Latest activity

d taylor · 2025-11-29T01:27:28-0600

-

A large portion of this country has become nothing but a crybaby.

stevevw · 2025-11-29T01:16:47-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
No but understanding the marks left by the egyptians tools matter.

The marks left by the Egyptians is the same marks the experts are trying to determine what made them. How are the marks any different because they are Egyptian. If they are made on a lathe it does not matter if they are Egyptian marks lol. They are lathing marks, not Egyptian marks.

Unless there is a special Egyptian lathing mark. Or maching mark. The machine cuts in granite such as the arc cuts are not Egyptian cuts but machined arc cuts. Similar mached arc cuts we may see later in history made by the same method. You don't have to be Egyptian to know this.

Stopped_lurking said:
Not making the code though.

I am sure his expertise came in valuable in developing the software. You don't know whether he knows coding as part of the areas he specialises in. So you can't make these absolute claims without evidence. This is what I mean by the double standards. You double down without showing this is the case.

Stopped_lurking said:
I know I've read his articles.

Then show he has no understanding of coding. From what I understand Marian specialises in the 3D digitalisation of ancient and cultural artifacts. That is transforming 3d objects into the digital space. I would say that includes knowledge of coding in digitalising objects into ,amagable software programs.

Nevertheless he may offer a specific expertise in the process of relating artifiacts in the software. The unusual and unprecedented shapes and how best to accommodate this in specific aspects of the software.

The point is we don't know and your making claims without evidence based on your unsupported opinion. All the researchers were called amatuer and I know the others have software expertise.

Dr. Márton Szemenyei, PhD is an assistant professor at the Department of Control Engineering and Information Technology

Rólunk – Vision

deeplearning.iit.bme.hu

Stopped_lurking said:
Suit yourself.

lol fair enough. Everyone can suit themselves.

Stopped_lurking said:
You do you, what do you want me to say?

Just be fair and honest. Thats all. So long as the criteria is fairly applied to all.

Stopped_lurking said:
Suit yourself.

Now its just not acknowledging the bias.

Stopped_lurking said:
The measure is decided by the method not the object of the result.

Yes and the different ways the vase can be measures all come to the same result. Whether you use a professional ruler like Petrie 100 years ago. Or the guague metrology that monitors the vase directly through sensors. Or the different scanning techniques such as structured light, X ray or Photgrametry.

The end result is the come to the same measures. Just some are more refined and down to the micron. But the micron level today is not disputing Petries measures. They are actually confirming them with even tighter precision.

Stopped_lurking said:
They didn't get the same results, they used different quality criteria. The 1968 vase is grouped with modern replicas, I know.

So are you saying that if they took one of the vases from say Karoyls results and applied Dr Max's and the Vase Scan Projects methods that they would come to a different measure for circularity for example. Some will find it with good circularity and the other will find poor circularity for the same vase.

Stopped_lurking said:
Perhaps they are but it has not been shown. I don't believe they are.

I am glad you say "don't believe" as there is ample evidence they were lathed or turned on something to achieve such high precision.

Part of Karoyls scanning was to scan the best example of an 18th dynastic alabasta vase made with the Bore Stick method depicted on the walls. I linked this vase before here. As Christ King says the Alabasta vase clearly matches the Bore Stick method. Which could grind out a softer vase but because it was a wobbly device you can see it is lop sided.

So we accept that the pretty good finish from the 18th dynasty using a form of lathe in the Bore Stick produced softer vases.

Yet in the British museum they have two preynastic large precision hard stone vases sitting just under a picture of the same 18th dynastic relief implying they were also made by the Bore Stick method. Quite deceptive. They never state how the predysnastic vases were made. Just that they were for Royalty.

So if the soft alabasta vase shows evidence of a simple lathing mechanism that created 18th dynasty vases. Then why all of a sudden argue that there was no lathing involved in far superior vases with better circularity.

Its inconsistent and double standards. Somehow ancients by sheer freehand grinding, poundin g and rubbing made better vases than later ones which we know were made using Bore sticks and not freehand.

