with sand and water.

Once again personal attacks. This is a sign of weakness in your arguement. You would not need to resort to such tacyics if you were confident. Just argue the case without the personal attacks.

The above attack is a good example. I know the abrasion is doing the cutting. But it is the copper pipe that is causing the type of abrasion. Otherise why use a copper pipe.

But you missed the point again. Its the fact that the abrasion contacts that actually wear away the granite are at the end of the copper pipe and not on the sides. The spiral grooves or rather cuts are in the side of the walls. That can only happen when the cutter is on the side of the pipe or whatever was used to cut the core hole.

Since you are deluding yourself into thinking the 2016 set up does not produce a spiral pattern here is an earlier 2010 experiment using the same set up which leaves no doubt.

View attachment 357300​

The comparison with the Petrie 7G core is compelling, what do you notice about the pitch in the 7G core?
The pitch on the right hand side is larger indicating the feed rate or rate of penetration of the die through the granite is changing.
This totally contradicts Dunne’s ideas of the 7G core having been produced with a high speed tool and minimal wear on the die as it would result in a largely constant feed rate and pitch.
Note the change of pitch also on the experimental set up which is easily explained by wearing of the copper insert and variations in the RPM since it is manually performed.

That was Petries conclusion and Dunn just conformed it. It wasn't about the pitch but that the spiral grooves were continious and penetrated downwards in one continious cut. So the feed rate was determined off this. Dunn explains this.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill. In my article I stated that the feed rate was five hundred times faster than modern diamond drills which penetrate at 0.0002 inch per revolution. The correct way to describe the feed rate would be to say it was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drills 900 revolutions per minute.

You are making yourself look like a complete fool on discussing a subject you know nothing about.

You persist with these ad hominems. Luckily I have experts on my side.

The samples are made to “near perfection” then you go on to state they shouldn’t test all of them since some are inferior.

Another logical fallacy of a strawman. I did not say that. I said that theres no sense in testing all and then comparing them as many are everyday works which we already know are inferior. Most just by looking at them. Why would we test those.

This is the whole point of the exercise not only are machines supposed to produce vases to “near perfection” but also be reproducible in which case all samples are tested.

No because some are obviously inferior. We should start with those from pre and early dynasty. This is where we will get the highest hit for precise works. If there are others in later periods that loo like precision work then sure we can test them.

But we want to find out as much as possible about the superior works. How consistent are they, is there any common geometry, metals analysis ect. The problem with testing these superior works is many are help by departments like Museums who don't want to part with them to be tested. The rest are scattered and privately owned or lost.

If there is a large variation the case for vases being machine produced is seriously diminished.

No I don't think so. Its not an either/or situation. There may be tiers of quality made by ifferent sectors of the culture. Everyday craftsman make their own at home, some vases are not important and less quality is put into them. Then theres a unique and high precision group that important, reserved for the gods. Many of the precision ones are burried with the Pharoahs.

Then theres the possibility that the precision works are a lost knowledge and ceased to be produced. So less quality works took over and became more common. There may still have been quality works. If you look at the Romans Pillars. They are still quality but in sandstone and not with the same level of precision.

The other point is the sheer stupidity of your remark that if one vase is tested and found to be “perfect” you don’t need to test another vase to “back it up”.
Visually you couldn’t tell if a vase is dimensionally perfect and the selection is random with the possibility an inferior one is selected.
Do you think your scientist’s would stop there and declare vases could not have been machine produced, no they would continue testing.
If you only back up tests on vases that are inferior you are creating a bias, or in the worse case testing until you get a result you are looking for which is unethical.

Your missing the point of why I said this. It wasn't to deny more testing. I say bring it on. But that will only add weight to what has already been verified. That is no human can produce a near perfect vase by free hand, sight and tough. Not just perfect but alorythmatically perfect in line with geometric rations that all line up over 1,000's of reference points.

If someone manage to pull that off then it was luck. There is no way someone can achieve this and that is why we invented computers as it takes a compuer to work it out and last I knew humans are not computers. So yes just one near perfect vase is enough to show humans could not have made that without some reference point and guidence. I showed you the patterns in the vase such as the Sacred and Golden ratios and Pi ect.

Your ridiculous quote mining does not change the fact late period vases have vastly superior finishes to predynastic vases.

They can't as at least some (the ones they have tested) are near perfect. To beat them they would have to be perfect. But the evidence shows for the Egyptians the vast majority of works are from the early period and not the last. The works generlaly become less superior.

