Where are the current ripples from Noah's Flood?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why is it a bad grasp.

"Its the same for any investigation. We don't need to find the weapon that killed someone to determine what sort of weapon it was."

You very much do need to find the murder weapon in a forensic and murder investigation. It's the whole point of the investigation.

 

[stevevw]

Logically, you have not ruled out the possibility of unknown "primitive" technology.

Yes thats another option. If we find a massive sled or primitive made contraptions or mechanisms that may explain the bigger megaliths or precision like a template of somesort or even a turning table or mechanism that would help.

There is some research into stone softening and this could explain a lot if it is supported. But at this point that is just an unproven hypothesis. The reason some propose this is that many of the signatures in the stones seem to look like they were softer at one time.

But like I said theres a lot of inbvestigation that needs to be done and more discoveries will hopefully shed more light. But I am open to any and all evidence. At the moment I think there are more questions than answers.

 

[stevevw]

"Its the same for any investigation. We don't need to find the weapon that killed someone to determine what sort of weapon it was."

You very much do in a forensic and murder investigation. It's the whole point of the investigation.

This is a false comaprison as to what I meant. I was not talking about justice. I was talking about the principle of establishing what type of weapon or tool was used by the signature it leaves at the scene.

Ok lets disregard the legal aspect. If we found a knife deep cut on a piece of wood. We could tell by the signature as to whether it was an ancient or modern knife. We don't need to have the knife to determine that. We could depending on the tech tell its metal, manufacturing, even brand in some cases. But we still won't have the knife.

The same with the ancient works. We can tell at least that the signatures point to more advanced tech as opposed to primitive tech. Or that the signature was not from a primitive tool like the signature was not from an ancient knife but some other more precision and advanced knife.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

This is a false comaprison as to what I meant. I was not talking about justice. I was talking about the principle of establishing what type of weapon or tool was used by the signature it leaves at the scene.

Ok lets disregard the legal aspect. If we found a knife deep cut on a piece of wood. We could tell by the signature as to whether it was an ancient or modern knife. We don't need to have the knife to determine that. We could depending on the tech tell its metal, manufacturing, even brand in some cases. But we still won't have the knife.

The same with the ancient works. We can tell at least that the signatures point to more advanced tech as opposed to primitive tech. Or that the signature was not from a primitive tool like the signature was not from an ancient knife but some other more precision and advanced knife.

I don't why you're bringing up legality into it. No-one at all said anything about legality but you.

In a murder investigation, the exact weapon, if it can be found, must be found. The calibre of the gun or the shape of the knife is useful for finding out what the exact weapon was, but the murder weapon must always be found. It's of paramount important to a murder case since the murder weapon will always be useful in establishing who the murderer was.

In keeping with the thread topic (which you hijacked), if you want to claim that advanced tools were used, finding said advanced tools will show exactly what sorts of tools were used rather than your claims that they 'maybe' did, since it establishes said tools as fact. As I've said repeatedly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your entire methodology is lazy and shot if you think finding the exact tool is of no important. Because that's how your comments read to me.

 

[Astrid]

Oh, the poor fellow is so anxious to prove his point that he will grasp at anything. Sometimes he gets confused and loses track of what his point originally was (I really don't understand why he is arguing for advanced technology in the Egyptian pe-dynastic period, advanced technology that he originally claimed was lost during a flood in the Younger Dryas thousands of years before) and winds up defending his argument rather than whatever point he was trying to make with it.

In part such may be that via the absurd route of adopting
Woo- woo, a person of no other accomplishment can access arcane
Knowledge beyond the grasp of any actual researcher.

it’s common as dirt among creationists.

 

[stevevw]

You are one terribly confused individual.
I introduced the topic as new post, you derailed it by turning it into a discussion on vases.

Yes you introduced the topic as a new post which derailed what I was talking about with the Inca. For which someone on your side questioned as being relevant in the first place because it was much later. So if the post was derailed it was by you jumping in.

I could also say that just like you introduced the drill core I introduced the vases so making out I am doing something wrong is just not picking as we all do it. BUt I think the true derailment is the amount of logical fallacies being employed.

For a civilization that used diamond tipped drills and feed rates way beyond the levels of our current technology when drilling holes through granite reverting to primitive copper tools and bow drills on softer stone is dumbest thing you have stated so far.