Stopped_lurking said:
I thought you referred to Marians article about using photogrammetry for estimating the effects of pounders. Did you mean some other article?

Lol I actually forgot this was Marians work. I didn't refer to it because of Marian but as an example of evidence showing that the small dolorite pounders was not the method.

Stopped_lurking said:
Ok, link that article then.

I already have.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212054823000292

Stopped_lurking said:
The body's are in aluminium, not stone. They don't have surface deviations in the mm range. One material is highly ductile the other is not.

Do the use similar principles for setting the cuts, the angles of the arm and how a machine can manovour to cut such shapes.

But I keep saying this is hypocracy. Others have cited their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metal and there was no issue. Why are you now making it an issue. This is why I don't trust what is said as its double standards.

Stopped_lurking said:
Smith? Chris King? Where I involved in a dialogue with the others at the time?

Sorry King. No people were using their knowledge and experience of lathing on wood and metals to argue their case and it was all acceptable then. Funny how the goal posts change when it comes to the people I link.

Stopped_lurking said:
So get it in a journal then.

We don't need to. We can check it out ourselves and see the measurements. Numbers don't lie.

Stopped_lurking said:
They could have modeled a receiver in the chamber, and calculated the transmitted power as a function of the external field strength and wavelength.

This is what they said was next

The team is now looking at how pyramidal nanoparticles can be used in new and innovative ways to create new technologies such as nanosensors and highly efficient solar cells. The team also plans to do further simulations of the Great Pyramid using radio waves at shorter wavelengths.

Chambers in Egypt's Great Pyramid concentrate radio waves – Physics World

Computer simulations reveal electromagnetic properties of huge structure at Giza

physicsworld.com

Stopped_lurking said:
It is not accepted as true until it is experimentally verified, the chase after the Higgs boson stretched over decades.

I think this is a bit different. But nevertheless no one was calling the idea of the Higgs boson as psuedoscience. It was expected that it would be found because the modelling was correct.

Stopped_lurking said:
You do realise that granite is a common material? Today we have terrestrial medium wave radio wave sources that are in the 2 MW range (in Hungary), it can be picked up in the US in good conditions. Have anybody picked up any hungarian news on the radio inside the king's chamber?

Or is the granite blocks in Hungary laying vibrating on the ground, cracking as they vibrate at 560 kHz?

Or Quartz watches that only need a shake to get the electro charge going. Its a common material but potententially a material that can be utilised to generate electrical effects.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T01:10:31-0600

Jipsah said:
So if you reject those who come preaching rubbish, because it's necesssry to embrace their rubbish, and thus rejecting them as the fraudsters they obviously are we're "rejecting God's order"
Well, that at least gives us yet another example of why we should reject your rubbish, as you set it of being equal to, or superior to, the Gospel of Christ. T

No "as you do" we;re claiming that you're preaching unscriptural, explicitly false, rubbish, a corruption of the Gospel of Christ.

That and $2 and change will get you a small coffee at Starbucks.

That Jim-Bob's Muffler Shop and Theological Seminary offers.

<Guffaw<

I'm fine with a BS in Electrical Engineering and the ability to read, and I doubt that your guru has either.

OK, so now you're saying that God appoints His men to preach the doctrine of demons. I think you have confused The Lord God, with the god of this world, and that goes to prove that the god of this world has blinded you so you don't know the difference between lies and the truth.

I'm not sure if you believe in The Lord, and what He has said, but if you did then you would know that His people (the elect) can't be deceived by demonic doctrine and to suggest that we can, shows you don't fear God.

You have never found a singe fault with any of the doctrines I hold to, so all you can do is resort to the lowest common denominator, and that being slander.

timothyu · 2025-11-29T00:56:11-0600

Dan1988 said:
There is only one gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ

Agreed, (as He said over 70x) His only gospel was of the Kingdom and that was why He was sent..

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T00:54:46-0600

Jipsah said:
Check the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds. That'll give you a baseline.