Even in Peru. I showed the block walls in early Puruvian cultures with precision cuts with multiple sizes and shapes. Compared to the later Inca works which were rough and smaller. The Sarcophagus is a good example. They were big and precise and made of the hardest stone. Then they became more rough, smaller, plane and made from softer material even wood.

It is an appeal to authority because you accept their work on blind faith and any criticism of it as an ad hominem attack.

No I will accept any evidence so long as its rigorious. So far I have got from your side some gimmick experient in the 80s with Stokes. A test done on Stokes experient that was found to fudge the evidence and some Russian dudes doing experiments from what looks like their backyard. Do you blame me for being skeptical. At leeast Petrie and Dunn come from reputable sources and have been doubled checked.

Your evidence is a bit more interesting but I can see the flaws. But I am open to more testing and see what it brings. The problem is theres limited evidence because theres a rersistence to do the tests in the first place.

Another nonsensical irrelevant comment as I was referring to the methodology on how they presented their results.

What do you mean how they presented the results. This was done in proper labs with proper testing machines. More tests are needed but the tests I presented are done by proper methods. They have now done electro scans, metal analysis and scanned the shapes. What else is there to do.

This has already been discussed, get yourself an education on how statistics is applied and stop making ignorant personal based opinions.

I think its irrelevant except for stats. But theres a whole lot of work to be done just on the vases. You know how expensive and hard it is to do. I think just studying these precise vases will reveal more about the culture that we are targeting. Adding all vases will muddy that water and skew the information. We want to specifically know whats going on with these vases and other works.

But in saying that I thiis an industry that catelouges most archological finds associated with vases especially more generally. So there would be a fair amount of info already. I think it depends on the interest and money.

Fine then on this topic you have answered my question you are not playing dumb.
I have wasted enough my time on you and will only respond to your posts if they are sufficiently coherent to do so.

Good thank God for that. But I wish you would stop throwing in these personal barbs.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing is beyond being done by basic tools if you've got patience and the ability to measure accurately.

So do you think that a person could say create the double helix shape near perfectly without having an example before them. They could by freehand and imagination get all the lines and shapes in near perfect 3D form and orientations 1,000s of connected reference points.

That is why we invented computers because no human can do that. The movie the Imatation Game was about this. They could not break the German codes by human brain capacity so Alan Turing came up with a machine to do the calculations and that helped them crack the code. That macne is also know as a computer.

Maybe they did. The vases and statue faces have geometry and maths in them like the Sacred Ratio and Pi. So maybe they know these dimenstions and they help them understand how to shape things. But thats just spectulating. I don't know how any human could produce such precision by feel and touch freehand without any fixed point of reference.

Thats why its important to do more tests to find out whats going on. Its too interesting to leave alone. But instead some are almost antagonistic about even mentioning more research into this.

 

[stevevw]

What about the measurement technology? It is possible to produce an object to any desired degree of accuracy with hand tools, provided that the right kind of measurement techniques are used. Perhaps you are trying to tell us that the "lost technology" you are looking for is actually the technology of measurement. You should be looking at how measurements were made in these ancient cultures.

One of the techs was talking about this and how anyone could somehow make create the vase analogically with a template to follow. The problem they found was because the precision goes down to the micron you would have to make a meters long template to map out the dimensions. But then theres the problem of reversing that back down into a solid 3D vase. You lose everything.

Thats why compueters were invented because humans are incapable of doing this.

Another interesting find was that the Pharoah statues, the precision usually dark granite ones but also lighter ones have similar precision to the vases. The strange thing is that all the faces have the same dimensions as each other down to the micron. I find this fascinating.

 

[stevevw]

You keep saying "unguided." I am not sure what you mean by that, exactly.

Unguided as not having any fixed reference point to follow. Like a template. But this would be a 3D one. We use computers amd machines to produce that level of precision because humans can't. Well I am not going to say they can't but it goes against what we know so far. They say we only use 1/10 of our brain.

But wouldn't that still be advanced and amazing.

However, since it is possible to produce an object to any desired degree of accuracy with hand tools, provided that the right kind of measurement techniques are used, perhaps you are trying to tell us that the "lost technology" you are looking for is actually the technology of measurement. You should be looking at how measurements were made in these ancient cultures.

Yes that is a good idea. I think that is already being done. Like I said they have done mathmatical analysis and found all different ratios like the Sacred and Golden Ratio and Pi. Could be more so more work needs to be done. The handles are not centre and slightly forward but is a common design feature.

