Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2023
- Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Get up to 60% OFF your subscription ➡Here: bit.ly/3DCfDH3
Some Atlantis bros here on CZcams are saying that a stone vase, which they are claiming comes from ancient Egypt, is the smoking gun evidence for a lost advanced civilization. Dr. M takes a look into the matter to see if evidence for a high tech society before a great cataclysm has finally been found.
For more on the pseudoscience of Precisionism, see here: • BAD SCIENCE: You Can't...
For a full discussion of UnchartedX's ideas about Egyptian technology, see here: • Historian Reacts to Ev...
►LEAVE A COMMENT
Be respectful and courteous to other commenters.
Challenge the argument, not the person.
Claims that are backed by evidence will get more traction.
If your comment does not appear, try again with different words. CZcams sometimes glitches and comments don't go through. Or they might flag your comment as potentially inappropriate.
►DOWNLOAD Professor Miano's free e-booklet: "Why Ancient History Matters":
mailchi.mp/a402112ea4db/why-a...
►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity CZcams Channel for regular ancient history content.
► SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Supporters get access to behind-the-scenes videos, early-release videos, course discounts and more! / worldofantiquity
FTC Disclaimer Notice: Some of the links here may be affiliate links, meaning that if you click on them and purchase something on another website, I get a small commission. It doesn't cost you any extra, but I thought you should know! It does help support the channel.
► REFERENCES
UnchartedX's Videos on the Vase:
• Scanning a Predynastic...
• Ancient Egyptian Vase ...
• Was a COMPUTER Used to...
Mark Qvist's Analysis:
unsigned.io/granite-artefact/
Marián Marčiš' Analysis:
mariusderomanu3/s...
Twitter (X) conversations:
DrDavidMiano/stat...
EricI96670975/sta...
TonyTrupp/status/...
On Stone Vases:
www.almendron.com/artehistori...
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
www.objects-for-eternity.com/...
journals.sagepub.com/doi/full...
www.francescoraffaele.com/egyp...
scholar.cu.edu.eg/sites/defau...
www.ijetjournal.org/Volume2/Is...
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
www.metmuseum.org/art/metpubl...
amzn.to/45pVLmN
amzn.to/3R18esP
amzn.to/3OSNvF4
www.proquest.com/openview/9c6...
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
archive.org/details/journalan...
www.semanticscholar.org/paper...
fount.aucegypt.edu/cgi/viewco...
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
www.britishmuseum.org/collect...
antropogenez.ru/drilling/
Scientists Against Myths videos:
• Что внутри у ваз Древн...
• Making a stone vase wi...
• Making Egyptian Drill ...
On Predynastic Egypt:
smarthistory.org/predynastic-...
isac.uchicago.edu/sites/defau...
Accuracy vs Precision:
www.productionmachining.com/a...
plato.stanford.edu/entries/me...
On the Illegal Antiquities Trade:
cfj.org/report/the-need-for-p...
Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:
www.amazon.com/How-Know-Stuff...
Follow Professor Miano on social media:
►FACEBOOK: / drdavidmiano
►TWITTER: / drdavidmiano
►INSTAGRAM: / drmiano
As a professional metrologer working for a national metrology institute it is quite easy to see through their deliberate attempt to obfuscate the subject at hand. However, I feel it gets very easy to get lost in all the technical and mathematical lingo and immediately surrender to the supposed expertise of these experte. However to demonstrate that the analysis provided here is would not pass in metrology as scientific at all I can give you one rather easy to understand example.
When they talk about the technology used for the scan they say that the accuracy of the ATOS scanner was "a thousandth of an inch" (i.e. 25,4 µm if you use grown up units). In the analysis written about it however Qvist is writing about deviations of 13 or even 7 µm which is an unachievable conclusion based on the technology used! What I think is also telling is that in the video they jokingly state that "no one is following calibration rules on ancient artefacts yet". The meaning of this probably is not clear to a lot of people, but this is basically an admission that scientific metrological standards were not applied (which probably even makes the accuracy of 25,4 µm very unlikely). In addition nowhere are they mentioning anything about measurement uncertainties but only the measurement values (sometimes deveations), if you know any metrologers you would understand how much of a red flag this is.
Wow, this is illuminating. Thanks for sharing.
I'd love to get your opinion on the STL file, which they have available here: unchartedx.com/site/2023/02/19/new-video-updates-to-the-vase-scan-responses-and-the-stl-file/
One small correction. In the analysis written they mention that the accuracy of the model (not the scanner) is 75 µm (about the thickness of a human hair) and therefor even less than what it is said in the video! This is not bad but also not super accurate.
In short they are claiming precision many digits better than their equipment measures. Absurd in its simple impassable error.
Could this discrepancy have anything to do with the unit conversion you did? i.e. a rounding error
LOL I love this line "there are lots of examples of precision artifacts, at lease to the eye"
It's ludicrous to assume that all craftsmen/artists (of any trade) all have the exact equal skill level at any period in history...the Egyptians of course would've also had their Michaelangelo or DaVinci who created pieces beyond everyone else.
Absolutely. In fact, surely the Egyptians would've have a higher number of great masters in the stone working field because it was a major industry involving large numbers of people, with potentially great benefits for those most skilled in the process
And honestly the vase they showed was journeyman at best.
40,000 were discovered at once.... Unless they had 20.000 Da Vincis I think the only possibility is that they had a process to mass produce with high precision. Footage from below the step pyramid (where the trove of vases were discovered) show massive piles of hundreds of potshards, all of them looking perfectly round and perfectly smooth. This was not the work of a master craftsman, symmetrical stone vases are obviously an object that was extremely abundant at one point in history.
@N8Dulcimer OR they arent perfectly round and no one knows if they are because no one has ever measured them.
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks The piles and piles of potshards have no visible inconsistencies in any of them. Many of these potshards actually were measured upon their discovery, and even at the time it was noted that the broken vases had visible compound radii, and that some even had visible machining marks. Those shards may not be 'scanned' but at a glance it's immediately obvious that they represent an extremely high level of stone working skill that was employed on a very massive scale. It's just not realistic to look at a room full of thousands of stone vases, some paper thin, some extremely hard, all of them perfect looking and say "well they must have had a thousand michaelangelos."
What they've proved is that today, somewhere in the suburbs of Cairo, someone is making tourist souvenirs with modern tools.
*Where is the ancient machinery?* Where are the inferior machines that would have preceded these superior machines? Where are the artifacts of the many civilizations that would have to precede the supposed advanced civilizations? Or are they implying that aliens brought the technology, then carried it away?
We're is the missing link between humans n cute apes? Aliens took them also? Round n round 😊
@@apocolypse11 Please restate your first question. Did you mean “where is” or “we are” or something else?
They never claim aliens made them and the easy answer is a worldwide flood which is heavily documented occurred whiping out the old world, all we have left are items made of stone that could survive the flood.
I would guess either rusted away, or buried along the seafloor close to the coasts. Who knows what's out there on the coastal seabeds. We know the sea level used to be lower, so there's probably some cool stuff out there either way. As for the artifacts, it's entirely possible that we already have the artifacts, they're just not being recognized for what they are. Just something to consider.
@@spracketskooch We can get a rough date on the artifacts. None of them corroborate Atlantis.
All metal objects found have standard-model explanations.
These are also things to consider
It's so much easier to jump on the bandwagon of an Atlantis grift than to achieve competence in the field.
Ben is an IT worker he has no qualifications in construction, engineering, masonry, gravitational computation, nuclear science, carbon dating or any of the other things he talks like an expert about.
@@TGBurgerGaming no he doesn't, but the company he keeps does, you muppet 🤦♂
@@samduckworth4544 so lets take what youre saying seriously for one second without being venomous. What you said amounts to this: You know a guy (Ben) who knows a guy (Bens friend) and he said so.
Cool as mate. 👍
@@TGBurgerGaming OMG you're so DUMB!!! it's actually laughable!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@samduckworth4544 but they don't
Jade's a pretty hard stone, and I've seen Shang dynasty (and earlier) and precontact Maori jade art and blades polished and ground so thin light can shine through them. Nobody says that was made with machines. Stonework simply takes a lot of time and effort.
There is definitely a link between pseudoarchaeology and the illegal artifact trade
There are around 50 000 of thesekinds of vases.
I'm sure. They were in vogue for a thousand years @@tiitulitii
@@tiitulitii Ancient Egypt lasted about 3,000 years. Seventeen skilled craftsmen making one vase each a year throughout that time would make over 51,000 vases. Their apprentices would each supply an equal number of less quality examples. Pre-dynastic Egypt had a population around 700,000; by the New Kingdom the population was around 3,500,000 -- there were likely way more than 17 skilled stone carvers in that population, and each likely had multiple apprentices.
@@rcrawford42 Except they aren't found throughout "Ancient Egypt." They are found in predynastic burials and very early dynastic sites. And with most examples being found under the Step Pyramid of Saqqara. Are you suggesting that Djoser had 30-40k of these jars made during his lifetime?
"I am too dumb to make something like this, so nobody could make something like this."
Dude, don't quote your dad like that. It's rude.
@@spracketskooch Goddamn you have the brain of a 5 year old.
That is not at all the argument, and don't feel silly for not getting it. I am a machinist and i could make you this vase but it's going to cost you around 5-8k. Why would you do that when a 2 dollar vase works just as well. The argument is they had an extremely efficient and accurate manufacturing process. Not just bronze tools. Don't so quickly believe one person over the other watch both videos. This guy uses many under handed tactics such as sensationalism like as if Ben is trying to prove Atlantis is real by showing you how damn good Egyptians were at making vases. That is ridiculous.
you are too dumb to realize what it takes to make it, on the other hand
@@I-HAVE-A-BOMBjust the title of this video is retarded and misleading, mainstream historians and archeologist are just getting desperate at this point
YES!! I knew you'd get this video back up! It's no mystery who had the most investment in trying to get your video taken down. .
Back up with the added shame of being known to have tried to suppress it. 😂
I just saw the title itself and burst out laughing. THE SHADE! 🤣
As a kid, I did some telescope making, grinding and polishing the mirrors for reflecting telescopes. With no tools except two disks of glass and abrasives of graduated particle size, I ground and polished the mirrors by hand with a surface accuracy of about 4 millionths of an inch. In fact the surface needed to be that good in order to work at all; it is pretty standard in the optical world. So the idea that precision tools are required to produce precision surfaces is bogus. I have been a physicist for over 50 years and find all this "reasoning" incredibly suspect.
How were you able to achieve this level of surface accuracy?
I've ground telescope mirrors by hand and you cannot make one of these vases using that process-- sorry
It's basically a mechanical process, you have two identical glass discs that you grind together using successively finer abrasive. One disc is on the work surface ,which is covered in wet newspaper to hold it in place. You place a slurry of abrasive and water on the disc and take the other disc and and grind on the stationary disc, using a straight line motion changing position randomly around the disc. Using this method with finer and finer abrasive you can get less than a wavelength precision
When you bring two pieces of glass together, it they are flat, they stay in contact. If they are spherical and have the same radius of curvature, they also stay in contact. So you can grind one against the other, grinding more at the center of one than the edge. Once you have a concave surface, continued abrasion will cause it to approach a matched spherical surface. You could make gauges for producing vessels, by bootstrapping this sort of thing. I am not suggesting this is the approach, but the general idea that high precision objects require fancy tools is certainly not universally true.
@@thegreatbloviator6817 But you literally can, you just rotate an object while holding an abrasive against it.