But its not my idea but exactly what the records show.

Good grief copper is not made up of tin and bronze but bronze is made up of copper and tin.

Like I said I am a bit dyslexic and get things back the front. I admit I am not a expert on metals so I have to rely on the experts. So I have got what the experts said back the front. But still all this red herring doesn't change the fact that no copper was found in the vase but tin and titanium were.

Bronze is an alloy, copper and tin are elements.
If you can’t even get the most basic science right you are no position to discuss the science in this thread.

Luckily we have the experts for which I am referring to.

You are not making any sense; how would I know you were talking about coaxiality when you never mentioned it. I did not do mindreading101.

If you are going to make claims about the evidence then you need to look at it and that is where this will be explained. I should not have to explain these meanings.

How many times does it need to be repeated, since you babble on continuously about logical fallacies this one is begging the question, the onus is on you to show the existence of the tools required for the Egyptians to produce vases of high dimensional quality instead of the tools we know they had available.

Why. Why can't showing the existing tools are not capable of producing the signatures in the rocks. Why is this not part of the evidence. Please explain why.

And you wonder why I think you are a troll or have a severe lack of comprehension skills, I am not going to repeat myself on why tests need to be done on all vases in order to determine their reproducibility.

As I said we have already done that. We don't have to do every single vase. But lets go along with your idea. Say we have to test all the vases throughout history. I mean that is going to take years and years and lots of money anyway and we may never find out anything until every vase is analysed.

But say we do. How does this change taht these ancient vases during this period are precise beyond the period.

Will you stop using words like precision which is another term you do not comprehend. Precision refers to repeatability of measurements.

No it doesn't just refer to repeatability. It can also refer to adhering to matmatical algorithms and ratios. If a vase reflects perfect geometric relations within the vase then it meets the requirement for precision. You don't need another comparison vase to determine this.

The artcles I linked is about the precision of one vase as a stand alone object. It is not me that is using the word precision but those doing the analysis.

Since you think vases have an incredible degree of accuracy in the micron range any wear will affect it.

Yes I guess so. But that has not stopped them finding there is a hight degree of accuracy or precision as you dislike the word. Your trying to make a fallacy that because a couple of vases have some rough edges this undermines the findings that they display a high degree of precision.

No not everyone is engaged in fantasies, you clearly are as evidenced by your posts which does involve quote mining, a lack of comprehension and engaging in word salad

Explain to me exactly what fantasies I am engaging in.

Total rubbish.
Microscopy and Microanalysis - SEM Applications in Archaeology

Your link is not working.

Like in your previous post this a totally pointless exercise, of course none of them resemble Core No. 7 because they have a hole down the middle but also provide no conditions how the products were produced.

What do you mean a hole down the middle. They are still granite cores tested with various abrasives and then viewed under magnification to determine the signature on the core using the same methods as claimed tools in the record. The methodology is explained in the article if you read it.

Its not a pointless exercise and is a test that needs to be taken seriously along with the other tests. Thats part of science. You can't reject a finding because you don't like the findings. Especially when its consistent with other independent findings.

The closest resemblance to core no. 7 as highlighted by the spiral pattern is the image I posted where the production conditions have also been defined.

View attachment 357557​

If you want to engage in this pathetic attempt of implying this image is a fraud prove it along with the associated videos I have posted, otherwise this is a cowardly smearing of the reputation of scientists.

I never said your video was a fraud. I said that your own team has posted such videos and evidence so forgive me for being skeptical. I am not sure I asked this but have you got the link to this. You gave me a different link earlier that was about another drill core. I want the one that goes with the granite core that matches core no 7.

The reason I ask is that if you claim this example has a spiral pattern and it was created by a copper pipe and abrasion its inconsistent with all other tests. The whole issue is around the fact that a fixed point cutter could only cause the spiral cut because its fixed at one point rather than the smooth round and horizontal copper pipe end.

Now you are using projection, you are the one who engages in the activity of not bothering to read, unlike you I would not be aware of your dishonest quote mining or finding the flaws in Dunn’s hypothesis if I did not read.

You have already misunderstood what Dunn was basing the feed rate on. I read the links you made available but I had to ask for them. You usually post pics without links. How do you think I knew that your drill example was actually in limestone.

