Claim: Ancient Egyptians Could Not Work Granite Without High-Tech Diamond Tools

[Ann K]

dr. David Miano just uploaded a video all about this topic. I have not watched it yet, so cannot comment on how well it connects with the topic at hand. Note the long list of reference links in the video description section, enough to keep us busy for a while.

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

 

[Ravi]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

I see.. I hope it comes back. But like you say, some of these grifters he is pointing at perhaps complaint at YT. This is how we roll in todays world: complain and it is taken away.

 

[FatPhil]

I see.. I hope it comes back. But like you say, some of these grifters he is pointing at perhaps complaint at YT. This is how we roll in todays world: complain and it is taken away.

The doctrine of Fair Use has repeatedly been successful in fighting such knee-jerk strikes, and this seems to be a case where it would apply.

 

[MonkeeSage]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

The doctrine of Fair Use has repeatedly been successful in fighting such knee-jerk strikes, and this seems to be a case where it would apply.

Yup, apparently an attempt at censorship via DMCA, but he's not sweating that it will eventually go back up due to fair use.

Article:

For those of you who are wondering where my latest video, "Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase," one of the guys whose views are critiqued in the video is upset with me that I used an image that he created and which appear in the article he wrote. So he has filed a copyright claim against me. My use of his image falls under "fair use" in US copyright law, so I am disputing his claim. Unfortunately, the video will be down until the dispute is resolved.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxrS-bwDiwPGWGwzHb5HI9oW9HbuQL8bgB

 

[DarkLight]

I watched about a third of this ...and then, to my dismay, went back to it and found it has been removed from YouTube due to a copyright violation, probably a complaint from the people he is debunking.

It seems to have been taken down due to a copyright claim by the people that wrote the "Abstractions Set in Granite" paper.
Apparently, peer review was not in their plans when they released the article.

 

[Ravi]

Some detail, dispute over an image.. I guess it is that one with all the circles.
I think David did provoke it a bit by choosing this title. Red cloth and bull etc..

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

It's back!

 

[tobigtofool]

What about these toes? You all are messing up my youtube algorithms (just saw this suggested after clicking a few of the videos)

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nMn7DWTYgAs?feature=share

(dont know how to embed this - I am helpless!)

 

[Ann K]

It's back!

Good, I can finish watching it. I notice that of the gushing gee-whiz accolades and down to earth disagreements that UnchartedX chose to post on screen (about 55:50) the very first is from Ross Coulthart.

 

[NorCal Dave]

Good, I can finish watching it. I notice that of the gushing gee-whiz accolades and down to earth disagreements that UnchartedX chose to post on screen (about 55:50) the very first is from Ross Coulthart.

Russ is into Atlantis too?! I'll have to watch it time permitting.

 

[Flipmem]

Pretty certain that if the ancient Egyptians were able to somehow "fuse" abrasive crushed hard particles into their copper blade's edge, the increase in speed of cutting would be enhanced drastically.
Also quite sure though that the hard crystals are not going to stick the copper instantly. Perhaps it was brazed on the copper?

Not sure of it. But it shows that contemporary items could've done the job, no prob.

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

 

[Mendel]

Welcome to Metabunk!

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

Has any of this been seen experimentally?

 

[Ravi]

I would posit the thought that any kind of extra "brazing" method would not even be needed. It seems to me that just using the softer "saw" made of copper with an abrasive like much harder quartz sand would tend to "embed" the abrasive into the surface of the soft copper, thus naturally performing a type of brazing if you will. Constant addition of the abrasive would "replenish" the bits that break off with substantially less effort and time involved. The tool would become much more effective over time of use as opposed to the opposite. It would start out just so-so and increase from there even with the copper wearing down. Also, the heat generated in the copper edge as it is used would facilitate the embedding of the abrasive being used. Also, as someone else here suggested, adding a "waveform" pattern to the edge of the copper would add "chambers", for want of a better word to the edge where abrasive material would accumulate, somewhat mitigating the natural wearing of the copper "points" of the waveform.