I have been on an uncharted X binge recently, and most of his gripes is the refusal for contemporary academia to budge in certain areas. For example: the use of lathes in the oldest artifacts. Many artifacts such as the stone vases predate the great pyramids and therefore older than 2500 BCE. A quick google search says Egypt had lathes only a thousand years later in 1300 BCE. Those scans and analysis by engineers have them convinced lathes were used much earlier but for one caveat being the handles getting in the way of a rotating lathe which adds to the mystery. That kind of precision and consistency cannot be done by eyeball and hand chisels.
Edit: His other claim is also that there are plenty of depictions of Egyptians building everything from pots to chairs and cabinets, but none of the great pyramids.
The fact is the section with the handle is less precise but achievable since you have reference surface to make it. It's the same thing with high precision mold some time machine can't acces some place to get the precision asked so they finish those spot by hand.
@@legro19 The precision of everywhere else seems like a lathe is involved. Their measurements show a tolerance of deviance that is less than the width of a human hair. This is something that cannot be done by hand chisels and eyeballs. Lathes MUST have been involved. However, this will break current notions that lathes only started being used after 1300BCE in Egypt, despite these examples being much older.
How can you claim precision and consistency when we have almost no precise measurements of vases with provenance?
@@legro19 What about the areas between the handles? Those areas are equally precise. They present the same accuracy of curvature in two planes. Done by hand?
@@San_Vito The video shows quite clearly vases being measured in a precision shop. Those vases have solid provenance.
Regarding accuracy versus precision, you can abstract to accuracy being a test of how closely the mean of a sample matches a target, and precision, a measurement of variance / standard deviation (or a similar alternative, e.g. mean magnitude of deviation, depending on the goal)*. You don't need multiple vases to measure how precisely a tool is being used. For example, if we wanted to assess saw strokes of a person attempting to saw a straight line across a board, if the pattern of his strokes produced a perfect sine wave, with large amplitude and zeroed on the goal line, we would conclude his strokes were highly accurate, but not very precise. In contrast, if he sawed in a parabolic arc, zeroed at the goal line, but with a miniscule coefficient (very close to 0), then his accuracy would be inferior to the perfect sine wave example, while (assuming a sufficiently small coefficient) precision might be very high.
With respect to the vase, they can (and, I think, do) measure precision and accuracy-accuracy is a measure of how close a measure of the vase matches whatever abstraction they're comparing it to (I don't think it is a strong argument to suggests the chosen abstractions represent cherry-picking, but I'd love to hear why I'm wrong), and precision is a measure of variance along the path being measured.
────────────────────
* I think you could say, if testing a curve, 𝑔, against a target curve, 𝑓, Σ(𝑔 -𝑓) represents accuracy, then the sum of the first derivative of the magnitude of their differences (or square of the differences if using variance), Σ(|𝑔 -𝑓|'), would represent precision (maybe it is best to say that the values would vary inversely with accuracy and precision, respectively), but that may not be general (e.g., maybe it would only hold for linear functions) or even true, just my impression during the typing of this comment.
I think you are bit influenced by your technical background. You are confusing terminus technicus (precision and accuracy) with a rhetorical term as Uncharted-X is using. It is similar to someone else here criticizing that the vase does not have a level of accuracy of 0.01um (or whatever it was) to be called a precision manufacturing, since that is a norm for precision manufacturing. But again, it was meant rhetorically that the manufacturing is way more precise then if the vase would have been made by hand with simple hand tools. Besides, we dont know what would be the norm back in old Egypt to call some manufacturing a precision manufacturing, right?
I agree with this:"With respect to the vase, they can (and, I think, do) measure precision and accuracy-accuracy is a measure of how close a measure of the vase matches whatever abstraction they're comparing it to (I don't think it is a strong argument to suggests the chosen abstractions represent cherry-picking, but I'd love to hear why I'm wrong), and precision is a measure of variance along the path being measured." When I rebuild an engine I'm interested in both precision and accuracy: find out the spec (they did that) see how close the engine (vase) is to that spec and precisely adjust the part/s to fit to original or new spec.
exactly in simpler terms, if i ask someone to draw a "perfect" circle free hand and they do, i dont need to cross-referrence it with another perfect circle to know if his circle is perfect or not, since producing a circle means i have to strictly follow the geometrical laws that define a circle.
and in trun, i can calculate the accuracy of his drawing by calculating the error margin (e.g. the diameter at 23deg of the x-axis has an error of 0.3 mm)
so when measuring the percision of the vase, you would have "perfect" geometry as your referrence to deduct the errors from.
if im measuring the percision of a cube, i just need to confirm that all sides are equal and parallel/perpendicular to each other as well as test the surfaces to be perfectly flat.
I remember this video, it was the one that got me shadow banned from his channel for pointing out that he used the mohs scale wrong 😂
I’m glad you have done a video about this, thank you sir, much appreciated.
Ah yes - if you point out where additional or alternative information is, you will get banned from these fantasy channels.
Yes, always stating that a material must be higher on the mohs scale to 'cut' another material so copper couldn't work granite as granite is the higher on the scale.
@@cathyd74I have used core drills of brass or copper, the copper does not cut the stone. The abrasive powder cuts the stone.The copper only carries the abrasive by allowing the abrasive to become embedded in its surface.
I give him hell. He teaches rubbish to my kids. Moh’s is not pertinent to the argument.
@@emmitstewart1921 and the copper quickly wears down in the process, using up just as much as the stone it erodes.
My immediate question was, “Is the vase authentic?” Stone can’t be carbon dated, so in the absence of, say, ancient food residue, the find’s context is essential. No context? No reliability.
But even artifacts found without context can be dated based on artistic factors. It’s difficult to recreate the aesthetics of other cultures without leaving telltale signs, and the more elaborate the decoration, the more likely a forger will make a mistake. (That said, all museums have been taken in by skilled forgers.) Problem is, the vase is almost as simple as a work of art can be. It’s just a shape-and not a complex shape at that. It’s possible to look at the vase’s shape, size, and materials, and say, “This matches authentic Egyptian vases.” It might even be possible to say, “This matches authentic vases of X period.”
But you still can’t rule out that some fool with the keys to a workshop spent an hour on Pinterest looking up Egyptian stone vases, then whipped it out on a lathe for a quick buck.
It’s useful to examine all the ways their analysis fails to make their point. But the core failure, the one that invalidates their project from the start, is that they don’t know whether they have an authentic artifact.
I eagerly await your demonstration of whipping one of these vases out in one hour on a lathe.
@@thegreatbloviator6817 "Hour" here refers to the time spent looking for examples on Pinterest, not the time spent making the vase.
mrjones :: Your comment about ::
_and the more elaborate the decoration, the more likely a foger will make a mistake._
It reminded me of a professional check-foger giving people the heads-up on fake signatures ::
_The better the penmanship of the person, the more difficult it is to copy the signature ; the more haphazard the signature, the easier it is to replicate._
You both make perfect sense ! 👌
@@cliffgaither Teenaged me trying to forge my mother’s exquisite handwriting would agree. Meanwhile, I’m worried that if someone steals my identity, the trial judge will rule that the checks were clearly signed “Mnannnnnng Arrrn,” exactly like my attested signatures, so I’m liable for the debt.
@@mrjones2721 :: Good one 😊 !
Imagine spending days, if not weeks, waking up every morning in the hot Egyptian sun, affixing your piece of granite to a wheel with clay or pitch, and progressively chipping and grinding away at your work piece to create your magnum opus: the closest to perfectly even granite drinking vessel you've ever been able to produce.
All for your hard work to be attributed to magic ancient aliens with machines 6000 years later
For some reason, I smell hay and overalls, and I hear the crows cawing in fear.
No not magic or aliens with machines, humans with machines.
“I enjoy long walks on the beach” “he’s just along for the ride…” 😂
I’m amazed he says we’d have trouble with the precision even in the 80s. I can Google “granite vases” and find pages of them from the funeral industry for a few hundred dollars. They’ve been churning out such things for decades. He is massively over claiming the accuracy of his measured vase.
Yeah, look at the precision of machining in the 1940s. Fat Man needed EXTREME tolerances; Sherman tanks were credited with high reliability because parts could be swapped easily between them.
I think this guy is so reliant on computer technology that he is genuinely incapable of imagining how you could accomplish anything without it.
Nah, those vases aren't similar. The inside is an unpolished hole bored into the center. The wall thickness is nowhere near consistent because of that. I didn't see a single one with lug handles. I also didn't see a single vase made of diorite or schist, like what many in the Egyptian museums are made from. I've yet to see any modern vase that perfectly balances on a round bottom, or one that has walls so thin a flashlight can be seen through them. I'd pick a better line of argumentation if I were you.
@@spracketskooch the sample vase that they were using matched none of your examples. Admittedly, it had an interior consistent with the exterior, but that is doable given time.
The argument is we have no good provenance on their sample, so it could be a modern piece. Secondly, all of this is within the capability of an Egyptian artisan - no super civilization required.
I measured a vase the other day to prove to my history professor that my wife's dog ate my homework. Never mind that I don't have a wife, nor am I taking any courses from any professors--my measurements show that everyone has to believe what I say.
Ok but only if it have Pi and the Golden Ratio in it
@@Oriol-oo7jl : Well, my non-wife's dog is a Golden Ratio and he loves pi
Well we completely believe you and what you say about your measurements, because we saw your comment on u tube...
I heard that you love everything about Bill Cosby, except his comedy.
every time they show a close up of the vase you can see a very clear warp in the lip 🫣
That doesn't count! Neither do the offcenter holes in the lugs. ...or any of the other data they collected which they don't think counts. Frankly if that vase turned out to be from the early days of Ebay I wouldn't be surprised.
The fact is that UnchartedX and other pseudoarchaeology benefit from making vague claims and saying they are being attacked by mainstream academia when challenged because it provides a sense of drama (as in us vs them) leading to more followers and a big source of income. Proposing a clear, falsifiable hypothesis that can be debated and judged will not bring in the dollars.
exactly
The pyramidiot entertainment complex
duh
Why do people like you always assume that these guys don't genuinely believe what they're saying? Why is making a living pursuing something, even something incorrect, a bad thing? String theorists make a living, and literally haven't provided a single shred of observational evidence to back up their hypotheses. Every single research scientist makes a living, but you don't question their motives. You're just engaging in bad faith. There's no way around it. Either be suspicious of everyone's motives, or give people the benefit of the doubt, but not both depending on how receptive you are to a person's ideas.
@spracketskooch The issue has nothing to do with how much they believe what they are talking about. String theorists and other researchers subject their theories and evidence to peer review so that it is challenged by others familiar with the field of research. Pseudoarchaeologists do the opposite. They avoid peer review while insulting archaeologist and other trained people who challenge the strength of their "evidence."
@@Beaker709 You're not going to be able to successfully argue on behalf of string theory. Pick another area to make your point.
At least these guys have vases, even if they're fake, and we know for sure there are similar vases in Egyptian museums. String theory has literally nothing, I can't stress that enough, _literally nothing_ . The math is apparently beautiful, but it doesn't correlate to reality.
Also, you have it exactly backwards. Independent researchers are challenging the conclusions of archeologists. You guys are the ones making positive claims of knowledge, that you know how these things were made, and how megalithic structures were constructed. The burden of proof is on you. I am questioning your evidence, not the other way around.
I mean, you guys are so entrenched in your ideas that you won't even consider that Egyptians had lathes long before we thought they did. No ancient advanced civilization, no high technology, no advanced knowledge, just a man powered lathe, and archeologists scoff at the idea. Despite that being the only viable way to create many of the vases we see in Egyptian museums.