Considering 2 Peter 3:9 that sounds like your doctrine doesn't square with the Word of God on that point,. Might wanna argue that with St. Peter.

Which is impossible, so it has to be your barbarous doctrine that's a lie.

Or maybe the doctrine of eternal torment isn't true, in which case your diabolical doctrine if false as well.

Which in your Bizarrro World doctrine means "eternal life in torment".

I.E., "death" means "death". Wow, what an amazing concept!

As far as ypu know. You simply depend on your set to tell you what Scripture "really means", which often has little of nothing to do with what it actually says.

At least your theology is consistent, you apply the same false premiss to all of your interpretations, so imagine I'm using my broad brush with blood red paint and putting a big red X over every single one of your theories.

Now to cut them all down, we'll start with your private interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance".

Here Peter is addressing Born Again Believers, saying the Lord is longsuffering (patient) towards (Us, the elect, the born again believers) This exhortation was given to encourage the brethren, of whom some were concerned about why the Lord Jesus doesn't judge the world and cast all the unbelievers into hell right away.

It was to reassure the brethren that the Lord Jesus will take vengeance on our behalf and cast all the unbelievers into hell, at the appointed time and that's when the very last one of Gods elect is added to the Body of Christ, then all hell will break lose and Christ will pour out His wrath and take vengeance on our behalf.

So that verse was about assuring Gods elect that He will judge the world at His appointed time so we can rest in the knowledge that justice will be served.

God promised to torment unbelievers in hell forever, you reject what He said because you obviously don't like it. But you can't make it go away, just because it hurts your feelings.

I would suggest you do a study on the Biblical interpretation of the words "life and death". You're not even in the same universe with your interpretation, but your not alone in denying the truth of the gospel. The Lord Jesus said, in
"Matthew 7:22-23
"Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’" "And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’"

And guess where they will depart to, YES!!! it's THE LAKE OF FIRE TO BE TROMENTED DAY AND NIGHT FOREVER AND EVER'

Freth · 2025-11-29T00:32:47-0600

Welcome to the forums! I look forward to seeing your posts.

One of the features I enjoy here is conversations. Conversations are private mail threads that look like forum posts and can include more than one person. I use it regularly for fellowship and study with others here.

God bless!

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T00:23:38-0600

timothyu said:
So, like Jesus, your only gospel is of the Kingdom?

I'm still not sure what you mean by "gospel of the Kingdom". I think I know what you mean, but you would be surprised at how many conflicting versions of gospel are going around.

There is only one gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, but there are 49,000 versions held by the various Christian denominations.

dlamberth · 2025-11-29T00:22:48-0600

AV1611VET said:
Is that why you said they preach pseudoscience as truth?

It's religion that they preach as if it's science. But it's not science. Thus pseudoscience.

Landon Caeli · 2025-11-29T00:22:25-0600

Oompa Loompa said:
Want to talk about black culture?

Black fragility is said to be a victimhood shield that has it's roots in black families, extending further into black communities and culture, making it a systemic flaw in terms of blame shifting, where personal accountability and responsibility can be pushed off onto some "other" group or alternate culture.

If we view the "Whiteness pandemic" as pure projection, it becomes clear where the truth actually lies.

another_lost_guy · 2025-11-29T00:20:49-0600

Hans Blaster said:
It's just a site with some pseudo science going on it. I don't care about the other ideology.

Pseudo science that you yourself push by acting as if America is the only country that exists

Hans Blaster said:
End game? I dont 'have an "endgame".

You asked "Who are these men killed for their belief in your god". Shouldn't your endgame be to find out who the men are? But obviously it isn't, because once I gave you examples of the men killed, you claimed it was impossible to know whether someone can be killed for belief in God or not, meaning there was no lose condition for you to begin with. You are a bad faith actor and really should be banned for wasting everyone's time here

Hans Blaster said:
The examples given are from mass killers/shooters whose motivations are quite muddled.