Unlike your claims I don't reply I replied to this article acknowledging the findings of copper and I gave a reasoned explanation why this did not explain the signatures of drill holes in harder granite and that drilling in softer stone was a common practice with bow saws but later. So its not suprising to find copper drill bows and copper in later drill holes.

Your posts are rubbish as exemplified with this final effort, you keep on with this nonsensical claim of not admitting to the evidence when you have not presented any evidence in the first place.

THis is just obviously and blantantly untrue by the fact of the evidence I have linked such as from Dunn, Sierra, Petrie, Penn university, and the scientific analysis and scans I linked. How can you say this is not evidence. You may disagree with it but its scientific testing by scientists.

In fact your posts are generally incoherent but the past few efforts have gone downhill to new levels of ineptness.
I might post a list of these.

If you think so.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes you introduced the topic as a new post which derailed what I was talking about with the Inca. For which someone on your side questioned as being relevant in the first place because it was much later. So if the post was derailed it was by you jumping in.

I could also say that just like you introduced the drill core I introduced the vases so making out I am doing something wrong is just not picking as we all do it. BUt I think the true derailment is the amount of logical fallacies being employed.

But its not my idea but exactly what the records show.

Like I said I am a bit dyslexic and get things back the front. I admit I am not a expert on metals so I have to rely on the experts. So I have got what the experts said back the front. But still all this red herring doesn't change the fact that no copper was found in the vase but tin and titanium were.

Luckily we have the experts for which I am referring to.

If you are going to make claims about the evidence then you need to look at it and that is where this will be explained. I should not have to explain these meanings.

Why. Why can't showing the existing tools are not capable of producing the signatures in the rocks. Why is this not part of the evidence. Please explain why.

As I said we have already done that. We don't have to do every single vase. But lets go along with your idea. Say we have to test all the vases throughout history. I mean that is going to take years and years and lots of money anyway and we may never find out anything until every vase is analysed.

But say we do. How does this change taht these ancient vases during this period are precise beyond the period.

No it doesn't just refer to repeatability. It can also refer to adhering to matmatical algorithms and ratios. If a vase reflects perfect geometric relations within the vase then it meets the requirement for precision. You don't need another comparison vase to determine this.

The artcles I linked is about the precision of one vase as a stand alone object. It is not me that is using the word precision but those doing the analysis.

Yes I guess so. But that has not stopped them finding there is a hight degree of accuracy or precision as you dislike the word. Your trying to make a fallacy that because a couple of vases have some rough edges this undermines the findings that they display a high degree of precision.

Explain to me exactly what fantasies I am engaging in.

Your link is not working.

What do you mean a hole down the middle. They are still granite cores tested with various abrasives and then viewed under magnification to determine the signature on the core using the same methods as claimed tools in the record. The methodology is explained in the article if you read it.

Its not a pointless exercise and is a test that needs to be taken seriously along with the other tests. Thats part of science. You can't reject a finding because you don't like the findings. Especially when its consistent with other independent findings.

I never said your video was a fraud. I said that your own team has posted such videos and evidence so forgive me for being skeptical. I am not sure I asked this but have you got the link to this. You gave me a different link earlier that was about another drill core. I want the one that goes with the granite core that matches core no 7.

The reason I ask is that if you claim this example has a spiral pattern and it was created by a copper pipe and abrasion its inconsistent with all other tests. The whole issue is around the fact that a fixed point cutter could only cause the spiral cut because its fixed at one point rather than the smooth round and horizontal copper pipe end.

You have already misunderstood what Dunn was basing the feed rate on. I read the links you made available but I had to ask for them. You usually post pics without links. How do you think I knew that your drill example was actually in limestone.

Unlike your claims I don't reply I replied to this article acknowledging the findings of copper and I gave a reasoned explanation why this did not explain the signatures of drill holes in harder granite and that drilling in softer stone was a common practice with bow saws but later. So its not suprising to find copper drill bows and copper in later drill holes.

THis is just obviously and blantantly untrue by the fact of the evidence I have linked such as from Dunn, Sierra, Petrie, Penn university, and the scientific analysis and scans I linked. How can you say this is not evidence. You may disagree with it but its scientific testing by scientists.

If you think so.