The numbers relate to nature I think as the Sacred and Golden ratios are found in structures of nature. Maybe they were more into nature back then. I know other cultures were into atrology. The pyramids are supposed to be aligned with Orion's belt I think.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you make such absolute claims. Its silly as a shred of evidence means a little bit of evidence and there certainly is if we are honest. For example like I said the vases and status faces add up to high precision geolmetry that only a computer can find. In other words no human could have created such precision by hand without some guidence.

Now we could say its inconclusive but to say this is not a little bit of evidence at least for further inquiry is rediculous and denial.

Update on the vases. A electron microscope and metals analysis on the vases. They found that the curcular at the base had a perfect circle within 3 to 4 microns. Thats so tin\y it may as well be a perfect circle. I don't think humans can create perfect circles by free hand.

It zoomed in on tool marks of another piece at 200 microns to discover any metals embedded from tools. The interesting thing is they found absolutely no copper. What they did find is pure Titanian which is not within Granite and would have had to have been refined.

Its only early days and more testing needs to be done. But these are interesting finds.

View attachment 357310

View attachment 357311

No. There are actually 10's of 1,000s. There were 40,000 vases and pieces of vases and vessels just in one tomb in the Stepped Pyramid. I am saying that there is a class of vases and other works like statues that are of the highest precision beyond free hand.

There are 1,000s of other works that are not of this standard which mostly come from later periods. You would think it be the other way around where the less quality would come earlier and it improved later. But it seems there were a range of quality. So there may have been different methods. Some with common basic tools and others beyond being done by the basic tools.

How can you say such an absolute claim once again. You can look up what a logical fallacy is and its easy. Your engaging in an Ad Hominem by attacking the person rather than dealing with the evidence. You have demeaned Petrie, Dunn and myself and not engaged in the content. Thats a classic Ad Hominem if ever I have seen one.

This is another logical fallacy, a strawman. I never said these ancient humans could not do a damn thing as you put it.

Heres another, not sure what you call it. BUt when you use extreme words like 'outrageous and stupid its not very rational but extreme rhetoric to label anyone who has a opionion on this especially when they support it with the science.

Because the evidence is mounting that simple tools were not used on certain works. Do you want me and others to pretend the evidence is not there and just assume what you believe is the case. Or is it good to look at the evidence and find out whats going on.

The question should be why are you creating all these fallacies and not once even mentioning this evidence like its toxic. Like you cannot even bring yourself to look at it let alone question it.

Your evidence is worthless because it just begs the question: where are the supposedly advanced tools? Where is the actual physical and artistic evidence that they exists in comparison to all the contemporary physical and artistic evidence that shows that the ancients used the tools archaeologists and historians say they used?

 

[sjastro]

Listen if you are going to treat others like garbage for simply giving their views then its not worth discussing things. I don't go around calling people stupid, spin doctors ect. This seems to be a common tactic I have noticed with people attacking others for even suggesting this evidence.

OK so the ship fits the obelisk. So what. I never said you were stupid or a spin doctor when you claimed that these mega blocks of 1,500 tons could be moved and lifted high to load on the ships of be put in place.

You may have your ship and now you need to find how they lifted the mega blocks, transported them up mountains and across miles and put them into place. I don't use the word stupid but if there is any rediculous claim its that somehow a couple of pics equates to moving mega ton blocks.

Once again a logical fallacy. In no way does not being able to explain the evidence show anything like the moving of these large mega blocks. Where are the pics of them lifting these mega blocks. If I use your logic that a pic proves they moved these blocks with ships then the same logic shows lack of pics for the rest equals no evidence them moving these mega blocks by human power alone.

Its just one personal attack after the other. When people resort to personal attacks you know they are having problems dealing with the evidence.

I was speaking to someone on your side of the skeptic who like you are claiming the truth. They supplied the evidence of that 90's experiment as concrete evidence I was wrong. Which shows even your side can get it wrong and present false evidence. Therefore why I am resisting the fallacies presented until further evidence is presented.


Once again personal attacks. This is a sign of weakness in your arguement. You would not need to resort to such tacyics if you were confident. Just argue the case without the personal attacks.

The above attack is a good example. I know the abrasion is doing the cutting. But it is the copper pipe that is causing the type of abrasion. Otherise why use a copper pipe.