As shown by my previous reply there'd be no amount of motivation or evidence satisfactory to you anyway because you aren't actually open to changing your mind on anything

Hans Blaster said:
you don't seem to know what pseudoscience is (and the Unvierse isn't rotating).

I know it doesn't but you act as if it does because you ignore every other country besides America

Hans Blaster said:
Never heard of that one. The problem might be that I only realized this was "general poltics" and I usually participate in the "US politics" section. Not sure how I ended up in this thread. The earlier posts were filled with US politics references (and Mr. Steve frequently confuses himself with an American when discussing politics.)

You should probably leave the guy alone

Hans Blaster said:
My key board needs replcing (see it dropped the "a")

I was discussing American politics where that is a distraction.

Seem to have no problem using 'a' now.

Hans Blaster said:
That's not what science is.

I claimed science says black people exist. Are you disagreeing?

Hans Blaster said:
Why would that be a special province of "progressives" ? (and as a noob, you don't know my politics anyway.)

Progressives bend over backwards to serve minorities that are actually majorities globally

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T00:19:14-0600

timothyu said:
Biblical or denominational?

My Pastor is anti denomination. He said all 49,000 denominations have departed from the Church which Christ established. They departed because they didn't want to be follow the ordinances which Christ instituted.

My pastor teaches us to have no fellowship with those who have departed from the Body of Christ, because they went out from us to show that they were never truly of us.

dlamberth · 2025-11-29T00:19:03-0600

AV1611VET said:
So no one takes her cookbooks literally?

I've never used one. Nor do I really want to. She's not really my cup of tea.

Dan1988 · 2025-11-29T00:11:01-0600

JulieB67 said:
I asked for your beliefs about the scriptures I posted? Do you understand that question? I then asked how are we taking things out of context in those same verses? If you can't answer those than I would start to question your teachers.

It was a simple question about scriptures. You claim to have all the truth so you should be able to have an honest discussion about scripture and what your beliefs are about said scriptures. But you continually refuse to do so and resort to insults.

At this point I'm not even sure if you're a Christian or a troll. And that's an honest statement. If would only explain why you continue to lie. I and others have posted scriptures, you can look back on this thread and see them. Even you posted scriptures that point to our argument, not yours.

Here once again are just a few-

Malachi 4:1 "For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave then neither root nor branch.

God is making it very clear that there will be nothing left.

Malachi 4:3 "And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the Lord of hosts."

Destroy in the Hebrew shamad
1. to desolate

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
destruction, bring to nothing, overthrow, perish, pluck down, utterly
A primitive root; to desolate -- destroy(- uction), bring to nought, overthrow, perish, pluck down, X utterly.

Psalms 145:20 "The Lord preserveth all them that love Him: But all the wicked will He destroy."

Psalms 37:20 "But the wicked shall perish, And the enemies of the Lord shall be as the fat of lambs: They shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Once again, God can't be any more clear. The wicked will consume away, into smoke, shall they consume away. You can try and work around these verses but again, you put them all together and with Christ's teaching it tells us without a doubt what will happen to the wicked.

Psalms 37:38 "But the transgressors shall be destroyed together: The end of the wicked shall be cut off.

Matthew 10:28 "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

II Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"

But if one wants to redefine certain words and add to God's Word to believe in a doctrine, have at it. I try to always take the bible as a whole and even common sense goes a long way when in reading the Word, we see and learn the very nature of God.

Wow, ever heard of the word humility?

Paul told us to test "all things" Are you above Paul? The Word of God should always be our standard, yes even verses our teachers. Christ also taught against false shepherds.

Why so I can come away with the milk of God's Word? Something I was fed over and over in churches. Paul states we are to move past that.

Do you not really feel equipped to handle at lease some of God's Word on your own? I've learned more on my own than I did years sitting on a church pew- that's the problem with so many. Am I still growing in the Word? I believe so and hopefully I will continue to do so as I study every day. But I have at least read it in it's entirety, something I'm seriously doubting you have done. If you had you would be able to have a honest biblical discussion without resorting to insults, judgement, etc.