I hope you don't mind me bringing this up because it is very personal, but...

You say you are dyslexic, and I wonder if you have ever considered how it effects your rhetorical discourse. That is, arguments which seem logical and well-organized to you may appear to others as illogical and confusing--"back to front" so to speak. It's something you should think about, anyway.

 

[stevevw]

I don't why you're bringing up legality into it. No-one at all said anything about legality but you.

Some used the idea that we need to find the weapon to make a conviction. Which is true. BUt its irrelevant for the point I was making that we can tell the type of tech by the signature in the crime scene or in the rocks in the case of Egytian tech and tools without having to find the weapon or tools.

In a murder investigation, the exact weapon, if it can be found, must be found. The calibre of the gun or the shape of the knife is useful for finding out what the exact weapon was, but the murder weapon must always be found. It's of paramount important to a murder case since the murder weapon will always be useful in establishing who the murderer was.

Thats exactly what I just explained is irrelevant to my point and exactly what legality is about. So you are yourself are bring legality into this. So you are bringing in a completely irrelevant issue because we are not trying to convict anyone. Just determine the type of weapon or tool and it doesn't have to be about murder. Like I said it could just be to tell wwhether an old or modern knife was used o cut something like wood.

But come to think of it we can use murder to determine the cause and weapon or tools in cold cases where the weapon has never been found. Take the Jack the Ripper case. We have never found the weapon. But we have determined by the signatures at the crime scene and the bodies that surgical instruments and skill for was. That tells us it wasn't just some old knife but a certain level of tools used.

In keeping with the thread topic (which you hijacked),

I like how you slipped that in. If I hijacked it then you have come for the ride as a willing participant helping to keep it going lol. In fact I have been the one who is trying to end this but you are the one that is feeding this. Instead of accepting to agree to disagree.

if you want to claim that advanced tools were used, finding said advanced tools will show exactly what sorts of tools were used rather than your claims that they 'maybe' did, since it establishes said tools as fact. As I've said repeatedly: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

OK well we cannot find them at present so I guess we have to accept that these precision and megalithic works we made by primitive tools even though they don't match the signatures in the rocks. Is that what you want me to do.

Your entire methodology is lazy and shot if you think finding the exact tool is of no important. Because that's how your comments read to me.

Oh no I don't mean to say its not important. It would be great to find something. But in the meantime why can't we continue to investigate the signatures in the rock to learn more about this.

Which is probably a good point to end on as it doesn't finalise anyones position and leaves open further possibilities for both sides. With more investigation and analysis we may end up determining it was done with existing tools or other tools and methods. The important thing is both options are left as an open question.

 

[stevevw]

I hope you don't mind me bringing this up because it is very personal, but...

You say you are dyslexic, and I wonder if you have ever considered how it effects your rhetorical discourse. That is, arguments which seem logical and well-organized to you may appear to others as illogical and confusing--"back to front" so to speak. It's something you should think about, anyway.

Thank you, I know sometimes it is harder for me to explain things but that really doesn't negate the evidence I am linking. Put it this way I can read and have studied at University level for years. I just have some problems with relaying that. I use to completely link the words of the authors with little commentry as it was easier.

But for the most part I get there and am pretty clear and make sense as I am constantly having support from posters agreeing that I make good sense. So I don't think its as bad as you think.

The other thing to remember is that we have covered an aweful lot of ground so its a lot to take in and filter. Any honest investigater will acknowledge that much of this topic is unclear and still being determined and interpreted so it is by nature confusing when there is conflicting and unclear evidence that needs to be clarified.

That is evident over most forums on this topic and even within the associated professions such as archeologists and engineers and this has not been resolved.

But basically I have not said anything that others have said so it cannot be that confusing. I think you know my position as I have said it several times now. All the rest has been putting flesh on the bones of that position. Sometimes you have to create chaos to get to the truth. You have to put forward all the possibilities and get into the details which makes it confusing and then sort out whats fact and whats fiction.

Another issue that I think is adding to the confussion is all the logical fallacies. That is one sure fire way to confuse things as it actually undermines the epistemics of how we are determining the truth. If theres no epistemic rules as to how we can define the evidence and truth then its going to make things unclear.