Just a point of contention. Uncharted x did say he is looking for other vases to analyze. I get your point but his access is limited.
Thanks for being accurate. We could settle part of the debate if some of the vases in Egyptian museums could be measured to the same degree of accuracy. It doesn't even have to necessarily be by the same people who measured these vases. It could be done non-invasively, and potentially even on site.
That's why I said I would help him get access.
@@WorldofAntiquity That would be awesome. Thank you in advance for your efforts.
Its funny how the moment you dig deeper on these conspiracies they start falling apart
if even a moment, lol
You are talking about the conspiracy of our civilisation began 6000 years ago?
@@carlos_castanaut common buddy make the argument for your conspiracy
@@carlos_castanaut You really think you're clever don't you lol
lol you can even see the imprecision in picture @12:01
guess, during a vacation in Egypt someone got scammed of a lot of money and now he is trying to convince himself that it was worth 😁😂
This is a very grimey video title, I am a Machinist, a tool maker. Those Vases are incredible, not just for the tolerances they are made with but the fact its done on something it really doesn't need to be done on. This would be a very expensive vase to make even today and 1000s of these exist. We would never waste the time, money or tooling to do this. There is no reason to which suggest they had a much more efficient manufacturing process than us.
Would be really cool if actual educated people were involved in archaeology, people who understand design, engineering, constructing, metallurgy, manufacturing and not just you clowns. Who have never created or worked truly a day in their lives, it's sad.
So there are thousands of Egyptian vases all made to the same tolerances........ - really. 🤦 Someone needs to open a window it appears.
Not that your "day job" actually means anything here as it frankly doesn't but can you admit it is possible to create a vase absent knowing its' final dimensions??? If your answer is yes - as it should be = your entire argument just collapsed.......
Moral: unless the craftsman is purposely seeking to arrive at a specific dimensional outcome then subsequent measurements - based upon modern metrics said craftsman would be unaware of no less = become meaningless.
Claiming "X" thousands of an inch or whatever holds no real value unless you are attempting to achieve said outcome using a specific method of production = aka "duplication". Absent that then whatever the final dimensions of the object it was simply happenstance.
p.s. - open the dropdown menu to see the source material and what professional disciplines they represent. Hence Egyptologists etc. = *DO* work with engineers et al when formulating their conclusions....... Better luck next time.
As someone with a PhD in Physics myself, when I'm teaching students I'm constantly warning them to guard against being dogmatic in their approach to study, but instead to use the scientific method to pursue evidence. Dr Miano does a fabulous job of highlighting the non-scientific nature of the approach of these "dudes". Great content 😊 👏🏻
Isn't ancient precision so incredible that when you measure an ancient object, it has the same exact same dimensions as that same exact ancient object? WOW
@@rahulmenon4357
Lol epic sarcasm.
Mainstream Paid SHILL, you spread so much RUBBISH its not even funny!
Get real! Youre a DISGRACE ive seen a few of your videos which talk ABSOLUTE RUBBISH, purely try to discredit CREDITABLE research with lies, half truths and leaving out key information that proves the other peoples research and scientifically backed points of view! Disgusting that you push the mainstream narrative, trying to make yourself credible by FALSELY discrediting others work witb lies is thw LOWEST OF THE LOW!
The irony that you're sponsored by "Babel"! Because that's all youre doing! Utter Rubbish! No critical thinking and YOU are spreading "Misinformation" mainstream science (term used jokingly) IS PAID ny the Establishment AS YOU KNOW! And As are YOU I can only presume! Youre a Bad Joke!
You NEVER OFFER any SUGGESTION as to in this instance "HOW" YOU suggest they were "made"?) When you don't agree don't agree.. its NOT giod enougb to merely try to discredit! YOU SUGGEST HOW they were made if not by advanded means GIVEN THEY ARE UNEXPLAINED and FAR EXCEEDS the technology of when and the people by which they are "supposed" to have been made (according to YOUR 'MAINSTREAM'-FRIENDS!) YOU HAVE NO IDEA! - BECAUSE STONEMASONS HAVE NO IDEA! - FACT!
As for This Video you miss so many facts its unreal. THESE ITEM CANNOT be made by hand Tools! THOUSANDS of modern stonemason's have stated this categorically that this CANNOT be achieved with the tools when these were supposed to have been made! In FACT STONEMASONS NOW would NOT be able to make these artificts! I know a number of stonemasons who confirm this! Also there are HUNDREDS OF THESE ARTIFACTS! YOU KNOW THKS! GROW UP! GET REAL AND BE PROFESSIONAL! NOT A SHILL!
YOU are the ONKY RED FLAG! YPU LOOM AT ALL THE EVIDENCE! THERES THOUSANDS OF ARTIFACTS from around the world that are unexplained in their precision! FACT 🤬🏴🇬🇧
Please, think.
@tiitulitii Exactly right 👍🏻
It really feels like the vase could have been a forgery, I mean he was actively looking for the one that looked the most perfect and precise, that sounds like a great way to accidently pick out a forgery from a set of potential non forgeries
The owner dances around the topic so much that i think he knows the previous owner was fishy.
He can't even give an answer like "a european family that owned it since 1800"
Instead he mentions such families in a general way to suggest credibility, achieving the opposite result imo
They've since scanned more containers whose provinance is without question solid and good, and they all exhibited similar and often greater precision. Potters wheels are not accurate enough to achieve sub 3 thous total indicator out of roundness. The bearing technology of the time wasn't up to snuff to do that. You would at the very least need an adjustable pressure babbit bearing. A lot of consumer grade modern roller and ball bearings dont even have that degree of precision. We achieve it today using precision ground tapered roller bearings. You'd also need 5 axis of motion control because of the knobs, which precludes a lathe. Lastly, the inside of these objects are equally as precise as their outsides, which means the use of a tailstock is out the window. So now we need an absolutely rigid workholding method, like a chuck, to prevent deflection.
@@smh9902 Copy pasting the exact same argument and then not responding to anybody doesn't really seem like the work of an actual person.
@@LesterBrunt Address the facts and then we can talk about who is human.
@@smh9902 Which facts? Showing a bunch of lines and values and then asserting "this can't be done" is not a fact, just an assumption. Where is the evidence that those values could not be made by hand?
Don't you know that the anunaki made them when they came in their space ships
. They said oh how stupid humans can't even make a basalt vessel so let's show them and after they were lost in the sky carring their little stone bags😂
We are no more intelligent today than our ancestors were. There were geniuses 10,000 years ago just as there are today! Just the fact that we are living, proves that our ancestors were very intelligent and capable of doing amazing things! Great channel by the way.
The problem is that archeologists are so resistant to amending their ideas that they won't even consider that the Egyptians had man-powered lathes earlier than we thought they did. Despite that being the only viable way to create many of the vases we see in Egyptian museums. It just _has_ to be copper and sand that did everything. Maybe the ancient Egyptians had pulleys? Nope, it was all elbow grease.
You don't even have to mention a lost advanced civilization to send many archeologists into a tizzy. Just look at Egyptian seafaring boats. The archeologists were convinced they didn't exist, despite being able to infer their existence, like we did with black holes. It took the discovery of an intact boat to convince them, and even then many argued that they weren't seafaring boats. Then, when they would look like idiots to argue in the face of the evidence, they pretend they thought the correct thing all along, and never mention the years they spent resisting the idea at every step.
Also, the fact that the ancients were at least as competent as us in the modern era, at least in some areas like stone working, is what's astounding. You'd expect a gradual development of technology, not a sudden massive leap, then a decline, followed by a gradual development, like we see in Egypt and many other ancient sites.
One wonders if you were to present Ben with a granite tablet of equal precision, which was engraved with a message claiming to be Khufu saying “I made the Great Pyramid lol”, he would suddenly magically understand the importance of provenance.
But we don't know who built the pyramid. Only because a tiny statue was found in one of its gangways proves nothing. Probably lost by some tourist 3000 years ago.
They've since scanned more containers whose provinance is without question solid and good, and they all exhibited similar and often greater precision. Potters wheels are not accurate enough to achieve sub 3 thous total indicator out of roundness. The bearing technology of the time wasn't up to snuff to do that. You would at the very least need an adjustable pressure babbit bearing. A lot of consumer grade modern roller and ball bearings dont even have that degree of precision. We achieve it today using precision ground tapered roller bearings. You'd also need 5 axis of motion control because of the knobs, which precludes a lathe. Lastly, the inside of these objects are equally as precise as their outsides, which means the use of a tailstock is out the window. So now we need an absolutely rigid workholding method, like a chuck, to prevent deflection.
@@smh9902 Great, now all you need is to find the advanced machine with 5 axis of motion!
@@San_Vito Actually, you need to prove that such precision can be made by hand with bronze age tools. I'm the skeptic here, not you. I'm not saying that it was made with a 5 axis machine, but if we were to make it in our era doing so would require a 5 axis machine. Perhaps the makers had something radically different. Regardless of how it was made, I'm skeptical of the claims that it was made by hand. If you claim it was made by hand using bronze age tools you need to prove it.
Wait, you think you can't prove Atlantis by measuring a vase?
🤣
no.
No they never said anything about proving Atlantis, thats just this frauds lie
Dr Rodney McKay could prove ten Atlantises with half a vase!
@@JohnnyWednesday Ah, those Stargate references.
They also reliably forget that people in those times simply had more time to work on anything.
That is simply not true. People back then worked to survive, all day everyday. They didn't have time to slowly carve dozens of insane vases. We have _much_ more free time today. I'd also be willing to bet that there's only a handful of people on Earth that could recreate some of those vases. I don't think people appreciate just how difficult it would be to get walls that thin using hard, brittle stone like that. I would really like someone to take a stab a recreating these vases, just to see what it would actually take to make one, no more speculation.
So if you have more time than you can come to this perfection?
@@spracketskooch You are incredibly confident for someone who has apparantly never heard of the concept of the division of labor. Like the guys making fine pottery for kings were obviously not subsistence farmers.
@@carlos_castanaut I mean this vase is likely from the 19th century so yeah.
Ben is also amazed about the BIC pen its surely impossible
😂 and indoor plumbing 😂
From what I recall, it wasn't the "pen", it was the association with the obviously primitive bone artifacts that were used for dating the "pen", that Ben took issue with.
As a machinist, you don't need a sophisticated computer for precision machining. Our oldest machine still in use was a grinder from the 1920's...
Okay...but according to Egyptologists they didn't have machines...they allegedly made these precise granite vases with chisels, pounding stones, and abrasives.
@@ericosoave and your point is what. I couldn't put a door frame in by EYE BUT a good chippy can
@@markbriten6999 nobody's putting in a door frame in at +/- 5 thou. Your surface grinder is made from cast iron which ancient egyptians did not have.
@@ericosoave Olga from Scientists Against Myths has finished her first diorite vase recently. The video is coming soon. It seems you don't need machinery to shape hard-stone as experimental archaeology shows.
@@ericosoave they had potters wheels, and abrasives. That's a lathe. But it's all beside the point. The purported provenance of the object under discussion has zero credibility. Any debate about the technology of the day has no relevance, since it could have been made relatively recently. You might as well be arguing how ancient Egyptians could have produced a '67 Ford Mustang rag top that belonged to King Tut, because a dodgy antiquities dealer has one to sell you.
You proved the point around 18 minutes in, when we found it to be unprovenanced. The fake market flourishes by using efficient modern methods like lathes and CNC tools to replicate or simulate artifacts that took thousands of hours to make by hand. There are many examples.