I have asked you many times to show me a single verse to support your un biblical private theory, but you have consistently failed. I knew you would fail miserably because your theology is based on false doctrines.

If a single verse existed to support your private theory, you would have googled it by now and used it to prop up your strawman.
Not sure why you keep listing unrelated verses of scripture which say nothing to support your wild theories. It just shows that you're desperate to defend the indefensible.

Yes Paul did exhort "Born again Christians" to test all things. This doesn't apply to those who are not born again believers, because they are clueless as to what is good and what is evil. Only those of us who are born again believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and He leads us into all truth, so we know the difference and we can't be deceived or come under strong delusion as those who think they are Christian but are not.

It's obvious to me that you rely on your own wisdom and understanding, to interpret spiritual things. The problem with that approach is, that it's impossible to rightly divide the Word of God, unless you are being led by the Holy Spirit. Here are some verses to help you understand this awful truth.

1 Corinthians 2:14: "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." This is perhaps the primary verse cited, emphasizing that spiritual truths are beyond the comprehension of those without the Holy Spirit.

Romans 8:7-8: "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God." This passage is used to argue that the unbeliever's mind is actively hostile toward God, making them morally and spiritually incapable of obeying or pleasing Him.

2 Corinthians 4:4: "whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them." This verse is often cited to show that Satan has a role in blinding the minds of unbelievers, further hindering their ability to receive the Gospel.

John 6:44: "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." This verse highlights the necessity of God's prior drawing power for anyone to even come to faith in Christ.

John 8:47: "He who is of God hears God’s words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God." Jesus's words here indicate a spiritual condition: an unbeliever's inability to "hear" (receive and obey) God's words stems from not belonging to God.

Dreyma · 2025-11-29T00:06:50-0600

Michie said:
Welcome to CF.

Thanks

Dan1988 · 2025-11-28T23:42:51-0600

RamiC said:
Fine, please explain the false premise. What is it?

It's your private opinion, which is based on your feelings, and it's not supported by any scriptures at all.

Dreyma · 2025-11-28T23:40:55-0600

linux.poet said:
I would try a single's group, if one is available. I tend to advocate the "pick the church for the teaching and look elsewhere for the social group" approach.

Having old people as friends can be very useful though. They tend to have money and be very smart. Usually how I befriend them is going to Bible Studies and quilting groups, but you may need to change up your approach depending on your interests.

No singles groups here. None of the local churches are large enough to offer separate Bible study groups for different life stages.

My pastor leads a Bible study every Wednesday evening, so I should try going to that. Even if I don't make any friends, I'll get to hear some good teaching.

Reluctant Theologian · 2025-11-28T23:34:34-0600

GoldenKingGaze said:
For century after century porneia in the new testament was translated as sexual immorality. But in the 20th century, romantic poetry and arts leaned towards porneia being love. Romatic love, unrequited love, love at first sight, free love. People moved by lust commit adultery and can't deny their feelings and falll in love with the other woman and leave the wife for the lover. There are stories true and fiction of men falling in love with their prostitute. A lover can be, or become first love. Ladies can be in love with their first love, lover for the rest of their life, despite getting married and having children with the second love.

Is it simple as saying porneia is sexual immorality?

It's helpful to first understand the original and the usage of the Greek word before assessing its meaning and proper translation in the NT.

Literally the word relates to prostitution (selling or buying sex); its usage widened in secular Greek literature already to any kind of extramarital or illicit sexual intercourse.

In the Greek LXX/70 translation of the Hebrew TNK/OT the word is used in the meaning of that initial Greek usage (sexual sins / sexual immorality) but also a lot in the sense of idolatry/unfaithfulness to God.

The NT virtually exclusively also uses the word in that literal sense of illicit sexual acts - for the definition of that the reference framework of the Apostles was Mosaic Law / Torah (Acts 15). All throughout Paul's letters he seems to assume those laws on marriage/sexuality apply to Gentile believers as well.