So I realised its best to agreed to disagree or just leave it for now and move onto something else and maybe come back to it naturally as the thread progresses. We have enough info for people to look at and make their own minds on the level of knowledge and belief these cultures may have had in the past that caused them to make flood myths.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Some used the idea that we need to find the weapon to make a conviction. Which is true. BUt its irrelevant for the point I was making that we can tell the type of tech by the signature in the crime scene or in the rocks in the case of Egytian tech and tools without having to find the weapon or tools.

But we can't tell, that's the problem. You've been making claim after claim after claim that a certain form of technology was used, and that's all you've done.
We've found evidence of the sort of tools we expect to find, corroborated with contemporary historical evidence of their use, but then you claim that's all bogus and those aren't the tools they used. So the onus is on you to present the supposedly advanced tools you claimed they used instead.

Thats exactly what I just explained is irrelevant to my point and exactly what legality is about. So you are yourself are bring legality into this. So you are bringing in a completely irrelevant issue because we are not trying to convict anyone. Just determine the type of weapon or tool and it doesn't have to be about murder. Like I said it could just be to tell wwhether an old or modern knife was used o cut something like wood.

But come to think of it we can use murder to determine the cause and weapon or tools in cold cases where the weapon has never been found. Take the Jack the Ripper case. We have never found the weapon. But we have determined by the signatures at the crime scene and the bodies that surgical instruments and skill for was. That tells us it wasn't just some old knife but a certain level of tools used.

An exception that proves the rule.

OK well we cannot find them at present so I guess we have to accept that these precision and megalithic works we made by primitive tools even though they don't match the signatures in the rocks. Is that what you want me to do.

No, you're the one who's using loaded terms like precision and ignoring all the counter evidence that others have presented you. You're the one who claims they don't 'match the signatures in the rocks' even though you've clearly not done any actual work yourself to show that they couldn't be done that way and no-one you've copied from has done the tests themselves either. It's all just a case of "He said this", "They said that" from you.

Oh no I don't mean to say its not important. It would be great to find something. But in the meantime why can't we continue to investigate the signatures in the rock to learn more about this.

Which is probably a good point to end on as it doesn't finalise anyones position and leaves open further possibilities for both sides. With more investigation and analysis we may end up determining it was done with existing tools or other tools and methods. The important thing is both options are left as an open question.

But again, if you want to claim something extraordinary, you need to present something extraordinary. Claims of advanced tools require actual, irrefutable evidence of advanced tools. Not examples of "Oh, this guy from a century ago said this, and this guy from the last few decades said this too, even though not one of them did any actual work to test it. They all just made claims, and that's enough for me!"

I like how you slipped that in. If I hijacked it then you have come for the ride as a willing participant helping to keep it going lol. In fact I have been the one who is trying to end this but you are the one that is feeding this. Instead of accepting to agree to disagree.

The interesting thing is that you have this amazing ability to actually just not reply to anyone, not just. And no, no-one is going to agree to disagree on it. Because there are things that shouldn't be left to "Oh, let's agree to disagree" and this is one of those things.

@dlamberth should probably request a mod for cleanup or thread closure since this is... this is just bad, I will agree..

 

[sjastro]

Thank you, I know sometimes it is harder for me to explain things but that really doesn't negate the evidence I am linking. Put it this way I can read and have studied at University level for years. I just have some problems with relaying that. I use to completely link the words of the authors with little commentry as it was easier.

But for the most part I get there and am pretty clear and make sense as I am constantly having support from posters agreeing that I make good sense. So I don't think its as bad as you think.

The other thing to remember is that we have covered an aweful lot of ground so its a lot to take in and filter. Any honest investigater will acknowledge that much of this topic is unclear and still being determined and interpreted so it is by nature confusing when there is conflicting and unclear evidence that needs to be clarified.

That is evident over most forums on this topic and even within the associated professions such as archeologists and engineers and this has not been resolved.

But basically I have not said anything that others have said so it cannot be that confusing. I think you know my position as I have said it several times now. All the rest has been putting flesh on the bones of that position. Sometimes you have to create chaos to get to the truth. You have to put forward all the possibilities and get into the details which makes it confusing and then sort out whats fact and whats fiction.

Another issue that I think is adding to the confussion is all the logical fallacies. That is one sure fire way to confuse things as it actually undermines the epistemics of how we are determining the truth. If theres no epistemic rules as to how we can define the evidence and truth then its going to make things unclear.