Fully agree. The point here is that they certainly would have found out ways to speed up the cutting. It is as old as humans to be rather lazy than tired, right. The technical way to accomplish this is perhaps hard to prove, but the technological features are found throughout.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

Ben has a new video up proving once again metrologists can measure vases. Christopher Dunn is even in this one.

I'd link it but I don't want to give them clicks.

 

[Ravi]

I was watching the SGD channel (link) on YT again, and he provides a great link to an interesting channel called Night Scarab (link).
This channel very recently made an excellent video (see below) and rebuttal on the recent videos made by UnchartedX (link but do not click)

Because it is such a well made video that raises all issues point by point, I recommend you view this video in its entirety. But below is an overview of the content.

@01:33 Provenance

@05:01 Art dealer
@06:24 Metrology

Orientation of the handles, not in line:

@09:01 Math fallacies

@19:41 Lathe masters

Some techniques, not Egyptian, but it shows that methods that could have been used.

@24:11 Hard to make today?

Straight answer: not at all, and can even be cheap.

@27:52 Polishing is not precision

Very important note the video makes is that polishing is not per se precise.

@31:26 Is forgery viable?
@39:58 How it could've been done


The video raises the question weather or not the vases could have been from a much more recent time, as the provided provenance by UnchartedX team is very weak and unproven (no base, no evidence).
From 9 minutes onwards, it very interestingly discusses the statistical trickery that is at play here, and shows that ratios in smaller objects are very easy to link to mathematical constants.
Then the video goes into detail on the way it could have been done, using contemporary materials and methods, and also demystifies the talk that Ben is going on about all the time.

Anyway, watch the video if you can, as it explains much better and much more than I did above.


Source: https://youtu.be/O_4SaxVP44g

 

[FatPhil]

I was watching the SGD channel (link) on YT again, and he provides a great link to an interesting channel called Night Scarab (link).

Many thanks for that. I think he's still missing a few other criticisms that could be levied against the original claims. The one that jumps out to me specifically is covered with his warning not to confuse precision with polishing, but he could hammer it home more - and that's the "precision" of the wall width. How wide are the walls of the vessel? In some places, they're precisely 2mm wide. In other places they're precisely 4mm wide. So, in reality, they're 3mm +/- 1mm wide. So 3mm, but accurate to one part in three. How is such a wide range worthy of the epithet "precise"? (The desirable property from an engineering perspective of course being "accuracy", not "precision" - "Pi=2.781828" is a very precise statement, but with horrific accuracy. This ties in with his precision vs. polishing thrust - precision certainly can aid prettiness, a useful attribute for an artisenal piece.)

I just wish I wasn't broke currently, I think I'd be up for a replica for $100! Heck, I'd buy two and sell one!

 

[DarkLight]

I think that the section of the Night Scarab video where they evaluate the paper presented as an "Initial Geometric Analysis of The Predynastic Vase" could be used as an introduction to statistical significance.

 

[MapperGuy]

Many thanks for that. I think he's still missing a few other criticisms that could be levied against the original claims. The one that jumps out to me specifically is covered with his warning not to confuse precision with polishing, but he could hammer it home more - and that's the "precision" of the wall width. How wide are the walls of the vessel? In some places, they're precisely 2mm wide. In other places they're precisely 4mm wide. So, in reality, they're 3mm +/- 1mm wide. So 3mm, but accurate to one part in three. How is such a wide range worthy of the epithet "precise"? (The desirable property from an engineering perspective of course being "accuracy", not "precision" - "Pi=2.781828" is a very precise statement, but with horrific accuracy. This ties in with his precision vs. polishing thrust - precision certainly can aid prettiness, a useful attribute for an artisenal piece.)

I just wish I wasn't broke currently, I think I'd be up for a replica for $100! Heck, I'd buy two and sell one!

Beware of seeing modern units of measurement in supposedly ancient items.

Metric units of measurement are, in the end, arbitrary, however precisely defined. They might occur in ancient objects by pure chance of course, but their presence should always raise questions. If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.

 

[Mendel]

If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.

Especially if that person calls themself a metrologist.