So to answer your question; yes ... but be careful then to also lookup the correction definition/description of what that entails (in TNK/OT). Some aspects/instances of sexual immorality became more outspoken/explicit in NT times. E.g. in TNK/OT sex is simply assumed to happen within marriage, but there is no literal ban with a death penalty for that outside marriage (only in the case of adultery) - when it happened the man was obliged to offer marriage to the woman, but in the NT this is more explicitly viewed as improper.

Adultery is a sub-form/type of sexual immorality.

Yeshua adds another dimension to all this. In the Sermon on the Mount He describes how improper thoughts/heart-action precedes actual physical sin. E.g. calling someone a fool can be the precursor to murder, and looking at someone else's wife with strong desire is the precursor to adultery .. So in that sense He calls just that look/heart-intent already adultery in the heart - already that is sinful, although still distinct from actual physical adultery of course.

RileyG · 2025-11-28T23:34:01-0600

Stopped_lurking said:
Yes, but they all overlap between the sexes (yes, even breast tissue and facial hair). Without social cues like fashion, hairstyle, speech patterns, friend gruops, partner choice and mannerisms those lead people to guess wrongly quite often.

Many of the secondary sex characteristics are also amenable to medical or surgical interventions. Are those who say that sex is used to determine pronoun use saying that if the secondary sex characteristics line up well enough with their expectation then the preferred pronouns should be used? @RileyG ?

So the you can't change your sex crowd are not talking about secondary sex characteristics, I guess?

That is nice

Yes. I think secondary sex characteristics help define the pronoun someone uses.

Truth7t7 · 2025-11-28T23:26:37-0600

RDKirk said:
Let's remember that the 2025 plan is to remove merit-based selection entirely from the Senior Executive Service (the Civil Service equivalent of general officers) and replace them with political appointees.

More like removing the enemies within, better known as cleaning house

another_lost_guy · 2025-11-28T23:17:51-0600

Hans Blaster said:
I am. Where do you think I've been discussing pseudoscience with the likes of Mr. Steve?

There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

That is not true. Why do you lie? How am I lying. What is untrue in what I said. Read the full sentence you quoted. How is that not making out he is an amateur when it comes to the marks on stone. What is the difference in knowing the strirations and marks on vases to the marks on other...

www.christianforums.com

On a Christian forum which proves my point

Hans Blaster said:
I don't try to look in to the minds of killers who commit mass shootings.

Then why even ask if people are being killed for believing in God or not if this answer was going to be your endgame all along? Total red herring and moot point.

Hans Blaster said:
A large number of them seem driven by narcessism

NarcIssism. Learn to spell. 2 can play at that game ^_^

Hans Blaster said:
and doing one up on the prior mass killers. Some times there targets are from personal connections of some kind (their old school, etc.) others not. When some loser shoots up a mosque or synagogue is it because the people inside believe in God, or because the shooter hates Muslims or Jews. Who can tell?

Again, you asked a question you weren't willing to hear the answer to and when I gave the answer you walked it back to suit your narrative because there is no win or lose condition in this. If people were being killed for believing in God you say who knows what the actual motivation is and if people aren't being killed for believing in God you say welp looks like I'm right.

Also, you're being pseudoscientific and hypocritical again by believing the universe revolves around America and ignoring the half billion Christians being explicitly persecuted for being Christian such as the Kasanga massacre that happened this year in the Congo.

Hans Blaster said:
What? There are are *way* more than 1/2 Billion Chritian outside the US.

ChriStian. See how annoying that is? I'll stop if you stop. I know there's more than a half billion Christians. The half billion are just the ones living under governments that persecute them. Which you refuse to engage with because your pride doesn't allow you to concede a single point of any argument, regardless of topic

Hans Blaster said:
Something like 90% of Christians are not Americans. "Ignoring" non-Americans doesn't have anything to do with science.

You acted like they didn't exist earlier by ignoring them and they do exist according to science

Hans Blaster said:
So?