Even if it's not completely fake, unless we have records that prove no changes were made in the meantime, they could have just taken an actual artifact and polished it with modern tools to the level of perfection they're looking for.
@@Beyondarmonia Hell, if you wanna get down to it they could lie about the measurements!
@@Beyondarmonia Ot it was polished with sand, grit, and clay -- resources the Egyptians had in vast quantities. Inventing an "ancient high-technology civilization" is not just unnecessary, it's an insult to the people who actually made these artifacts.
That's something which always tickled me. Ben himself told me "you don't understand precision" however I had to inform him I'm a remanufacturing technician. I use lathes daily. We also fabricate and machine tools and parts as well. We remanufacute certan surfaces to be within .10 microns of accuracy due to the fact they're sealing surfaces. The fact these guys didn't even use a proper Surface Flatness Guage to measure the sarcophagus at the Serapeum just goes to show a lack of accuracy and knowledge of equipment. But you can literally just eyeball that work and see it's not flat lol.
@@_MikeJon_ You can do the same with Ben!
A highlight for me was the claim that "the only way known to our civilization" to transfer geometric forms to occupational objects is too use computers. He obviously skipped geometry at school, or building it making anything. All of our technology is built on geometric constructions made using physical flat surfaces and rotating objects that have been refined by physical processes.
Read "The Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" to learn what's required to achieve various levels of precision, and the history of the development of mechanical precision, including how the first flat reference surfaces were made.
@@spracketskooch 👍🏻 I kinda had that book in my head as I was making the comment although I've only heard it summarised, not read it myself. There is a good video on YT about it somewhere.
@@maninalift It can be downloaded for free with a quick google search. I think everyone who engages in this debate should at least do what you did and listen to a summary of it.
I was recently in Hanoi.
There was a store that sold copies of some of the most famous sculptures and art works in the world.
These copies were being made by hand in the backroom of the store by a bunch of teenage school children.
Michelangelo and "David" were well represented in the stock on sale; and each of the numerous copies were identical to each other.
Not only that, but I could get any of the art pieces in any size I wanted. That was all the better to ensure that my copy of "David" would fit on my mantelpiece.
The precision and accuracy in each reproduction on sale was surely indicative of primitive ancient high technology.
Germane to your point. Egyptologists over the years have uncovered underground caches of mummified animals = literally millions of them. They reflected a wide array of quality with some representing "museum quality" mummification - and others being little more than "knock-offs". An example of the latter would be what appears to be a cat which upon being x-rayed showed to be nothing more than sticks wrapped in linen in the shape of a cat.
So the point being an entire industry produced what they found which catered to the customer as the mummified objects were intended as votive offerings or as burial items for tombs. Then as now as you alluded to = they had something for everyone depending upon how much the customer wanted to spend. A craftsman can make you a cheap facsimile - or if you wish to make the investment they can take the time to create museum quality work. It is up to their patron/customer.
Yeah...even across Europe in the middle ages and up into the infamous workhouses there were industries catering to producing the same statues over and over again for the aristocracies' gardens, using nearly unskilled labor. (I say nearly unskilled because surely people working there learned something after awhile.) Amazing what you can do with simple pantagraphs ...which we pretty much know they had.
@@AveragePicker You simply don't comprehend precision and what it takes to achieve it. Measure those statues in the same way as the vases, and you'll find that they're far, _far_ from this level of precision in relation to each other. There's a book titled "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" that goes into detail what it takes to achieve various levels of precision, and the history of the iterative development of mechanical accuracy throughout the centuries.
Just getting the first flat enough reference surface to start building machines with any degree of precision is a laborious process requiring three stone surfaces to be ground against each other. There is no timeline of the slow development of mechanical accuracy in ancient Egypt. It just kind of appears, which is exceedingly unlikely.
@spracketskooch It does not just appear. There is a very clear line of development. And you are basically trying to sell back some hyperbolic language and making pretty grand claims that do not apply to this. But there have been plenty of videos countering the claims made by x (including the misuse of tools and that he's cherry picked his own data...you can find his raw numbers and they don't suggest the claims he makes) with his vases and my one more comment on it isn't going to make a difference. You're determined that a people couldn't work stone. ...ever question all the exact same matching relief work done over and over on a cathedral? Let me guess, somehow that isn't the same thing. Lol
These dudes are setting aside logic in order to prove an unproven (and likely unprovable) hypothesis. It kills me that the airplane bro asks why everything wasn't made to the same standard once the technology had been discovered. That's like asking why all jewelry isn't manufactured to the same standard as Harry Winston, Cartier, or Tiffany's (and even these so-called luxury brands vary greatly). Not everyone can afford Harry Winston or even Tiffany's, but jewlery is a significant social marker, so even those with limited funds feel a need to own some jewlery. They can do that when said jewlery is made to a lower standard, duh. This quality diversity can even be seen in a single collection of jewlery. Maybe you own ONE Tiffany tennis bracelet or a single Cartier brooch, maybe you even inherited it, but then everything else comes from Jared's or your local Jewlery store. Why would the Egyptian not also have degrees of quality based on affordability and why wouldn't a sorta wealthy Egyptian maybe buy some nice pieces but then fill in the rest with tat? It's just silly the arguments they're making.
They're not doing science. They're doing religion -- and doing it poorly.
Maybe even trying to get thrifty by making sacrificial vases DYI?
And that is even dismissing the possibility of different craftsmen having different abilities, and even the same craftsman having different periods, tools, inspirations, techniques, apprentices etc. at different times of his carrier. The sad thing for me is that these dudes have a huge following and are spreading mistrust in science in general, they are actively harming society. That's why I admire people like dr. Miano who will patiently and relentlessly thrash the pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.
Nothing precise about Tiffany.
Plus there would be factors like apprentices spending months on making a maybe halfway decent vase, while learning the process. A vase that would probably not ever come from a master, but still functional except for the aestherics... would you just trash it or sell it for half the price of the good vase?
Also if there is a market for Rolex or Cartier there also always will be a market for less expensive look alikes, so maybe the best quality comes from manufactures hiring the best sculptors and the less impressive ones from sweatshops without really trained workers?
It's always the same with these alternative theory people. When they think the 'mainstream' academic view supports their theory they not only accept it without question but take it as enhancing their credibility. The moment the 'mainstream' view is in conflict with them it is
suddenly worthless.
It’s called confirmation bias and it affects everyone including you. Please do not for one second believe that you are right and infallible. You are just as bad as the people you argue against. It’s called human nature. You aren’t made to be logical you’re made to replicate DNA. The mainstream archeologists are no better than anyone else in this regard.
Another way to phrase that would be, when they see an idea they view as correct, they pursue it, but when they see something they don't think is correct, they don't pursue it. Literally what you're doing, what I'm doing, what everyone does. We all have to constantly make value judgments about what to pay attention to. Just what you choose to look at is a value judgement. Obviously, people have different value priorities. You've essentially said the equivalent of, "rocks are hard".
Still seems like the sole body of evidence for ancient advanced civilizations is the presumed incompetence of historical people. If, in my opinion, this required advanced tools to create, and the Egyptians didn't have the tools that I require, then it must have been done by an earlier civilization whose tools we ALSO can't find, or any other evidence of them whatsoever.
it still leaves open the question why older egyptian artifacts are of a higher standard than more recent ones regardless who created them and how. its not like you simply forget high precision stone carving technology. technology should be a gradual or stepped improvement with new technological breakthroughs not a steep decline from hair-thin precision to hieroglyphics that look like they were carved by a drunk irishman.
Older Egyptians didn't have to worry about having three pharaohs kill each other in quick succession, and could practice and perfect their stonework without having to dodge Hittite raids every few seasons. War and political instability are pretty devastating to the arts.
See also: the period between the fall of the western Roman Empire and the Carolingian Renaissance. One may as well ask why Europeans' work with concrete suddenly sucked for a long time after 476.
@@KT-pv3kl Firstly, you're assuming this vase is actually from pre-dynastic evidence which there is no evidence of. Secondly you're just not even slightly correct about how technology develops like what the fuck do you think happened to Roman concrete?
@@hedgehog3180 i never assumed anything about this vase i never even mentioned it. are you even capable of reading comprehension?
my main evidence would be the relief carved hieroglyphs that can be clearly dated and show the same trend of older being of a higher quality and craftsmanship.
when it comes to roman concrete that one is really a joke among people who actually know a thing or two about construction and history. roman concrete is in no way better than modern concrete and the knowledge was also never lost its just a hyped up urban myth perpetuated by pop culture historians and journalists that never touched a single hand tool in their entire life. In essence roman concrete is just regular concrete with really coarse and badly mixed lime.
furthermore we have a clear and gradual or sometimes stepped progression of concrete as a technology for building things in the historical record. the romans were neither the first civilisation to use it nor did it ever vanish from our civilisation afterwards so its a terrible example to use if you wanted to disprove my argument about technological progression.
@@KT-pv3kl illigal artefacts trading much
I was visiting the site of ancient Taxila in Pakistan. People offered to sell me artefacts. As I knew there were laws against taking historical artefacts out of Pakistan, I refused these offers. I tried to tell them that I could only purchase an item if I knew it was a modern copy. This got confused in translation and they couldn't understand what I wanted. They kept telling me that the artefacts were ancient. I left empty handed. I thought the items were modern copies but I was unwilling to risk buying them. I saw lots of forgeries in Pakistan and the locals were very skilled in their different arts.
Later, I was buying some jeans and told the salesman that I wanted some like what I was wearing (pointing to the label). He said "no problem, we can sew the label on anything I wanted".
This would be a different level of forgery though. Just making vases with walls that thin out of such hard, brittle stone would be exceedingly difficult, without even worrying about high symmetry and precision. It would also be realistically like at least 9 - 15 thousand dollars worth of forgery. Possible I suppose. We'd have an entirely new mystery on our hands if true. What kind of psycho goes to those lengths to fool these guys? Because regardless of if they're correct or not, they actually believe what they're claiming.
@@spracketskooch Considering these videos get millions of views there is obviously a market. Though your figure is fucking insane, give me a CNC lathe and I could make it for 200$, if it was mass produced it probably only cost little more than the materials themselves to produce.
@@spracketskooch _"What kind of psycho goes to those lengths to fool these guys?"_ The one making thousands of dollars out of youtube videos.
@@spracketskooch
It wouldn’t take *anywhere near* that amount of money to reproduce a vase of this quality with today’s technology.
@@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv Ok, how much would it cost then? Give me an estimate. Then multiply that by five to include the other vases. I'm willing to be wrong, but not based on what is essentially a "nuh uh".
Even ignoring his connections, an owner would never purposely obscure an artefacts provenance then seek to prove that it is an incredibly important and rare item that is proof of a hitherto discovered ancient civilisation. That would have no impact on its value at all…..
Why would this highly accurate object not be a fake?
"Uhm, some families, 1800s, saqqara, and did you know it looks ancient?"
Reminds me of how Von Daniken, of “Chariots of the Gods” fame, acquired his artifacts. He went to the area where the locals were known to surface finds with some regularity, and mentioned to his guide that he was hoping to find evidence of [insert theory here]. A few days later, just such a find would come on the market. He ended up with golden artifacts depicting Mesoamerican UFOs, flying machines, all sorts of wild nonsense. It did untold damage by fueling pseudoarchaeology, but it was a major windfall for the folks who just happened to find wacky artifacts when the nutty white man was in town.
(Though for the record, it’s a nice vase. If I were more into ancient Egypt, I’d be happy to own a piece like it, even if it’s just a well-done replica.)