 

[Lu Ann Lewellen]

Scientists Against Myths has a video out in English on the two-year diorite vase project.

 

[JMartJr]

Scientists Against Myths has a video out in English on the two-year diorite vase project.

Source: https://youtu.be/yyCc4iuMikQ

The experimentalist Nikolay Vasiutin copies the ancient Egyptian technology of granite drilling: a copper tube and a grinding agent (corundum). Evidence of ancient machining?"It often happens that on various Internet forums and social media I have to communicate with people who do argue that ancient Egyptians had zero skills. Though all of us read about them in schoolbooks and watched some films. In other words, ancient Egyptians allegedly didn't have tools and technologies necessary to create all those things which are shown to touristsin Egypt nowadays.For even guides in the Museum of Egyptian Antiquities in Cairo say they don't know how such impressive bores in granite could be made". The experiment was carried out for the ANTROPOGENEZ.RU (http://antropogenez.ru).The video was first presented on June the 5th, 2016, at the "Scientists against Myths" educational forum."Principles of tubular free abrasive drilling" (Oleg Krugliakov): https://antropogenez.ru/drilling/ "Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of deception": • Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of d...

From the video description in link above...

 

[Hougenai]

One thing that does not appear in previous posts relates to the origins of the vases being scrutinised for evidence of modern tooling-Provenance.

These objects have a history of being faked for the Arts and Atiquities market and it is highly unlikely these 'Independent Researchers' would be allowed to pfaff about with known excavated examples held by reputable museums, which leaves those held by private collectors with dodgy provenance.

Archeologist Paul Barford discusses the issue on his blog 'Portable Antiquities Heritage and Collecting Issues' ;
https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2024/05/more-on-those-hyper-precise-ancient.html
In reply to some abuse, archaeologist Flint Dibble;

Flint Dibble @FlintDibble
1. Your stone vessel from the art market has no archaeological context. So tell me how you know when it was made?[...] I'm done with this conversation. Good luck. I hope you read more actual archaeology and stop buying looted artifacts

Barford comments;I guess it is some special kind of uninformed that considers that anything bought from a London antiquities dealer with a COA must have been exccavated by archaeologists who then sold them off onto the market. This is why (and the ad homimnem abuse) there is little point in discussing the finer points of archaeology with people that do not actually understand some basic things about source criticism.

https://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2023/01/rubbish-in-rubbish-out.html
From this earlier thread Barford suggests;

Sadly there seems no concept of scientific method here, just "looks like" speculation, with a "bitta science" to pad it out. Theevidence on which these claims are made is based on vessels of unknown origin bought from the antiquities market
. So guess what? A lathe of very modern type may well have been used, no sensation in that as its most likely another modern fake. The photo shows that the object is not of "rose granite" from Egypt (Aswan), but seems to be some kind of browny-red breccia. I could nt find any vessels made f this material nline, though there are one or tw on eBay that lok familiar. The frm f e vessel is also difficult to paallel in excavated assemblages. As always, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Here, that requires the origin of that evidence to be clearly established and of watertight reliability. The "evidence" produced is nothing of the kind due to the poor provenance of the analysed sample. The appeal at the end of the video (while showing alabaster vessels) calls for more work by "open-minded independent researchers" on other vases from private collections to "confirm" these results. Listen to the end.

Less 'Caveat emptor', more 'Cave independens inquisitores' .

 

[Mendel]

One thing that does not appear in previous posts relates to the origins of the vases being scrutinised for evidence of modern tooling-Provenance.

We've touched on provenance in other threads, e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...manufacturing-capabilities.12240/#post-287000 .

This thread here was set up to discuss ancient manufacturing capabilities, not the modern ones.

 

[Mick West]

We've touched on provenance in other threads, e.g. https://www.metabunk.org/threads/cl...manufacturing-capabilities.12240/#post-287000 .

This thread here was set up to discuss ancient manufacturing capabilities, not the modern ones.

Eliminating modern fakes is a necessary step in making sure you're actually looking at something ancient. There's no point trying to find out how the ancients made something if they didn't make it.