But you missed the point again. Its the fact that the abrasion contacts that actually wear away the granite are at the end of the copper pipe and not on the sides. The spiral grooves or rather cuts are in the side of the walls. That can only happen when the cutter is on the side of the pipe or whatever was used to cut the core hole.

That was Petries conclusion and Dunn just conformed it. It wasn't about the pitch but that the spiral grooves were continious and penetrated downwards in one continious cut. So the feed rate was determined off this. Dunn explains this.

The most startling feature of the granite core Petrie describes is the spiral groove around the core indicating a feed rate of 0.100 inches per revolution of the drill. In my article I stated that the feed rate was five hundred times faster than modern diamond drills which penetrate at 0.0002 inch per revolution. The correct way to describe the feed rate would be to say it was 500 times greater than modern diamond drills but the rotation of the drill would not have been as fast as the modern drills 900 revolutions per minute.

You persist with these ad hominems. Luckily I have experts on my side.

Another logical fallacy of a strawman. I did not say that. I said that theres no sense in testing all and then comparing them as many are everyday works which we already know are inferior. Most just by looking at them. Why would we test those.

No because some are obviously inferior. We should start with those from pre and early dynasty. This is where we will get the highest hit for precise works. If there are others in later periods that loo like precision work then sure we can test them.

But we want to find out as much as possible about the superior works. How consistent are they, is there any common geometry, metals analysis ect. The problem with testing these superior works is many are help by departments like Museums who don't want to part with them to be tested. The rest are scattered and privately owned or lost.

No I don't think so. Its not an either/or situation. There may be tiers of quality made by ifferent sectors of the culture. Everyday craftsman make their own at home, some vases are not important and less quality is put into them. Then theres a unique and high precision group that important, reserved for the gods. Many of the precision ones are burried with the Pharoahs.

Then theres the possibility that the precision works are a lost knowledge and ceased to be produced. So less quality works took over and became more common. There may still have been quality works. If you look at the Romans Pillars. They are still quality but in sandstone and not with the same level of precision.

Your missing the point of why I said this. It wasn't to deny more testing. I say bring it on. But that will only add weight to what has already been verified. That is no human can produce a near perfect vase by free hand, sight and tough. Not just perfect but alorythmatically perfect in line with geometric rations that all line up over 1,000's of reference points.

If someone manage to pull that off then it was luck. There is no way someone can achieve this and that is why we invented computers as it takes a compuer to work it out and last I knew humans are not computers. So yes just one near perfect vase is enough to show humans could not have made that without some reference point and guidence. I showed you the patterns in the vase such as the Sacred and Golden ratios and Pi ect.

They can't as at least some (the ones they have tested) are near perfect. To beat them they would have to be perfect. But the evidence shows for the Egyptians the vast majority of works are from the early period and not the last. The works generlaly become less superior.

Even in Peru. I showed the block walls in early Puruvian cultures with precision cuts with multiple sizes and shapes. Compared to the later Inca works which were rough and smaller. The Sarcophagus is a good example. They were big and precise and made of the hardest stone. Then they became more rough, smaller, plane and made from softer material even wood.

No I will accept any evidence so long as its rigorious. So far I have got from your side some gimmick experient in the 80s with Stokes. A test done on Stokes experient that was found to fudge the evidence and some Russian dudes doing experiments from what looks like their backyard. Do you blame me for being skeptical. At leeast Petrie and Dunn come from reputable sources and have been doubled checked.

Your evidence is a bit more interesting but I can see the flaws. But I am open to more testing and see what it brings. The problem is theres limited evidence because theres a rersistence to do the tests in the first place.

What do you mean how they presented the results. This was done in proper labs with proper testing machines. More tests are needed but the tests I presented are done by proper methods. They have now done electro scans, metal analysis and scanned the shapes. What else is there to do.

I think its irrelevant except for stats. But theres a whole lot of work to be done just on the vases. You know how expensive and hard it is to do. I think just studying these precise vases will reveal more about the culture that we are targeting. Adding all vases will muddy that water and skew the information. We want to specifically know whats going on with these vases and other works.

But in saying that I thiis an industry that catelouges most archological finds associated with vases especially more generally. So there would be a fair amount of info already. I think it depends on the interest and money.

Good thank God for that. But I wish you would stop throwing in these personal barbs.

I will still respond to your posts where necessary.

If you stopped treating posters like garbage as you put it there would be no need for reciprocation.
You show total disrespect to posters by not having the courtesy of responding to what they are actually stating, instead you go off on lengthy personal diatribes which has very little relevance as exemplified in your posts.