@@mrjones2721 I seem to recall something similar happened in Argentina (I think?) in the 1940's; a young earth creationist was furnished with 'ancient' figurines depicting humans interacting with dinosaurs, which he would buy for a pesos each from a local farmer who would conveniently dig them up as needed. Went on for decades apparently, and is still mentioned as evidence by young earth creationists today.
Your just another doubter who doesn't do any work just criticism cuz your jeoulous
Oh my.. I watched the beginning of this video under the assumption that the vase was verified in its date of manufacture. Holy crap.. he's just assuming a date? "The guy I bought this from told me where it was found!" What?? It could have been built the day before he bought it.. or don't we have rose granite any longer? Ridiculous
Wow! The accuracy of this vase is incredible. I’m curious if we will ever figure out what advanced technologies existed in these advanced civilizations. We know so little about our past.
Your eyes play tricks on you all the time..........
I found this channel by way of Uncharted X. So, thanks Uncharted!
Actually me too!
I'm sorry, but I laughed so loudly when Ben stated his rationale for the vase's provenance as pre-dynastic Egyptian was that he is "personally confident that it is". Well Ben, I have the deed to a prominent bridge in Sydney I'd like to sell you, and I'm 'personally confident' the deed is the legitimate original.
What a jerk!
I sometimes wonder how these people like Ben can carry on doing what they are doing in the face of your evidence. Do they really fully believe in what they are saying? Or is this just a decent way to make money? Christopher Dunn is a fantasist in my view. His theory on the great pyramid is very flawed indeed, but it does get him invited to seminars and suchlike, and CZcams programmes, so he’s sticking to his theories too….
I think it's a way to be "somebody" without any of the intellectual rigor and learning that goes with it. Once I understood poetry I knew if I ever wrote a single line on par with Keats I'd be a very high achiever 😂. People want to see themselves as the paradigm changer, the movie myth of a rogue dissenter overcoming odds and institutions to be proven "right". 😂
Hardly any of them every talk in depth about Ancient Egypt or the "mainstream" narrative they claim to is wrong.
I always wonder "how are people apparently so interested in Ancient Egypt, totally uninterested in Ancient Egypt" 😂 all they want to talk about is Saws and Drills. Never Gods or battles or customs or music or poetry or literature or art or anything. 😂
Imagine looking at a site like Giza and the 1st place your mind goes is "what exact type of saw" 😂 Yawn, the least interesting aspect of such an amazing civilization, not why or what does it mean. Show me the saw 😂.
Some of them have so little knowledge of Ancient Egypt, that they think no knowing exactly how a stone was lifted at a particular place means we know nothing at all 😂.
I find it so frustrating and childlike. "I looked at the vase for 20mins and have reached some paradigm shifting conclusions" 😂😂
They are rascally motivated to prove Africans were just primitives stealing from ancient aryans.
They are just nazis
@@AntonSmyth-od6rc If you want a great example of gross overall ignorance of Ancient Egypt by Ben check out the Ancient Presence 3-part series on the Serapeum complex. Ben has claimed for years that it is a great mystery that can't be explained. The problem being is that he never bothered to read any of the research conducted on the site and published over a century ago that offered explanations for much of it.
I have thought about this as well.
First of all, the vast majority of Ben's followers are transient. They visit the headspace for a while, then move on when the so-called Lost Civilization isn't found. You can only look at polished granite so long, before you get bored of it.
So pseudoarchaeology relies on new follower generation. And thats also why some of these claims can go back decades, and won't seem to go away. New people keep stopping at the kiosk.
As for what it is that draws them, I think it's
1) a fundamental distrust in academia - usually by people who consider themselves intelligent but couldn't afford university for socio-economic reasons. 2)Also, majority male demographic, at least 80% if not higher. All males, regardless of social standing, are taught to be irrationally self-confident in their opinions.
3) an antiquated view of the world existing on a civilized-savage axis - where civilizations "emerged" and distinguished themselves from their lowly "primitive" neighbours
4) dissatisfaction with the state of the world - whether crime, greed or corruption. The lost civilization represents the ideal society, or the answer to the problems that plague modern society.
In other words, they want to believe that there's a solution to society's ills, they think they can find it in history, the academic consensus is unsatisfactory, but they think they are just as smart as academics. Then someone comes along and tells them the academics got it all wrong! 😂
@@ryandebruys2762 Sometimes it is not so much an issue of education but intelligence. They just aren't very bright and would struggle in higher education or did struggle in higher education when they did have the opportunity. Sometimes there are mental issues and drug issues. Take a look at Hancock's background. If a paranoid drug dependent conspiracy theorist is putting it out there then he isn't a millionaire based solely on a well-educated, sane, sober fan base.
The precision they were able to achieve was brilliant regardless of what tech was used.
Except it’s almost certainly a modern fake.
Brilliant, but still possible. We should be marveling at their artifice, not trying to steal it from them and give it to some nameless aliens or high tech lost civilization
Accuracy. Remember precision is comparing pieces to each other and all Egyptian vases are different.
@@Erlrantandrage YES! that accuracy begs to be proved . . .
@@safetinspector2then make a vase like it with hand tools, to see if Ben is wrong. . 1 month would be enough. .
I saw a video recently about mud flood and I immediately thought of you. The whole thing was so disjointed and I had a hard time even discerning a tangible theory from it. They seem to believe a giant mud flood wiped out a previous civilization but the theory is painfully vague and extremely goofy. The guy was questioning Mount Rushmore and pretty much inferring that it was actually built by a prior civ. It was so silly. Some people just get lost in fantasy.
Oh mud flood...the flat earth explanation for basement windows
There's some evidence for the mudslide, but none for any of the stuff they say it's responsible for. Most of that comes from a channel called Bright Insight. I got into it for a while but then I realized that most of the "evidence" he gives sound a lot like Christian apologetics. Lots of assumptions and circumstantial evidence.
I don't know if I find mud flood or missing time the most fascinating, in terms of what it takes to actually believe the nonsense.
Exactly, it's a species of apologetics. For the true believers it protects their egos from considering that they are wrong, and for the grifters it benefits the bottom line. @@bchristian85
Seriously questioning Mount Rushmore? Or was it a parody? Because there are literally photographs of Mt. Rushmore being carved -- likely even films of it.
27:36 A teacher once made a statement....
"Indians walk in single file. Atleast the one I saw did."
One unrelated comment. It’s interesting how in your accent vase rhymes with face and in my accent vase rhymes with cars.
Great video, thanks for your efforts
If Dr Miano believes they're forgeries then does that mean he believes those are made with modern technology?
I find Dr. Miano to be somewhat contradictory.
@@thegreatbloviator6817 Like his bias review criticizing their work of having a bias?
That would be the simplest conclusion, most forgeries would indeed be modern and made with some modern tools.
More like his point is even if this one vase were incredibly accurate and precise in its construction, that would not prove an ancient machine civilization. Especially since there's no record of where this vase was found.
It's the Crystal Skull thing all over again. Right after tools were invented that made it economical to machine rock crystal, ALL OF A SUDDEN people are claiming to find totally real ancient crystal artifacts.
Guy de la Bédoyère believes a coin that was recently in the news as "proving the existence of an unknown Roman emperor" is a forgery/replica. He first thought it may have come from India (Roman merchants struck their own coins to use in India when Roman coins were debased), but later found evidence that it was a forgery made in 17th century Europe. Forgery doesn't necessarily mean modern, and there was a quite active commerce in Egyptian relics in the 19th century.
In the UK they are mad on running old steam engines. The preservation industry has started building (perfect) replicas of iconic but extinct (big) engines. This means resurrecting obsolete and exotic heavy engineering technology. All the manufacturing machinery was scrapped in the 1960s.
One engine was successfully completed in 2008, but another project to building a LMS Patriot from the 1930s, is having serious problems with the bottom end (which is extremely complicated).
They have all the original drawings and several similar LMS engines to work from, but it’s still a nightmare, and computers don’t really help!
This doesn’t mean aliens built the LMS Patriots, it just shows how quickly that common manufacturing processes, can become obsolete and forgotten.
It takes 10-15 years to build a new engine, compared to a few weeks when Britain still had its industry.
If Uncharted-X was told this story, he would say “this means aliens and Atlantis”.
No he wouldn't. Take it easy with your assumptions candy pants.
the egyptologists would claim 1800s britains didnt have lathes and built the steam engines with copper wrenches and diorite hammers ....
@@KT-pv3kl So you're saying that you found ancient Egyptian steam engines? Wait no we're talking about a stone vase.
@@hedgehog3180 yes
Let's be honest, you just wanted an excuse to talk about trains (or engines I guess). The vases were secondary at best.
Are you a member of that society in Britain that preserves the old engines? I've heard they have some pretty fun and wholesome events.
The assumption that accuracy implies technology is wrong.Hand polished mirrors used to make telescopes are far superior to machine made ones, accurate to within 1/25 the wavelength of light. No advanced technology required.
Its back!!! The video so feared by the "open minded alternative truth seekers" they submitted a spurious copyright claim to have it silenced
Lol top comment
what a dumb accusation. "Oh you want to reap the fruits of your work? how suspicious!"
We've found the guy who hasn't ever produced anything of value. The unimaginable gall of wanting to make sure that fair use law is being followed in relation to your work!
It's pretty crazy to watch someone base their revolutionary theory on only one object, let alone an object of unknown provenance, especially when he admits in the video that he was aware that this would be issue. If he was aware of the objections, why didn't he just wait until he could measure a vase (or multiple vases) with actual provenance? Was he in a hurry? Could this video not be postponed for a little more academic rigor?
Honestly, I think a project to measure these Egyptian vases could yield some compelling results and I hope he continues the work but his lack of rigor so far is disheartening.
where do you get the idea this entire theory is based on one object?
czcams.com/video/QzFMDS6dkWU/video.html here is a video of them measuring several more vases and in his podcasts the guy mentions a plethora of other objects that share this precision and show that egypt has a vexing problem with older artifacts being of higher precision and higher craftsmanship than more modern ones which to this day has not been sufficiently explained by classical egyptology
@@KT-pv3kl because their video features only one specific vase.
@@KT-pv3kl None of those vases can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. They say they can prove they can be traced back to sometime in the 1800s. That's nothing.
A bit of string or a stick (or maybe more applicable in this case a simple pair of locking callipers you could put together with 10 minutes of carving) can give you a huge degree of accuracy in relative measurements, maybe less so for absolute measurements. Once you have an arbitrary length halves, quarters, pretty much any fraction you want can be measured to near perfection.
Anyone with even rudimentary experience using tools could tell you that. It’s usually a lot faster than using a tape measure or ruler if the over all size of what your making doesn’t have to be ridiculously specific. Most manufacturing in any quantity more than half a dozen is done with created jigs, not measuring tools.
Yep, even in your local weld shop one guy designs a jig for the other guys to reproduce the final product quickly. Then guess what? The metal is melted down and used for something else, not just kept as the same specific tool forever so no one will have any idea how it's created. Sound familiar?
Given how long it would take to make that vase by hand, taking constant measurements would drive you insane. Much easier to rough it out then carve the desired outside profile into a wooden board, slap it against the vase and work on grinding down wherever is stopping the profile from being flush against it. Then rotate it a fraction and repeat. Eventually you’ll have a perfectly uniform outside. The inside would be trickier but still totally doable.