 

[Ann K]

Eliminating modern fakes is a necessary step in making sure you're actually looking at something ancient. There's no point trying to find out how the ancients made something if they didn't make it.

I think a good many such items are made for the tourist market and sold as such, and the "fakery" involved is on the part of the people who make the claim that the thing they bought on vacation is an ancient artifact.

 

[Hougenai]

I think a good many such items are made for the tourist market and sold as such, and the "fakery" involved is on the part of the people who make the claim that the thing they bought on vacation is an ancient artifact.

That certainly happens when unscrupulous sellers attempt to fleece tourists, but there is a far more insidious problem with dealers,galleries,auction houses offering items for sale with very dodgy provenance 'from; a pre 70's collection, grandad's collection'.
There are industries set up to fake items not for sale to tourists but for intoroduction to the international antiquities market. Some, rather sadly , have been known to pass through well known auction houses and even ended up in museum collections (in a similar way to faked paintings).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archa...times, forgeries of,or the Piltdown Man skull.

Most archaeological forgeries are made for reasons similar to art forgeries – for financial gain. The monetary value of an item that is thought to be thousands of years old is higher than if the item were sold as a souvenir.

Though we do see it from some who wish to present evidence of their own pet theories, or just for the fun of it eg Piltdown Man


Certain artefacts are faked on an industrial scale eg Bulgarian 'Roman' Bronzes and even though well documented even now appear in auctions and dealers windows.

https://ancient-heritage.blogspot.com/2015/02/now-thats-what-i-call-mark-up.html

Ancient lamps made from "bronze" (or to be more technically accurate, copper alloy) can fetch a good price on the antiquities market but real examples that allow the trade a reasonable profit margin can be hard to come by. However, one "leading" antiquities dealer in London - Artemission, owned by Antoine Karawani, a committee member of the Association of International Antiquities Dealers (AIAD) - seems to have chanced on a remarkable supply. It must be a pretty large and pretty old supply because they have been selling a substantial quantity of their distinctive bronze lamps with a curiously uniform 'patina' for some years. Unfortunately for their customers, there is a slight hitch ...

The Bulgarians have been making fake Roman bronze lamps for years. At first, they tried selling them as the real thing on eBay and other outlets - but most of them are blindingly obvious rubbish, buyers eventually got wise to them, and many are nowadays openly sold as "replicas" (though of course for much lower prices than real ones).

I could go on, but will leave it there as a polite reply, before going too far off topic.

 

[Ravi]

Just saw a video on yt of Night Scarab, with an interesting subject. I will quote his video discription:

This link was sent to us (we're not on Twitter). It's a tweet by Stine Gerdes, a computer analyst for the Vase Scan Team (VST), at least up until now. His tweet was read in a random voice. Sounds like VST is hypocritically "gate keeping" him, despite VST's years of complaining about "gate keepers" in the academia. Not sure what this means. Maybe the scan results from Petrie were below expectations and VST wants to carefully "manage" the release of data.

Source: https://youtu.be/t9N2KomV2uQ?si=st-cxRyS1CRDLmvq

 

[Mendel]

Just saw a video on yt of Night Scarab

Article:

As has always been the plan, and as was the agreement with Artifact Foundation from the start, the reports will be released freely for all to see and use. They are now available under a Creative Commons license on my website. I hope everyone will use this new data to deepen our understanding!

I have also uploaded an overview with the precision score and an overview of the circularity measurements on my website - this gives a good overall view of the findings in the Petrie Museum vessels.

Source: https://x.com/stinegerdes/status/1902137009977868769

(full tweet below)

The link is https://arcsci.org/catalogue.html , which leads to an overview of 27 vase scans like these:

These items are linked to "precision reports"; the one I checked at random is Creative Commons-licensed and contains 50 pages explaining the methodology and various metrics of the object.


Source: https://x.com/stinegerdes/status/1902137009977868769

 

[Alexandria Nick]

Beware of seeing modern units of measurement in supposedly ancient items.