So I realised its best to agreed to disagree or just leave it for now and move onto something else and maybe come back to it naturally as the thread progresses. We have enough info for people to look at and make their own minds on the level of knowledge and belief these cultures may have had in the past that caused them to make flood myths.

Since you claim to be dyslexic as you know very well it's not only how information is expressed but processed as well.

So when I asked if you have reading comprehension problems based on the quality of your posts, you took it as a personal attack but the honest answer should have been yes.

The problem I have however if you are using dyslexia as your get out of jail card such as justifying your behaviour in this thread, is a disgraceful stereotyping of dyslexia.

 

[stevevw]

But we can't tell, that's the problem. You've been making claim after claim after claim that a certain form of technology was used, and that's all you've done.

We can tell and I have provided the evidence. Why don't you even acknowledge that. For example the evidence for lifting and moving mega ton blocks. Where is the evidence, the tools for moving this. The 14 inch drill holes. Where is the 14 inch copper pipe. In fact where are any copper pipes. Where are the large saws to saw massive blocks.

On the other hand I posted clear evidence that you are purposely ignoring showing the vases may have been turned and had some sort of template. That is evidence pointing to other methods even if we don't have the tools. You have not explaained how evdience for turning for example can be made by copper chisels. You cannot explain so far how there is no evidence of copper on the vases to even claim that copper tools were used in the first place.

You have to deal with these issues before we can resolve things. You can't pretend they don't exist by creating a fallacy about something else to divert attention away.

We've found evidence of the sort of tools we expect to find, corroborated with contemporary historical evidence of their use, but then you claim that's all bogus and those aren't the tools they used. So the onus is on you to present the supposedly advanced tools you claimed they used instead.

I am not saying its all bogus so thats a false representation. But you keep repeating this falsehood. I said the tools you are referring to do not account for everything like your claiming. Show me how they moved the mega blocks. Where is the tools you claim we have in the records.

And don't point to a pic on a wall. That is not evidence. Its not showing how they moved mega blocks. How they lifted them, how they stood them up and moved them 100 miles across land.

An exception that proves the rule.

One exception is enough to prove the principle that we can determine the type of tech without finding the tools. But that was not even my main point that we have many examples without using murder and legality. Any investigation into ancient cultures infact anything from the past will include learning about them from the signatures into the ground without finding the actual items.

No, you're the one who's using loaded terms like precision and ignoring all the counter evidence that others have presented you.

I am merely reporting what the experts say, the language they use. I think its appropriate to use precision of the vases and precise in their makeups. Don't you think. That is say compared to less precise works that come later.

Here we have the precise vases

and here we have the less precise and rough vases that came later.

Why would we not destinguish and acknowledge the two different levels of precision.

You're the one who claims they don't 'match the signatures in the rocks' even though you've clearly not done any actual work yourself to show that they couldn't be done that way and no-one you've copied from has done the tests themselves either. It's all just a case of "He said this", "They said that" from you.

How can you say that when I posted the evidence. I even posted pics so that you could tell for yourself. You don't have to be a scientists to work this out. Heres an example.

Here is the tool in this case the sleds in the record that is suppose to explain carrying a 1000 to 1800 ton block of granite.

Explain to me how these sleds carried these mega ton blocks and that what we have on record is grossly inadequate for explaining how these 1,000 plus ton blocks were moved.

This one is 1500 tons and the one next to it is around 1800 tons.

The sled doesn't even cover the top cone piece on this 1200 ton Obelisk. These blocks would crush the sleds and the friction would drive them into the ground.

So no there is no evdience of tools in the record adequate enough to explain how these megaliths were moved, lifted out of their quarries and transported 100 miles over land and up hills from the quarries into their place.

Do I need to go through each tool to show how inadequate it is.

But again, if you want to claim something extraordinary, you need to present something extraordinary. Claims of advanced tools require actual, irrefutable evidence of advanced tools.

Ok so we can apply this same standard to your claim that the existing tools and methods acount for what we find. There are missing sleds and opther mechanisms for moving mega blocks. Lets begin with determining whether the existing tools explain what we find first. It seems when we apply your own standards to yourself it fails.