That took about 5 minutes to think how I would do it, the guys who made it probably did this most of their life and had much more elegant and efficient solutions to what is, when you boil it down, a fairly simple issue. 5 axis CNC machines and computers are great, but you can usually achieve a similar result by just spending many, many hours more effort.
Look at the gunsmiths of the Khyber Pass, you don’t need a factory with complex machinery to make a functional AK-47, just a couple of files and other basic hand tools, a lot of time and years of experience. You’re not going to be churning them out in the thousands, but a handful a year for the rich clients who are able to pay? No problem.
They also make a big deal about the hardness of the stone, but surely that makes creating a uniform shape a lot easier as you’re not going to be in danger of “over grinding” it when it takes so long just to get it to the shape you want. That could be an issue with a super soft stone, but surely it’s logical that the harder to grind the easier it is to get uniformity (even if it does take much longer)
On top of that, it’s easy to declare that an item was perfectly created to exactly the desired specifications when you have only one example. Was it supposed to be taller, but there was a flaw in the stone that they had to work around? Was that the desired curve, or did Bob overgrind a groove into it, so they had to a) take Bob off grinding until he could be retrained, and b) redo the curve to get rid of the groove?
Exactly great comment.
the main point here remains that archeologists deny that Egyptians had any more advanced stone carving tools than copper chisels and diorite punding rocks.
if you could demonstrate how you can create precision calipers and then shape equivalent artifacts out of granite with around a thousands of an inch precision WITHOUT using a lathe or modern tools your point would have merit.
the thing is to my knowledge we havent even found copper calipers left alone bronze ones in ancient egypt. such a tool woiuld surely have made it into egyptian texts or paintings given that egyptians also had paintings of scales , chisels or the level. in fact such a tool would be very important for their craftsmanship that its almost unthinkable that they didnt depict it or bury a famous craftsman with those tools.
Questions of precision from the human eye neglect a discussion of what is really possible for the human eye. Many crafts people work to high precision without resorting to high technology measuring instruments.
we have a habit of ignoring bullartists in Oz. I avoid the guy like crazy
When I found out this guy was Australian I thought "That's embarrassing". Then I found out he now lives in the USA and I thought "Yep they can have him"
My man, living in Oz is not a good thing.
As an artist, you can't just say that because people haven't been able to replicate it in the same way today means it's impossible that people could do it. Art is a skill that you hone throughout your life, not something you're immediately amazing at- you can't expect someone who has little to no experience using those same tools to make a perfect replica immediately. They'd have to learn how to work with those tools before they could replicate it.
Good point. one expert might make a perfect piece while another not so perfect.
these idiots recon they were made by machines of some sort though.
Agreed
No one can make a Picasso these days either.
Does not make Picasso an ancient precursor
Agreed. No one has managed to replicate the sound of a Stradivarius violin, even though we know pretty much how it was made; none of Stradivari's contemporaries thought he was doing anything special or secret. He was simply a master of his craft and he used his expertise to choose and combine materials to produce an inimitable sound.
@@samwill7259 AI can.
Yep. And any experimental archeologist would attest to this, it takes a lot of times, sometimes years to be able to accurately replicate the results you're looking for.
It's a VASE, bro!!!! It's not that difficult! Omg this guy. I can't. Just ask a craftsman!
Sweet jezus, he sounds like he's talking about the Antikythera mechanism or something! It's a frigging solid object with no moving parts. I would love to see him open up a Rolex and see his brain explode at how precise and accurate every part is. he'd call it magic.
It`s back....unlucky Benny boy. Looks like it`s back to the (drawing) block for ya 😆😆
The comment that it was made with a computer comes from trying to deduce what base units were used in producing this vase - it's possible they didn't use any units, but if that were the case it'd be very odd most of the dimensions are divisible by a common number. If you measure an object produced recently, and find it's 99.9 mm wide by 199.8 mm tall you can make some inference that the creator intended to make it 100mm x 200mm and had some inaccuracy. Similarly if you had no knowledge of inches and determined everything was divisible by 25.4 mm you could assume their base unit was around 25.4mm (or 1 inch). The mathematical article infers that the base unit was 18.7391 mm. What he points out is that certain dimensions of the vase are Pi units or Phi units (both irrational) while others are 1, 2, 3, or 4 base units (and common fractions). Going back to our modern object example, if you infer that something was inches on the bases that it's approximately 10 inches tall and 6 inches wide, it would be very odd if the wall thickness were Pi inches thick or the base was Phi inches wide.
We certainly have no proof that their base unit was 18.7391 mm, it's possible that it's a coincidence everything has that as a common factor - as you point out though occum's razor would suggest it was on purpose since that's how units work. If I wanted to make something Phi inches wide, I would have a very hard time because even though Phi shows up a lot in nature, inches do not. There is a logical leap there of if I wanted to make something an irrational number of inches, I'd need some kind of device that could measure some kind of irrational number of inches, a skilled hand and a trained eye wouldn't do - I'd need something else. What is that something? today it's a computer, but what would it have been back then?
It's about the relation between the different radii, not about an exact number.
I'm not sure I understand what the OP is getting at, but if you are given a line of any given unit (inch, centimeter, cubit, microfurlong...), it's trivial to produce another line that is φ of that unit long with just a ruler and a compass. To produce √2 (another irrational), you don't even need the compass. And π is just the circumference of a circle with diameter 1, so you could, for example, make yourself a cylinder of the appropriate width, mark a point on the edge, and roll it once along your papyrus or sandstone or whatever to produce your line. No computers needed - the whole reason numbers like this are considered interesting is *because* they arise from simple, common geometric figures like circles, squares, and regular pentagons.
I have watched a few of this creators productions. They exhibit the same feature extant in all the 'alternate reality' shenanigan sales people productions; a complete lack of comprehension of methodology and why we, as scientists, can see through their nonsense so quickly. An undergrad in metrology likely doesn't introduce the degree holder to methodology formally, that is generally a grad school undertaking. The first thing you learn in a methodology course is the reality that most published research, in the hard sciences, can be easily dissected for veracity. Imagine, these people can't even see the holes in their logic so they don't exist.
Jeeze Louise! I did not expect 90 mins of hard hitting WoA content this morning. The gods must be smiling upon us. Thanks Doc Miano and team!
Why do I watch these, they just infuriate me. Keep up the good work, Dr Miano!
"Dudes think they can..." You misspelled _dunces._
I've read through a lot of the comments section, and no one here seems to have mentioned tracing the quarry, or quarries (apologies if this has already been done and documented). My understanding is that when you use spectography to analyse for trace elements in stone you can tell the difference between different outcrops of rock around the world. So you may not be able to date stone, except possibly obsidian - did obsidian hydration work out as a dating method? But you can say whether two pieces of rose pink granite came from the same quarry or rather the same granite massif, which could have multiple quarries in one region. It would be fun to see the owner's face if you asked to make that sort of test, but I suspect that most forgeries of ancient egyptian stuff are done in eqypt using local stone. Where this gets interesting would be if there was a survey of egyptian and and cretan stone carving and quarries that enabled mapping of the object to the source of the stone. Aside from any Minoan trade with Egypt that this might cast light on, it would be interesting to have a map showing where a thousand or so of these objects were quarried, and then compare that to modern maps of Egypt and possible sites for Atlantis. I rather suspect that all these ancient pots from a possible precursor civilisation will turn out to have been quarried in or near the Nile valley. But if there are any types of stone where the egyptians had multiple sources that this sort of analysis could tell apart, it would be interesting to see if this was reflected stylistically with different schools of carving having access to different sources of stone.
your idea of tracing the artifacts via spectroscopy is a sound one and definitively can shed more light on their origin however i think this doesnt help in debunking or reinfocing any atlantean myths. top my knowledge the ancient egyptians mentioned they came to the nile river from a verdant land further to the west of egypt that is today part of the sahara. if they brought with them ancient supposedly superior stone artifacts those are probably from pretty much the same stone as found in the nile delta unless there are some large fault lines between the sahara and egypt the makeup of the rock should be fairly similar
@@KT-pv3kl I'm pretty sure the trace elements would differ between many different parts of the sahara, even if the rock was supeficilly similar basalt, obsidian, granite etc. A map of where stone had come from would be interesting, and should confirm or amend current theories as to where people sailed in the past. So no surprises if roman era ballast and anchor stones showed trade across the arabian sea and up the red sea, but any sign of transatlantic or transpacific movement would be rare and interesting.
I love it when I see chris get his straight edge out to show how flat things are, and 90% of the times there’s gaps you could drive a bus through 😂
so you're saying they had buses back then... interesting... very interesting...
@@juanjuri6127 it’s the only logical conclusion
So they drove Atlantean buses through when the laser squares malfunction
@@AntonSmyth-od6rc that’s what the facts tell us
@@naiboz
🤣
*Dude thinks he can build pyramids by pounding rocks and rubbing copper*
👀
That's another shit way to start this conversation from the other perspective (cough cough)
'profound' is getting thrown about a lot these days too, to the point at which it looses all meaning
“Because of how much this looks correct. It must be correct. Provenance does not matter” - owners of all shops that sells forgeries. And the guy who helps them sell them on CZcams. UnchartedX
Find me a forgery of similar quality, and I'll buy it for you. It can be a trophy in remembrance of that time you silenced a youtube idiot.
They have made the same kind of backwards statement several times, "If you could make the better product why would you make an inferior one." What would their reaction be if offered the choice of a BMW, Ford Pinto and Yugo, at the same price and the information that they are equally good, or Chinese Whiskey, North Korean Whiskey and a single malt Whiskey from Scotland, etc. They are propounding a belief referencing Egyptian products that they themselves would likely dismiss as nonsense in most contexts.
Thanks for this video. I've had to rethink my opinion that they are just grifters. Judging by the statements here, either there is something wrong with their thought process, or they are "true believers," who maintain belief even when all evidence contradicts it. This is supported by contradictory statements being made throughout. This Aussie doesn't seem to understand the meanings of words. In addition, he used the word "cast" as if it could be applied to carving mass production, as well as the other weird assertions that he means to have taken as facts.
They definitely conflate or have a misdirected sense of quality and "more advanced." It's a world where bigger = better = more advanced as well and you'll often see them make the argument "why are the later pyramids smaller than the ones at giza."
If we look at things today, technically, MDF laminate like boards are more advanced than solid wood...but it's crap.
@@AveragePicker Comparing hard wood, to soft wood to plywood and particle board is a very good point. I know someone who wanted a mahogany floor and some internal decor, but the price in the US, if it is even available, is astronomical, and there is a high luxury tax on top of it. So when he moved back to the States from Thailand he had the shipping crates made of mahogany, so it wan't noticed, nor taxed.
The people making these dumb videos do not seem to understand how the real world works. The wealthy and powerful can get their fancy products, but most people will get a good substitute, or a cheap fake. The owners of Hobby Lobby started a Bible "museum," for which they wanted antiquities, and even used illegal means to get some.
It was discovered when steps were taken to return the stolen items that many were reproductions sold to them as authentic. This illustrates that belief will motivate people to do immoral and illegal things, and will prevent them from engaging critical thinking, and thus blind them to facts such as sourcing and certification of authenticity.
If it's so easy, please post someone replicating the precision of those artifacts using the same period tools. That should be easy for several people to replicate. Same with moving and carving thousands of huge blocks in pyramids, let alone the mammoth obelisks. This would go a long way to show it wasn't so mysterious. It's that simple and what everyone is wondering, until that is shown as empirical tangible evidence, there will always be wonder and alternative theories pursued.