Metric units of measurement are, in the end, arbitrary, however precisely defined. They might occur in ancient objects by pure chance of course, but their presence should always raise questions. If an items has a range of sizes, from above an even metric value to below that value a person might simply be rounding off the value for convenience, but if so they should specify they have done so.

Although this doesn't apply the same way to Imperial/US Customary, because the units are derived from the same source as some ancient units. In a low tolerance application, a djeser and a foot are functionally the same unit.

 

[MapperGuy]

Article:

As has always been the plan, and as was the agreement with Artifact Foundation from the start, the reports will be released freely for all to see and use. They are now available under a Creative Commons license on my website. I hope everyone will use this new data to deepen our understanding!

I have also uploaded an overview with the precision score and an overview of the circularity measurements on my website - this gives a good overall view of the findings in the Petrie Museum vessels.

Source: https://x.com/stinegerdes/status/1902137009977868769

(full tweet below)

The link is https://arcsci.org/catalogue.html , which leads to an overview of 27 vase scans like these:
View attachment 78496
These items are linked to "precision reports"; the one I checked at random is Creative Commons-licensed and contains 50 pages explaining the methodology and various metrics of the object.


Source: https://x.com/stinegerdes/status/1902137009977868769

This appears to be the usual issue that crops up when newer more precise information may contradict the analysis made based on older less precise information.
In this case precision measurements of Egyptian stone vases suggest they are not as uniformly symetrical as they appear to the eye, or measurements made with less sophisticated tools.
The custodians of some of the vases examined are now regretting they allowed the new measurements to be made and are seeking to suppress the resulting details.

 

[NorCal Dave]

The custodians of some of the vases examined are now regretting they allowed the new measurements to be made and are seeking to suppress the resulting details.

That makes sense. I was trying to remember all the players involved.

 

[Ann K]

The custodians of some of the vases examined are now regretting they allowed the new measurements to be made and are seeking to suppress the resulting details.

<** putting on my conspiracist's hat **> "They are trying to suppress the Truth because they're trying to keep the ancient civilizations a secret!!"

Or, perhaps more likely, (1) they think you're trying to weave a large blanket out of a very small piece of thread, or (2) they've become concerned that they've paid good serious-collectors money for an antique and now fear they've been cheated because it might be a modern machine-made forgery instead.

 

[MapperGuy]

<** putting on my conspiracist's hat **> "They are trying to suppress the Truth because they're trying to keep the ancient civilizations a secret!!"

Or, perhaps more likely, (1) they think you're trying to weave a large blanket out of a very small piece of thread, or (2) they've become concerned that they've paid good serious-collectors money for an antique and now fear they've been cheated because it might be a modern machine-made forgery instead.

Fear of revealing that they have bought modern fakes is likely to be a real brake on their "research".
The less accurate information they produce about their collections the better. They can then just claim that theirs are the REAL THING while all of examples the debunkers have access to are the fakes.
I would hope that among museum collections there are enough examples from known sources that have been in the collections decades or a century or more that will be scanned.

 

[Ravi]

Here is another video I found of the production of stone vessels, using the most simple and straight forward tools. Look at the "lathe". As long as the object can rotate back and forth, you can make something perfectly cylindrical. No need for high speed tools or whatever. As long as the tool tip can cut the rock, you are in business.

 

[MonkeeSage]

Stine Gerdes posted an update on the vase analyses and calling out Artifact Foundation for "systematic data manipulation, plagiarism of draft reports, fabricated museum policies, and legal threats".

After 30 months of metrological rigor on PV001, the truth emerges with surgical precision: Mark Qvist's π and φ² ratios hold up under CT-scan scrutiny (0.05-0.17% error), while his Radial Traversal Pattern collapses.

https://arcsci.org/articles/revisiting_old_findings.html

But the real story isn't the math - it's the misconduct. Artifact Foundation's systematic data manipulation, plagiarism of draft reports, fabricated museum policies, and legal threats reveal how "ancient precision" claims evaporate when integrity fails.