There is also the case of not understanding the comments being made which is why I have queried your comprehension skills, which can be addressed by learning some basic science and engineering like the role of statistics in evaluating data or the relationship between pitch and feed rate in a drilling tool.

Instead you choose to remain in a state of wilful ignorance and are unable to understand the fundamentals flaws in the reasonings of Dunn and others.
What you are basically doing is preaching, you are not interested in a discussion about the science but turning this into a conspiracy/pseudoscience thread.

 

[BCP1928]

Unguided as not having any fixed reference point to follow. Like a template. But this would be a 3D one. We use computers amd machines to produce that level of precision because humans can't. Well I am not going to say they can't but it goes against what we know so far. They say we only use 1/10 of our brain.

But wouldn't that still be advanced and amazing.

Yes that is a good idea. I think that is already being done. Like I said they have done mathmatical analysis and found all different ratios like the Sacred and Golden Ratio and Pi. Could be more so more work needs to be done. The handles are not centre and slightly forward but is a common design feature.

The numbers relate to nature I think as the Sacred and Golden ratios are found in structures of nature. Maybe they were more into nature back then. I know other cultures were into atrology. The pyramids are supposed to be aligned with Orion's belt I think.

But how did they do it? You could make one of those vases with hand tools but not without measuring tools. Even knowing geometry wouldn't help.

 

[sjastro]

Here is real data combining UnchartedX (@stevevw goto source) and Academic Research results on predynastic vases.
These were compared to modern day computer controlled robotic granite carving.

​

The results speak for themselves either the ancient Egyptians computer controlled robotics were a dud or the vases were produced by highly skilled craftsman using copper chisels and dolerite hammers but still nowhere near the accuracy of modern day equipment.

The next table is comparing predynastic vases to late period vases some 3000 years later.

​

There is no comparison the technology of late period vases is so far ahead of predynastic vases despite the spin doctoring to suggest otherwise.

 

[sjastro]

Here is real data combining UnchartedX (@stevevw goto source) and Academic Research results on predynastic vases.
These were compared to modern day computer controlled robotic granite carving.

View attachment 357341
​

The results speak for themselves either the ancient Egyptians computer controlled robotics were a dud or the vases were produced by highly skilled craftsman using copper chisels and dolerite hammers but still nowhere near the accuracy of modern day equipment.

Further to my previous post on the misinformation perpetrated by sites such as UnchartedX and readily accepted by individuals like @stevevw without question the predynastic vases were produced to a degree of accuracy requiring modern technology when the results clearly refute this, a picture also tells a thousand words.

The left hand object was cut and polished from a piece of granite using a computer controlled robot, the right hand comes from the Uncharted video of a predynastic vase metrologically tested supposedly revealing astounding accuracy.
The first thing to observe is the surface finish which is a no contest, the robot carved object has a mirror finish which the vase doesn't.
Secondly note the edges, the robot carved object has extremely sharp even edges, the edges on the aperture and the lugs of the vase are not.

The predynastic vase is still a wonderful example of craftmanship skill with the tools that were available at the time.
Another consideration is that if the predynastic Egyptians did have this advanced technology why were the constructions of the time made from mudbrick which was a combination Nile mud, plant fibres, straw, sand and water poured into wooden moulds and sun dried?
They could have created limestone blocks of various sizes, yet building major works out of limestone accelerated by the 3rd dynasty some 700 years later.

For those that are interested here is a video of the robot polishing of the black granite.

 

[stevevw]

Your evidence is worthless because it just begs the question: where are the supposedly advanced tools? Where is the actual physical and artistic evidence that they exists in comparison to all the contemporary physical and artistic evidence that shows that the ancients used the tools archaeologists and historians say they used?

Like I said if we found a watch on a beach we don't need to find the tools to know it was precision and was made by humans. We also don't need to find the tools if the signatures in the works to declare that the tools found with that culture were adequate enough to produce the end result.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Like I said if we found a watch on a beach we don't need to find the tools to know it was precision and was made by humans. We also don't need to find the tools if the signatures in the works to declare that the tools found with that culture were adequate enough to produce the end result.

Bad logic all around. We have evidence of watches being made, tons of it. We don't have any evidence of advanced tools in ancient societies, only claims, yet we have tons of evidence, both modern and contemporary, of what tools were used by them.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Present the physical evidence of these advanced tools existing, then someone will take you seriously.