Not examples of "Oh, this guy from a century ago

Why not, we use a guy called Darwin's expert opinion from a century ago, or Einstein. Its a logical fallacy to say Petries expert findings are irrelevant because they happened long ago.

The important thing is his findings were backed up by other independent findings from other tests.

said this, and this guy from the last few decades said this too, even though not one of them did any actual work to test it. They all just made claims, and that's enough for me!"

No I linked the tests they did. You denying the evidnece I linked now. You seen it remember. How can you deny it.

The interesting thing is that you have this amazing ability to actually just not reply to anyone, not just. And no, no-one is going to agree to disagree on it. Because there are things that shouldn't be left to "Oh, let's agree to disagree" and this is one of those things.

Sorry I am replying to 3 people at once all attacking me. So I may miss some posts here and there. If I have then just remind me and I will address it.

What do you mean that this is one of those things that should not be left to 'agree or disagree'. What needs to be resolved that cannot wait until later.

Are you saying the only way to resolve this is if we all agree.

@dlamberth should probably request a mod for cleanup or thread closure since this is... this is just bad, I will agree..

Not sure why you are wanting a cleanup. What would you like cleaned up my posts lol.

The only thing that perhaps should be cleaned up is the personal attacks which should not be part of debating. Moderaters don't clean up peoples opinions or beliefs lol. Just cause you don't like someones answer doesn't mean you can run to a moderater to get them to erase it. Thats called information control. I am afraid yoyr stuck with all opinions. Thats what debating is about, all opinions.

 

[stevevw]

Since you claim to be dyslexic as you know very well it's not only how information is expressed but processed as well.

No its not. Its how its expressed. Some of the smartest people in the world are dyslexic. I understand the material, I understand the words.Dyslexia is a problem with expressing the language not understanding the language or concepts.

So when I asked if you have reading comprehension problems based on the quality of your posts, you took it as a personal attack but the honest answer should have been yes.

No because it has nothing to do with comprehension. It only involves the last part of the process with the language to express those understandings.

The problem I have however if you are using dyslexia as your get out of jail card such as justifying your behaviour in this thread, is a disgraceful stereotyping of dyslexia.

I am not using it as an excuse. It only affects some aspects. Otherwise I am ok. What you are doing is homing in on minor issues instead of the actual evidence I link. No matter how badly I may express it, you can look up the evidence to get it from the horses mouth to find it supports what I am saying.

Rather it is you by making an issue out of this that is personalising things and making it the issue and thus derailing things. I think the last few pages have basically been all about personal stuff and little on content which has turned the thread into one big logical fallacy. Thats why I think its time to end it.

I once read someone who has engaged in this debate for decades. They said you will find that when people mention what I have mentioned that from his experience those objecting will always decend into logical fallacies and there is nothing anyone can do. At that point you just have to give up discussing the matter with them and agree to disagree.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope. I'm done. Good luck to whoever remains but I'm not indulging this anymore.

 

[sjastro]

No its not. Its how its expressed. Some of the smartest people in the world are dyslexic. I understand the material, I understand the words.Dyslexia is a problem with expressing the language not understanding the language or concepts.

No because it has nothing to do with comprehension. It only involves the last part of the process with the language to express those understandings.

I am not using it as an excuse. It only affects some aspects. Otherwise I am ok. What you are doing is homing in on minor issues instead of the actual evidence I link. No matter how badly I may express it, you can look up the evidence to get it from the horses mouth to find it supports what I am saying.

Rather it is you by making an issue out of this that is personalising things and making it the issue and thus derailing things. I think the last few pages have basically been all about personal stuff and little on content which has turned the thread into one big logical fallacy. Thats why I think its time to end it.

I once read someone who has engaged in this debate for decades. They said you will find that when people mention what I have mentioned that from his experience those objecting will always decend into logical fallacies and there is nothing anyone can do. At that point you just have to give up discussing the matter with them and agree to disagree.

Diagnostic testing for dyslexia includes reading comprehension, I'll say no more.

 

[sjastro]

@Warden_of_the_Storm , @BCP1928

We can gauge how good humans can be with modern day examples where no speculations or guesses are necessary.
One such example is in the art of making primary mirrors for telescopes which can be made by hand, mechanically operated robots or computer controlled robots.
Glass blanks as hard as granite are shaped and polished using abrasives of different grades to astonishing levels of accuracies measured in nanometers.