PV001 remains a unicorn - exceeding industrial CNC precision with RMSD of 22μm - but its flawless surface shows zero wear. The probability of three interlocking ratios occurring by chance? 0.004%. The probability of two such "ancient" vessels belonging to the same collector? Statistically obscene.

My conclusion: This isn't 5,000 years old. More likely off by a factor of ~1,000.

When researchers present incorrect data as ancient marvels while threatening critics, they've crossed from questionable scholarship into scientific theater. Extraordinary precision claims require extraordinary evidence - not extraordinary evasion of peer review.

Data > Dogma. Always.

I came into this project hoping to find solid evidence that could be used to ascertain the existence of a lost civilization, instead I found a noisy dataset (both physically and morally). If the community really wishes to rewrite history by documenting a so far unknown civilization, we need to stay rigorous and true.

Source: x.com/stinegerdes/status/1968015371790868705


The post links to the article https://arcsci.org/articles/revisiting_old_findings.html from which the below is the "Personal Conclusion" section.

I finished what I set out to do, and I learned a lot along the way!

Extraordinary precision claims require extraordinary evidence. What we have instead is an extraordinary pattern of misconduct. In metrology as in all science: When the instrument is compromised, so are its readings. The only thing more precisely engineered than these "artifacts" is Artifact Foundation's evasion of scientific accountability.

The artifact PV001 still stands as the absolute unicorn of the dataset. Exceeding all other artifacts, not only in fabrication precision but in mathematical relations as well.

While refuting the existence of the radial traversal pattern, I've demonstrated the mathematical ratio measurements proposed by Mark to be true. This very clearly suggests a blueprint being in existence for this artifact, before its physical production in granite. Something that could only have been achieved with sophisticated technology, as stated by Mark.

That the Radial Traversal Pattern was rejected does not change the fact that this artifact displays some amazing features, not seen in any other scanned artifacts.

The existence of PV001 can only mean one of three things:

• The artifact is indeed genuine and 5,000+ years old - which would represent one of archaeology's most profound discoveries, evidence of a sophisticated civilization that came before us.
• It is a modern replica, produced with minute attention to detail and great craftsmanship.
• It is a genuine artifact (purchased in the 1980'es as per Adam Young's claims), but later reworked on modern machines: Using precision-grinding, polishing and then corrected until it achieved its marvelous precision.

My current personal conclusion in regards to the famous PV001 artifact is this:

The age of this "artifact" is not 5,000+ years. More likely, that number is off by a factor of ~1,000.


Everyone can make mistakes, it happens in science as it happens in daily life. When scientists find logical flaws or errors in each others work, the critique should be highly valued - errors and logical flaws will be corrected. Everyone benefits.

This is not the case with the data produced by the Artifact Foundation. Their tactic is to block and censor other researcher's materials (especially critiques of their work). They have a track record of data manipulation to make the results match what they set out to prove. This type of "research" and scientific practice should not be welcomed in the field. In this light, it is a very hard sell to criticize figures like Flint Dibble as representative of the general flaws in mainstream archeology.

Now the alternative community must hold the same standards internally as externally - If not, the level of dogma here is the same as the level of dogma they accuse others of. If we've set out to understand whether ancient lost civilizations existed (as I believe they might have) we need to dismiss untruthful sources like the Artifact Foundation. They are diluting the credibility of the actual work done by others, hampering the ability to find the very evidence and data so sorely needed to actually test the hypothesis!

Does this mean I outright reject the hypothesis, set forth by knowledgeable individuals in the community; that there might have been a lost civilization before us, a technologically advance civilization that crumbled, and from its rubble we build our own? No, for me there are still many pointers to this hypothesis that needs proper investigation - no matter if that leads to confirmation or dismissal.

I still believe in the importance of investigating the hypothesis, but until valid evidence presents itself, it will only be a hypothesis.

I came into this project hoping to find solid evidence that could be used to ascertain the existence of this lost civilization, instead I found a noisy dataset (both physically and morally). If the community really wishes to rewrite history by documenting a so far unknown civilization, we need to stay rigorous and true.