 

[stevevw]

Further to my previous post on the misinformation perpetrated by sites such as UnchartedX and readily accepted by individuals like @stevevw without question

Another logical fallacy. I am not using UnchartedX as my evidence base. I am using the evidence that they refer to which is scientific testing.

I also have not just accepted this without question. I have stated that I just don't know at the moment. Some evidence brings into question methodology and its right to take this into consideration and not dismiss it as you and others have done.

In fact its really the other way around. I have emphasized being open to all evidence. But it seems by some making out that any evidence that even suggests advanced tech or question the traditional beliefs is immediately shot down as fantasy. So I think its more that hyper skeptics are the ones claiming they are right without question.

the predynastic vases were produced to a degree of accuracy requiring modern technology when the results clearly refute this, a picture also tells a thousand words.

View attachment 357361​

The left hand object was cut and polished from a piece of granite using a computer controlled robot, the right hand comes from the Uncharted video of a predynastic vase metrologically tested supposedly revealing astounding accuracy.
The first thing to observe is the surface finish which is a no contest, the robot carved object has a mirror finish which the vase doesn't.
Secondly note the edges, the robot carved object has extremely sharp even edges, the edges on the aperture and the lugs of the vase are not.

First you have to compare like for like. It may be that if the ancient Egyptians choose to make such a thing as your example that they would also do the same if they had the tools.

Second these works are up to 5,000 years old so of course they are going to look worn and have degrading over the years. But I am sure they looked a lot shinnier and new when first made.

You say the opening of the vase is not sharp whatever that means. But the opening is near perfect in all orientations. In fact some vases are so close to perfect in their circumference they may as well be perfect. By the way the handles are set forward but the reference points are exactly the same to all points on each side and to each other.

As far as thinness some vases are as thin as paper and light shines through them. Look at this strange granite vase as far as bends and thinness.

The predynastic vase is still a wonderful example of craftmanship skill with the tools that were available at the time.

Maybe, mabe not. The evidence is inconclusive. As mentioned not a trace of copper has been found in some of the vases they tested for mentals. If they used copper tools then you would think there would be traces embedded in the granite at the micron level. But interestingly they found titanium.

Another consideration is that if the predynastic Egyptians did have this advanced technology why were the constructions of the time made from mudbrick which was a combination Nile mud, plant fibres, straw, sand and water poured into wooden moulds and sun dried?
They could have created limestone blocks of various sizes, yet building major works out of limestone accelerated by the 3rd dynasty some 700 years later.

Actually the pyramids were built with mud bricks and then covered with blocks. Its just that Ramese the 2nd took them all to rebuild.

As you can see the scattered blocks left after they were taken. More have probably been taken over the years.

I am not saying that theres a neat straight line between the precision works and then less quality works. They may have happened at the same time depending on what was worked and for what reasons.

But the level of precision and works was around early and seemed to dwindle out. It wasn't the other way around how the traditional story goes of rough and rudimentary works gradually evolving into amazing and perfect works. There was a period of very high quality and megalithic works that disappeared Thats the intriguing thing.

For those that are interested here is a video of the robot polishing of the black granite.

By the way if you look at some of the statues and Sarcophagus from the early period you will see some of the shine still there. Plus it may not have been that some vases were polished.

Another consideration is that the statues and vases were made by to precision by a certain process and the finished product was then left to another group to polish which makes sense.

 

[stevevw]

Bad logic all around. We have evidence of watches being made, tons of it.

But if we found something similar that we have not made then we don't need another example to say high tech and precision was involved. Like for example the so called UAF's described by military as tech beyond humans. We only have to see one to know it involves high tech.

Besides just because we know that the watch is high precision doesn't change the fact that the one watch we find is high precision. Having other examples, even 10 others just adds to the evidence for high precision. We have 1,000s of vases of high precision.

We don't have any evidence of advanced tools in ancient societies, only claims, yet we have tons of evidence, both modern and contemporary, of what tools were used by them.

Ok going back to the watch. If we found that watch and only found basic tools with that culture we would say those tools were insufficent to make the watch. Same thing with the vases and megaliths. The tools don't fit the signatures in the works. Hense the speculation that something else must have been used or the tech was lost and a later culture inherited the works and not the tech.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Present the physical evidence of these advanced tools existing, then someone will take you seriously.

Going back to the watch example. If we know the watch requaired advancerd tech but we only find simple tools we can still say the watch required advanced tech despite the absense of the mechanism.