An ancient Egyptian would have found many things just normal ways of doing things, that we would find laborious
my "so easy" comment is to modern day analysts saying ancient technology is easy to replicate, but they only do very rudimentary examples. my point remains, these artifacts and large block construction etc... should be easily replicated by modern man. but i havent seen any examples.
@@darklight2.1
I read the paper they produced about this. It was super interesting. The scholarship seemed pretty careful to me. The authors were very clear to separate the conclusions they arrived at about the vase from other claims made by Uncharted X. They have incidentally measured a few more of these in a recent video and the results were similar. They also were careful to point out the variations in precision between pieces. I believe one piece had provenance dating back to the 1800s. They also claim to be trying to get access to pieces with more established provenance. While there are valid criticisms raised in this video I don't think they are sufficient to dismiss these findings out of hand. I refer here to the maths and engineering which went into producing this and other vases. I have no interest in the ancient aliens hypothesis or whatever.
Well said mate, lve had a read, as well as seen their clips on how they were measured (insane tolerances!).
And you're right, a couple of the vases have provenance to the 1800s.
Theyre more along the lines of however they were manafactured, we've lost the know how somewhere in antiquity...
The vase or bowl that balances perfectly on a few mms & spins like a bearing on the level table is pretty astounding.
Totally agree with your comment. I’ve seen both sides of the table and found all of them to be pretty dogmatic.
UnchartedX goes some great lengths to behave like a little child while trying to convey the data gathered by real professionals whom he can’t comprehend at all. The data is clearly better and way more scientific than that channel could ever be, on the other hand I find some of this videos claims idiotic too. Like when he says it’d be scientific to take all the data together and average them instead of selecting. If you purposefully remove all outliers you will find a very standard everything. I hate this whole let’s just ignore the important stuff mindset in mainstream archeology, yes you have to also gather data to figure out standard deviation and stuff but at the end of the day 99% of people will be more interested in how the most precise vases could‘ve ever been manufactured with the tooling we believe they would have had, not how average an average vase is. If you‘d ask a mainstream archeologist about the pyramids he will resort to explaining how the built clay huts and switch the topic instantly, unchartedX on the other hand would instantly call aliens. As with politics or wealth nowadays, there is no more healthy middleground for conversation just two dogmatic sites mindlessly trying to disprove the other
@@149315NicoGotcha archeology is being practiced on both sides. This is possible only because both have legitimate criticisms of the other. In a 1.5 hour video I think maybe 30 seconds were devoted to an actual analysis of Kvist's results. And even then it was focused on his most speculative conclusions. Very little was said about the elegance of the design language. This also happens to be the most difficult to refute. It is by *far* the most fascinating aspect of the paper. He didn't even show a screenshot which outlined the system as a whole (regarding unit ratios). That's the money shot and he totally ignored it. I also think the issue of provenance is used as a cudgel here. It's very convenient. None of this is to say I agree with Uncharted X's conclusions regarding its manufacture. But I will credit him with at least bringing a bit more rigor to the pseudoarcheology side of this debate.
I don't think Uncharted X et al are entirely off-base with their criticisms of institutional gatekeepers either. Zahi Hawass singlehandedly destroyed the possibility of Houdin continuing his inner ramp research. They didn't exactly fall over themselves to support the muon scans either. They don't have control over the academic debate but they do have control over who gets access to the artifacts themselves. That undoubtedly effects the kind of research being proposed, its scope and the conditions attached. It's unfortunate Uncharted X and guys like Graham Hancock are able to exploit that to further their own idiotic theories. There is no doubt in my mind that good science is getting caught in the crossfire.
Wait the fact that there is no evidence these vases are older than 200 years to say nothing about being from y'know pre-dynastic Egypt is not an issue for you? If that's the case I have a neolithic aluminium can I'd like to sell to you, prices start at 20000$ but I'll give you a buddy discount and sell it for just 200$.
_"I believe one piece had provenance dating back to the 1800s"_ So no provenance then. You either can prove they come from an archaeological site or you can't. Being able to trace them to the 1800s only proves they are at least 200 years old and nothing else.
I wouldn't go so far to say it proves Atlantis or anything, but I would love to learn how such beautiful artifacts were made. It truly is incredible work. Humans mastered working with stone, as it was their primary technology prior to advanced metallurgy, and clearly it is a lost art. Losing engineering mastery is common. Few today can even design and build the F-1 engines of the Saturn V rocket using the techniques they used them. Computer design and automation has taken over, and manual design is largely a lost art. This has happened in 50 years, let alone thousands. I support continued investigation and theory crafting, but without leading conclusions.
Computers ASSIST design, but the basic mathematical rules still allow for human hands to do the leg work in the design process.
Advanced modelling compuations like CFD simulations help to see where problem points arise that material science alone cannot predict - and in this humans pretty much need modern computers to assist their work to get the optimum results.
@@mnomadvfx It's not my opinion, I was relaying the opinion of today's rocket engineers who said exactly what I said. It's the same for master wood workers who only used methods used hundreds of years ago. Not many today know how. It's almost like a language. When people stop using it, it's elegance is lost. Besides, this was only a comparison, so if you know how 100 ton blocks were cut and moved so easily, and precise, hard stone cutting was done 3000 years ago prior to proven iron use, feel free to convey your secrets.
They aren't secrets. We know the Romans and ancient Greeks cut and moved multi-ton blocks, and we know how it was done. There are videos showing modern craftsmen and engineers reproducing ancient products and systems using ancient methods and materials. Stones like those in Stonehenge have been moved by rafts and by sledges. Stones like those in the pyramids have been used by rollers, or sledges on mud lubricated long ramps, and there are descriptions of counterweights as well as evidence of pulleys in situ. In nature there are processes that can break or wear down hard rock, dust or sand erosion, and water expanding in cracks. We can theorize that people learned from nature or accidentally discovered something and then worked on and improved it over centuries. The problem is not questioning the consensus, it is in trying to destroy the consensus in service to unsupported beliefs and magical thinking.@@Demane69
@@JMM33RanMA And spending year + shapeing those objects .
They show not tendency on outside to rotate. But the inside .... that's the only way they could do it . (At least half the process)
One might almost think that numerous slaves on endless rotations can achieve more production than workers with 5 eight hour days per week, and not working for the benefit of a god king. It's amazing that something like Jeweler's rouge can bring a high polish to hard stone without mechanical equipment. The level of willful ignorance exhibited by Hancock and Ben of Uncharted X is also amazing. @@Mk101T
Hour and a half video, snarky title, Atlantis? Buckle in, this is gonna be a good one.
"What is the provenance of the vase?"
"Amazon"
Etsy......
@@varyolla435 Temu
All of the vases shown in this video are nonsymmetrical in my eyes. So either my eyes are fooling me (which is not unusual for human eyes) or the precise measurements are possibly neglecting some measurements that don't fit into the desired conclusion.
or = in LAHT presentations you are only being shown what they "want you to see" - so as to rationalize their claims. With LAHT there is no real "independent" analysis. Videos etc. are naturally edited prior to presentation much as LAHT grifters will when visiting some ancient site only show the viewer snippets of what might actually be there. They will hone in on a "nicely carved" block = while ignoring other less finished ones.
Oh screw this guy. "Museum curators aren't interested..." In some states, this constitutes fighting words. As a museum curator, I don't need ancient advanced technology to explain high-accuracy handicrafts. The existence of skilled craftsmen, and variable material for them to start from, is a sufficient explanation.
Also 12-15 hour work days, no OSHA, and no labor unions... you're gonna get A LOT done.
yeah, but that's boring and mundane, lost advanced civilizations and aliens are a much more exciting explanation.
Just like a catholic who doesn't need evidence of God? 😂
@M1ggins :: Science and scientific studies are much-more exciting.
Advanced civilizations and aliens are better left to sci-fi writers.
@@dreamthread Think about what you said. I know you didn't think about it before you posted it. Think.
That would apply to the ancient advanced technology argument and not the "craftsmen existed" argument. Because craftsmen existed. We can read their pay records. We have found their graves. Found their workshops. Found in-progress work. They did exist.
Literally 100% of the evidence supports the existence of people skilled at handicrafts and that's why you don't need aliens or lost advanced civilizations.
The advanced civilization argument IS the "Catholic who doesn't need evidence of God" side of this discussion.
Because they have no evidence, and the more they try to explain their way around not having evidence the more they openly rely on blind faith.
The Title 💀. God doc.... Who allowed you to cook? 😂😂😂
As a family we have a habit of placing a coin on a loved ones head stone when we visit the grave. They passed away in 2004, but the coins have a variety of dates on them. If we place a coin from 2023 on the head stone , it doesn’t mean the person died in 2023. And just because the head stone has a date of 2004 on it, it doesn’t mean the stone was made in 2004 - it just means the date was added some time after the person died.
Holy shit, you've actually realized a huge problem with the dating of stone constructions. Just because you find some organic material that dates to a certain period does not mean the construction was built at that time. Just because someone carves their name on something does not mean that they created it.
@@spracketskooch It sounds as if you think that only a single dating method is applied to date archaeological sites.
@@spracketskooch Egypt is absolutely rife with dating inconsistencies. Most of the incredible sites there were not constructed during the reign of a single Pharaoh, but most likely were built upon over thousands of years. Most sites are dated to the cartouche of the oldest known pharaoh, but we know that before the 5th Dynasty, the Egyptian civilization did not engrave cartouches or heiroglyphics on their structures. Some of the oldest structures such as the Valley Temple and The Osirion have almost no markings on them, likely because they were almost completely buried by the time the Middle-Kingdom Pharaohs came around and started putting their name on everything, which is further testament to their extreme age. Pharaohs like Ramses II were some of the worst offenders, he's carved his name on hundreds of these sites, many which are known to be far older construction.
Dating of organic material is a bit harder to get around, but could it could be explained that the mortar may have been used in repairing older structures, as the oldest builders in Egypt generally didn't use mortar (and the oldest buildings are FAR more impressive from an engineering standpoint than the Middle and New-Kingdom buildings).
Also he shows no evidence that anyone has even come close to reproducing the stone artifacts. Just a hack.
Only two vases of exactly the same proportions would be evidence that advanced manufacturing processes and tools were used. Otherwise aren't they just finely carved vases and examples of great artistry? Rather than assume the use of advanced manufacturing methods, I much prefer to give credit to the incredible artisans who rendered them so beautifully and consistently.
I'm sure they'd claim that all the identical vases have been lost to time.
If you watched the original video you'd see why it's not necessary to compare to another vase. They literally measured it again perfect computer generated shapes....Don't just watch the debunk video and immediately agree with them because you want to be a skeptic...watch both videos and draw your own conclusions. The only real criticism I agree with here is the questionable origin of the vase....assuming the vase is real, the measurements and accuracy of the vase speaks for itself and is beyond impressive. If it's fake, obviously it all crumbles....but we don't have a way of confirming or denying that. But assuming it's a real artifact, there is no need to compare it to a second artifact to conclude how magnificent and impossibly precise the vase is. Although scanning more would be very interesting and I'd love to see
Watch the original video, the arcs that define the shape are not possible to achieve without at minimum a Pantograph/tracer lathe. What you're referring to can also be proven by a single item having multiple consistent features or interrelated arcs (shared Centerpoints and/or vertical symmetry) which demonstrate pre-designed features vs freehand.
nobody denies that those artifacts were created by highly talented and educated artists with great effort. the only doubt is whether those artisans used tools more akin to modern lathes and precision calipers as the uncharted X team suggests or pounding rocks, sand and copper chisels as the Egyptologists suggest.