The dogma that the community accuses archeologists of - that they hold on to beliefs in spite of counter-evidence - seems to also be true within that very community. Many people want to conjure up evidence so badly that they distort the data and reject what the data actually shows.

Data > Dogma. Is the only way we will ever get to the truth.

And of course, if a genuine museum artifact is presented, which match the incredible precision of PV001 and PV003 - I will be the first to offer a serious (and truly open and non-profit) investigation of it. If this data is presented by the Artifact Foundation though, we must reject it due to their currently demonstrated misconduct.

We still have a scientist in our midst who is not swayed by dogma and who knows how to follow evidence wherever it leads - I encourage you to follow the analysis put forth in Max Fomitchev-Zamilov's articles, I'm sure he will continue the search for scans of precision artifacts and perform rigorous analysis of the datasets. Max, if you ever find a vessel approaching the precision of PV001, you know how to find me - I would be compelled into the field once again.

It is painful to watch real evidence drowned in the noise of charlatans, clawing for attention and polluting the field with flawed data and wishful thinking.

The currency in which I was paid for the time spent on my research was curiosity and the happiness of discovery and sharing knowledge. But I am a human and not a robot. The drama of the vase scan project, with ridiculous claims, censoring and insults, is not an environment I want to waste my skill, energy and time in.

I engaged in this endeavor freely and without expecting any payment other than my own happiness in the pursuit of the truth. Until the field grows a spine and shows some integrity, I will invest my energy elsewhere.

 

[Mendel]

Stine Gerdes posted an update on the vase analyses and calling out Artifact Foundation for "systematic data manipulation, plagiarism of draft reports, fabricated museum policies, and legal threats".

Thank you for the heads up!

https://arcsci.org/articles/revisiting_old_findings.html makes for interesting reading. Stine Gerdes describes how she developed a personal interest that led her to invest a large amount of time and effort into the project. We see this on occasion on Metabunk, when someone comes out of the woodwork and delivers an exceptional analysis. Another example is the Robert (not Knodel) who acquired and used a fiber-optic gyroscope to prove Flat Earth and ended up confirming the rotation of the globe, or the "experts" Maussan finds for his projects.

The page is rather long, and the part I found most interesting in the middle, at "Error Propagation 101: From Minor Misrepresentations to Major Fabrications". It's where she describes the experiences that made her re-evaluate what kind of project this was, realizing this wasn't an open project in search for truth, but rather pushing a narrative via questionable ethics.
I'd love to see her talking to @Mick West about this experience!

Offhandedly, she also exposes the scan data from another collector, Matt Beall, as fake.

Time and again, we see woo-adjacent projects seek publicity and control the narrative by muzzling the experts they employed with NDAs and cherry-picking their statements. It's the same tactics that Gerdes describes here, except they never actually employed her, so she's free to talk about it.

It's a very different experience from working on Metabunk!

 

[FatPhil]

Thank you for the heads up!

https://arcsci.org/articles/revisiting_old_findings.html makes for interesting reading. Stine Gerdes describes how he ...

With a name like Stine, I'm guessing she's a she.

 

[Mendel]

With a name like Stine, I'm guessing she's a she.

Noted, thanks.

 

[Ravi]

I was watching a video about the metrology performed on some stone work, on the channel "Danny Jones Clips", episode "This is the #1 Most Precise Artifact in All of Egypt | Adam Young & Karoly Poka".
I am highlighting a small bit of the things the duo show, telling me their reporting is not very honest. What we see is a flat surface of a granite box/coffin, where they show the measured point cloud with false colouring indicating the deviation from flat (in inch). The data set has the edges cut-off in the images. The reason is that probably there the fall-off of the flat is far exceeding that needed to fit their narrative..

It is very common in producing accurate flats that the edges will suffer the most, caused by the grinding technique (i.e. two rather flat stones rubbed together for a while..).

 

[FatPhil]

It is very common in producing accurate flats that the edges will suffer the most, caused by the grinding technique (i.e. two rather flat stones rubbed together for a while..).

If you want flat, use three. Two will happily create a concave/convex pair. Three, used in all combinations, cannot do that.