In the table the wave value and surface error is the accuracy or deviation from a perfectly shaped mirror and smooth surface respectively.

The very best humans can produce mirrors on par with computer controlled robots.
It's unfortunate there is this ignorance and bigotry against the ancients when viewed through the modern lens of technology.

Video on telescope mirror produced by hand.

Video of James Webb mirror segment polished by computer controlled robot.

 

[BCP1928]

@Warden_of_the_Storm , @BCP1928

We can gauge how good humans can be with modern day examples where no speculations or guesses are necessary.
One such example is in the art of making primary mirrors for telescopes which can be made by hand, mechanically operated robots or computer controlled robots.
Glass blanks as hard as granite are shaped and polished using abrasives of different grades to astonishing levels of accuracies measured in nanometers.

In the table the wave value and surface error is the accuracy or deviation from a perfectly shaped mirror and smooth surface respectively.

View attachment 357613​

The very best humans can produce mirrors on par with computer controlled robots.
It's unfortunate there is this ignorance and bigotry against the ancients when viewed through the modern lens of technology.

Video on telescope mirror produced by hand.

Video of James Webb mirror segment polished by computer controlled robot.

Back in the fifties when I was in high school a buddy of mine hand made a mirror like that in anticipation of an historically close approach of Mars. There are cute optical ways of checking the accuracy of the mirror as well, no "advanced technology" required. We helped him put the tube and mount together and got a great image--all with hand tools.

 

[stevevw]

Diagnostic testing for dyslexia includes reading comprehension, I'll say no more.

Dyslexic children and adults often read slowly and make mistakes. However, when other people read to them, they have no problem understanding. This again highlights the fact that dyslexia isn't a lack of intelligence but a difference in language processing.

Dyslexia and Reading: Challenges, Strategies & FAQ - Forbrain

Explore the relationship between dyslexia and reading comprehension. Understand how dyslexia impacts reading processes and discover effective strategies.

www.forbrain.com

I will say no more lol. I guess thats why I like videos so much ah. Plus remember I only have mild dyslexia and have had many years learning to overcome this to a large extent.

By the way whats your excuse for all the other personal jibes you have employed.

PS I also have a bit of OCD and I kept getting this feeling that I did not get the tin, copper and bronze thing as mixed up as you made out because I remember ensuring it was right because I had made a mistake.

Lol and behold my feeling was right. I did not get it wrong. If you check I said

Notably no copper or bronze but tin as bronze is made of tin and copper .

So perhaps you got it back the front yourself.

 

[stevevw]

@Warden_of_the_Storm , @BCP1928

We can gauge how good humans can be with modern day examples where no speculations or guesses are necessary.
One such example is in the art of making primary mirrors for telescopes which can be made by hand, mechanically operated robots or computer controlled robots.
Glass blanks as hard as granite are shaped and polished using abrasives of different grades to astonishing levels of accuracies measured in nanometers.

In the table the wave value and surface error is the accuracy or deviation from a perfectly shaped mirror and smooth surface respectively.

View attachment 357613​

The very best humans can produce mirrors on par with computer controlled robots.
It's unfortunate there is this ignorance and bigotry against the ancients when viewed through the modern lens of technology.

Video on telescope mirror produced by hand.

Video of James Webb mirror segment polished by computer controlled robot.

A lot of difference here. There needs to be some sort of template. Second its one surface and third glass is not as hard as granite especially for amateur made lens.

When you add all the surfaces and their relationship to each other its just increased the difficulty 100 fold.

Its an assumption and leap of faith to then apply this to the Egyptian vase and third glass is not the same hardness as granite. Especially that used by amateurs.

The articles I linked clearly stated that no human could achieve such levels on inter related precision. Basically the vase was equivelant to computerised CAD program with a single geometry equation that it fell within.

Why don't you explain to the others how a 20 foot sled can carry a 1800 ton block. Warden was on about there being no advanced tech found to explain the tech signatures in the rocks. How about start with the missing tech and tools from the Egyptian records like having nothing to explain moving these mega blocks.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. I'm done. Good luck to whoever remains but I'm not indulging this anymore.

hooray now we can move on.