Because the other vase that have similiar great precision are in the museum, even with advance modern manufacturing maching recreating those vases that kept in the museum isnt something easy to do.
I love these panel "discussions".
"Everyone present agrees on our theory, we must be correct."
So ridiculous. I wish Hancock and they all knew how completely ridiculous they are.
Lol, almost everyone that has been asked has refused to debate, or even appear with any of these guys. The few times it has happened it has always been interesting at the very least. Pretty hard to have a balanced panel when the opposition won't even engage with you. Disingenuous bullshit.
@@spracketskooch Pick any topic you consider yourself an expert on, then see if you are willing to debate someone with very little expertise but who has a lot of "theories". Not exactly productive is it.
@@minimumriffage7520 Then don't complain that there isn't opposition on the panel. Also, yes, personally I would do that. I enjoy arguing though. Whatever happened to embarrassing your opponent in a debate? Take an unproductive day to have fun and flex your knowledge at little bit.
“The tool is incapable of making anything less precise.”
Really? Does this hypothetical tool never wear down? Does it never need adjustment? Never get out of alignment?
Engineers do not design parts to more precise tolerances than are necessary just because they can. Not good engineers, at least. Engineering is about tradeoffs. Manufacturing to a greater level of precision costs money. Unlike hypothetical tools, real tools do wear out, require periodic adjustment, etc. Designing a part to require unnecessary care in the manufacturing process just because you can is bad engineering. (Cars are designed to closer tolerances today than in the past because people prefer cars where the doors close properly, not just “because we can”.)
Yes. We could build structures today to considerable tolerances if we desired = but the economics of our system precludes it. So we instead make things "just enough" to suffice the design intent + to comply with any safety regulations in place.
So an automobile say will be functional - yet some parts will wear out faster than others requiring replacement as the auto industry profits from that replacement. Their goal is continuous replenishment of the commodity to keep their factories running as opposed to creating high quality cars which would last for years and hence future sales would be impaired.
Moral: ancient artisans were "salary workers" in many cases. They worked for some patron who paid them in the case of the ancient Egyptians with room and board. Accordingly they not having to waste time on that as their daily sustenance was supplied to them = could focus upon their work. If they spent 6 months creating a high quality vase - or a year = so be it. Their concern was aesthetics rather than any dimensional outcome.
Just as today one sees "mass produced" items of lower quality - and then you see a smaller number of "museum quality" pieces reflecting higher skill levels of the craftsmen and more time and resources devoted to the project. It would be like comparing an assembly line car which costs $20K with a $200K high end car which is hand fitted. So then as now = you got what you paid for.
@@varyolla435 We build stuff with tolerances not into nanometers, if needed we can build things with tolerance into sub-atomic particles. Like the LHC, it is so accurate and precise that it can collide ions and observe what happens.
I’ll just do exactly what you’ve just done, your article is halved baked. Because I just said so🤣
In regards to Ben's claims = absolutely...... As far as Dave however the dropdown menu says it all. Like legitimate academics Dave provides source material from relevant subject-matter experts who - unlike the supposed "experts" LAHT claims to have = actually works with the real experts in these subjects.
Moral: an "expert" who reads something online and assumes to understand is not necessarily synonymous with an expert who works with other experts who created that information the "homemade" whatever "expert" is basing their supposed conclusions off of.
In other words an engineer say who works with Egyptologists studying the pyramids is better positioned to discuss them than some generic engineer in North America who has never laid eyes on them or discussed that with Egyptologists - or simply partook of some "tour" shilled by LAHT proponents. Visiting ancient sites only makes you "a tourist" and not necessarily an expert.
czcams.com/video/6b0ftfKFEJg/video.htmlsi=keqJUx1dEtMZvVmU
I remember 50 uears ago, when I was learning machine tooling, all the precision measurment tools were too high priced for our school. So we had basic tools and our fingers, It's incredible how our fingers are sensitive and, with pratice and experience, can differentiate invisible differences in lines, curves, surface finitions etc.
Every time I hear one of those high tech ancient civilisations stories, my hypothesis are about the risks on our mental health associated with self medication. lol
Indeed fingers are insanely sensitive to the smallest changes in surface texture - the nerve bundles for our hands are probably the most dense in the human body apart from the brain and spinal cord.
There needs to be a study of crack use and these psychos.
I don't think drugs are necessarily involved.
I think some people have an obsession with finding "the hidden truth", and that obsesion is a powerful drug in itself.
They want to challenge the status quo, they want to fight "the system", and so they latch on to anything that sounds like a good story.
I self medicate for bipolar, I can tell you it's not the drugs that ruined their brains...
Make one or shut up
Here is a man talking about potters 'spinning' pots, or possibly making clay pots ON A LATHE, and somehow he still expects to be taken seriously in this discussion. Amazing.
Uncharted X hosts these "Tours" around these ancient sites. The Egyptian tour will run you $7800.00. I don't know what you get for that much money. But my point is that, Uncharted X has a vested interest in keeping their PAID guests entertained. (...you know they come to these guys exclusively for the "WOO" factor...) As this is an extremely lucrative business there is no possible way they will ever admit to any wrong doing. Their so called, careers depend on it.
The whole "Khemitology: The Khemit School of Ancient Mysticism" bs is also is just a front for a tour company.
You are the first person, besides myself, that I have heard use the phrase..." he is just riffing"...with his commentary...As a stone carver, I have been confronting him for years and those like them, but they continue to ignore those who time and again disprove their..." I think,"...obtuse notions...Great video presentation, Thanks for sharing this...
It's worrisome how many people buy into this Ancient Tech nonsense.
Tells you exactly how many people don't know 💩 about anything
It's even more worrisome that people blindly follow the mainstream narrative without questioning the artifacts right in front of them. 👁️
Yes, it is a cult impervious to evidence, bound by an irrational fascism.
@@AradijePresveti tells you exactly how bad the education system is, even in countries like the USA and UK...
It bothers me how you alleged scientists cant duplicate a simple vase, if it is so mundane.
Truly disgusting
The part near the end where he gets upset about being accused of esoteric nonsense, and then affirms his belief in esoteric nonsense is priceless.
Who said a vase proves the existence of Atlantis? I'd watch your video but I can't stand you.
Does UnchartedX not say that the "precision" of these vases supports his argument for "inheritance"?
So you said nothing here save for to broadcast your disdain for the video creator - as if that really matters......... That actually says more about yourself than you realize as it shows us you are apparently enamored by the sound of your own voice causing you to "spout off" to others who frankly do not care about your "opinions". Now if you have something useful to say germane to the subject of the video......... 🤨
They made a fallow up video with more measurments on differen vases.
Did anyone catch @1:24:40 where they're using a CMM to measure a different vase then the one they published the results for? Where's the data for that object? Did they not include it because it didn't fit their preconceived assumptions? They say they're all about increasing the body of knowledge surrounding these artifacts, but they're clearly not sharing everything they have.
They had a new vase manufactured, then they measured it, cleaned up the data, and presented a video saying they scanned an old vase...
its unfortunate how many people just disregard the artistic skill of the people of the past. These people were highly skilled and practiced, the spent there lives mastering a profession. Spend 30 years making stone pots, you will get that good to. Especially if your life relieson that pot.
You're the one disregarding the abilities of the ancients. You can't make the vases using the tools the ancient Egyptians are said to have. I don't think it required computers and lasers. It's just that they had something else going on that none of us know, some unknown technique or mechanism. I think that's the only real point ever made and I don't see anything in this video that actually vitiates it. You don't know how they made any of it, I don't know how they made any of it, professional archaeologists don't know, the guy in this video doesn't know, all these Atlantis guys don't know. Nobody knows. If you can't admit that,- that you don't know, then I don't see much reason to listen to you further. Unless of course you can explain how they did it. And just saying 'uh they were good artists and just tried really hard' isn't an explanation of anything. That isn't good enough. And their lives didn't rely on the vases. Their lives didn't rely on delicately plotting the movements of the stars and planets and constructing megalithic solar observatories either, but they did it anyway. Even farming doesn't require that deeply plotting the firmament but we did it even before farming apparently. Hunter gatherers apparently did it at Gobeklitepi. And apparently they did it 'just because the stars are cool'. If that's good enough an explanation for you, then have at it.
The orthodox narrative of history. Let's review it just to make sure we all know what it is. Humans have existed with the exact same brains and mental capacity that we have now- for 300,000 years at least. And in that entire ridiculous span of time we just sort of blindly stumbled around picking berries incipit Sumer, that is, until a whole five-thousand years ago we suddenly woke up from our intellectual slumber and figured out that you can stack shit on top of other shit to make a house, plant a flower, and scribble some words on a rock? That's what we're supposed to accept? 300,000 years spent in a god damned absence seizure and then 5,000 years ago bam, history starts and it all happens for the very first time? It sounds stupid to be honest. So I guess you will just have to forgive my incredulity. I believe that man has gone through that whole process probably more than once; there were other histories that got recorded up to a point and then erased, making humanity start back over. (That's actually what most ancient cultures tell us quite literally, many plotting their history back 30,000 years or more into the past. But they just made that up I guess. And they all chose about 30,000 years just as a coincidence.) I don't think any of them ever got as far as us, deciphering nuclear power, relativity, and inventing microprocessors though. No, I don't believe any of those lost civilizations ever got that far. If they had gotten that far, they would be in a position to save themselves from whatever catastrophe wiped them off the planet. And while it would be nice to have empirical evidence to confirm the only reasonable idea, that it has happened more than once, we're not going to find anything remaining from 100,000 years ago, or longer. Nothing from such a time will still exist. Even rock won't last that long.
"You can't make the vases using the tools the ancient Egyptians are said to have" - Prove it.
It's just that they had something else going on that none of us know, some unknown technique or mechanism." - Again, prove it.
"Humans have existed with the exact same brains and mental capacity that we have now- for 300,000 years at least" - No. Modern brain evolved around 60,000 years ago. 300,000 is possible age of Homo Sapiens species. Since you now will base your arguments on this flawed premise, they're meaningless from the get go.@@tylerchambers6246
@@tylerchambers6246exactly!
Nothing to do with artistic skill. You're acting like this was freehand lathe work.
@@seanlove7063 Who says artistic skill equals freehand work? Have you ever heard of the artist Escher? He made hand carved etchings that are mathematical wonders. But it wasn't freehanded, there are these things called tools like strings to make circles, rules to make straight lines, paper to calculate parabolic curves, etc. etc. etc.
Look at it this way: I like piano's. Piano's that were made 100+ years ago are much better than any piano that is made today. Even when they're hand build. That's because of the quality of attention that they used to put in those instruments. It's got nothing to do with technical progress.
They could tell it was made with L.O.V.E. 😅
Absolutely. Then as now you got what you paid for - consistent with the skill level of the craftsmen. Some parts of the pyramids as an example reflect a fair amount of precision = whereas some parts represent a considerable amount of "slop factor" - why?? Answer: "purpose". If the purpose was to be seen and appreciated then they made the effort to make it look good. If however no one was intended to see it then they did not concern themselves with appearances = merely functionality.
So we see some examples likely from master craftsmen which might be termed as "museum quality" - then we see your run of the mill stuff likely for everyday use. Tutankhamun had a walking problem and subsequently his tomb contained many walking sticks. Those sticks however reflect varying levels of quality with some quite ornate and gilded with gold - and some just basic walking sticks which show some use his having used them in life.
Ok then fellows, can we get some insight about the Barabar Caves then?
Yes, here you go: czcams.com/video/on6W7p4xcdg/video.html
slaves and time, of course.