I thought you'd care about black people but it's just an assumption

stevevw · 2025-11-28T23:16:38-0600

Hans Blaster said:
Irrelevant. (It is odd that you have moved towards questioning our credentials when you know that we have them and you won't even indicate what even remotely relevant experience or knowledge you bring to any of this.)

This is all subjective and contextual. Someones an expert in machining, another an expert in software development, still another an expert Mason, Archeologist, Egyptologist, Engineer, Physicist, Chemist, Anthroplogist, Sociologist, Cultural expert ect ect ect.

I bring my own expertise in the fields of Sociology, Psychology and Cultural Studies including Anthropology. I also have experience in building and carpentry. But I don't claim to be an expert in those fields of machining and tooling. I understand the basic principles.

But the context is I presented King and others as the experts and not myself. I am able to read the credentials of King and his expertise. It is his credentials and expertise I am calling on. So someone with similar expertise can certainly dispute his opinion. But that has not happened yet.

When I say has not happened yet I mena I have only seen Kings credentials and no one has actually shown me these credentials and work. Unless you want me to just believe the claims without any support. That would be poor epistemics. Why would anyone take words alone as sufficent evidence.

In other words I not disputing that someone can have 4expertise on this thread. I am saying show men the same credentials as King where we can go to a site or reference and read about it other than from the person themselves ie independent of the person saying it.

Hans Blaster said:
Granite and metals are quite different materials. Granite would make a lousy bicycle hub. Mr. Smith doesn't have any experience working with ancient technologies.

Thats a blantant unsupported opinion. Were is the reasoning that this is the case. Where is the evidence that his knowledge of machining and tooling in metals cannot be applied to making similar shapes in stone.

Does not the same lathing for circularity work for both metal, wood and granite. Its just a case of the different cutters and the related mechanisms that will sustain the harder cut. But the same principles of cutting are involved.

But evenso you have and others have on this thread offered support for their arguements for or against lathing and maching from their own knowledge an dexperience in working with machining on wood and metals. So its bias anyway to start singling out King when the same criteria is not applied to others on this thread.

Let me ask, who would be more of an expert of the method used to create the vases. An Archeologist or a machinist and tooling expert who makes similar shapes.

Hans Blaster said:
That's what actual experts on ancient stone working *would* know, but you are very eager to ignore their expertise.

And you are very eager to dimiss King. Not only is he an expert in making similar shapes and understand the difference in mechanisms and tooling to achieve cuts in granite. He has been studying the very stone vases for years as well.

So he is both an expert machinist and has more than the average knowledge specifically on the Egyptian vases having studied them for years. I think he is more knowlegable than anyone on this thread as far as the vases are concerned.

But I also find it strange how it has come to having to defend good people as credible in the first place.

Hans Blaster said:
That you think of this as "sides" rather than seeking of truth is telling. There is an experience machinist on "our side", but you also seemingly ignore *his* expertise as well.

I have not. This is a falsehood. I acknowledge their experience and never said they had none. As mentioned above it is a case of showing me the independent evidence and not just the opinions on a social media site.

I was not the one who started to fixate on the credibility of everything I linked before it was investigated. I was not the one who started this scrutinising of the credentials of people when they were called amateurs and all other demeaning names.

I have been made to jump through loops left right and center. Demanding written independent evidence for good sources like peer review. Knocking down research because it was not peer reviewed.

Therefore I expect the same level of scrutiny and evidence for the credentials of those attacking the sources and people. The same level of criteria should apply. I have not once seen a paper, scientific article or even a reference or blod even with anyone on this thread showing independent evidence of their credentials.

I am not saying there is none. I am saying give me the same respect and standards as you deman of me. Show me peer review, scientific articles, of the work ect like it was demanded of those I have bene linking. Otherwise this is completely one sided and bias.

Hans Blaster said:
You assume a "cutter" when that isn't established

You assume he doesn't know the difference. He is part of the same project that actually went and got a granite vase made at a Chinese vase manufacturer. He has studied the application to granite. He has specialised in the granite vases for years now getting to know a lot of stuff about them.

Latest activity

Latest activity

Filter

Forum statistics

Share this page