-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The Schumer Shutdown
- By eclipsenow
- American Politics
- 241 Replies
First - these are not predictions. They're estimates. Estimates are numbers extrapolated from the government plans. It's a spreadsheet - not a crystal ball. If this - then that. Mathematics. If the government actually does what it has signed into law - then we can expect this outcome for the budget.
Second - a war or new pandemic could massively throw out ALL economic models and budgets.
So where does that leave us?
1. If this - then that. Is the program you are receiving so willingly reliable? Moral? To be endorsed?
2. Other real world disruptions are possible - but usually make matters even worse than predicted!
Unless you can find a credible agency that has actually DEBUNKED where this report reads the BBB wrong - then you're in denial and are magic handwaving.
You fulfilled the cookie meme.
You've eaten the cookie, and are replying with cookie filled fluffy assertions, not cold hard facts and data.
"Smell good, don't they!"
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Another look at the moon landing.
- By prodromos
- Conspiracy Theories
- 2842 Replies
Unfortunately that just reflects badly on you. Her posts have always been clear to me.Half your posts never makes much sense
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 617 Replies
So if they both find precision what then. The Artifact Foundation refers to Maximus and says this is the best way and an industry standard.
That's another way of saying a potters wheel lol. There was no wheel full stop. If there was they would have used it for their pottery which they say they used the coil and slab method because they had no wheel.
So what about the vases that have good provenance at the Petrie museum that test in the precise class.
This is circular reasoning. They are precise because they are precise. Its not what we would expect. Its an unusual level of precision. All sorts of levels of precision as the tests show could have been produced from handmade to rudimentary lathing that is less precise.
To achieve this high level would have taken specialist machining that would have to have been chosen as opposed to less precise machines. Or an extraordinary efforts to rejig and ensure that precision was made. Its completely unnecessary as precision of that level was not impostant.
Another logical fallacy. Other science has taken far longer. So it must not be good science or good scientists. Does not follow. Being something that was never done and resisted by mainstream it took time to gether interest and funding. And the vases. Remember the museums only just allowed tests in 2023. Most private owners were not interested or didn't want to use their vases.
Ah they claim to be representing them as 'real science' lol by tarring these tests and researchers as whacko. There are plenty of articles mentioning how mainstream archeologists are biased against such alternative ideas. Of even measuring for precision in vases as a useless enterprise as they already know how these works were made.
The archaeologist fighting claims about an advanced lost civilisation
The archaeologist fighting claims about an advanced lost civilisation
Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse peddles the idea that we have overlooked an extraordinary ancient civilisation. Flint Dibble explains why that is wrong, and why real archaeology is more exciting
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) wrote a strongly worded letter to Netflix (https://tinyurl.com/bdfnetrw) demanding that the show be described as “science fiction” rather than a documentary and reiterated most of the negative comments about the show flying across the internet at the time. Mainstream experts on the archaeology of the sites described in the series or the geological context of the Younger Drayas have since offered pointed critiques of Hancock’s assertions (e.g., https://tinyurl.com/yt44yheu).
Any papers done on such advanced tech and knowledge would be immediated rejected and not even allowed to be published by any mainstream archeological journal lol. So all this insistence on peer review by the very gatekeeper skeptics is impossible anyway. So just deal with the evidence directly from the testers and the platforms with the results.
This is what they said about Climate change and Quantum physics and other ideas and they ended up being true.
Ok why the semantics. What exactly are you questioning then. If I take a ruler, tape measure or lazer light for which they now use instead of retractable tape measures. I measure the length of a beam or room its not going to put out subjectively different measures. They will all be the same. JUst the lazer light will be more precise.
So long as you calibrate the equipment and know how to use them and use them properly then the numbers don't lie. How is this hard to understand. You are acting like there is some subjective bias that will change the numbers.
This is the other part of the tests where they actually do make fakes or obtain fakes for comparison. Fakes are usually smoother inside and out and don't leave those accidental or unfinished marks that genuine ones have. They are usually slightly lighter and don't look ancient as far as wear, chips, and Patina ect.
Adam Young actually got a Chinese stone manufacturer with over 100 years of experience to replicate a predynastic vase and they found it too hard and complicated to do. Its not easy and thats why I say that mid to early 20th century tech would not be available and if so would be at NASA levels which back street fakers would not have.
I am continually correcting these claims only to have them repeated and then a new one already addressed is made lol.
The ‘precise’ class includes the three modern stone vases, which were machined and polished on a lathe, and 11 objects from Matt Beall’s collection.
So if I use a tape measure and get say 4.51cam and a lazer light at 4.511 how is that then showing some different measure because of a different method. Its just a more accurate measure of the same measure. Its not as though each different method is showing a completely different measure. This is more red herrings.
Besides the same method has been repreated and the same results are found. But even the difference between some methods in the light scanning tech is only a matter of microns and all land on the same findings by vary degrees of microns. Your creating a false dilemma.
Another fallacy. Just deal with the numbers.
No they are not, another falsehood. The circularity for example in some places is as near perfect as 0.003mm. Into the micron level. The perpendicularity, paralellism and concentricity is of similar levels in places. The average for these vases is in the micron levels.
Class Averages
The ‘PRECISE’ class average errors are as follows:
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm);
● <> = 1.3 thousandths of an inch (0.03 mm).
Such surprising precision indicates a highly advanced manufacturing technique consistent with machining on a lathe as the modern lathe-made vases ‘M1’, ‘M2’, and ‘M3’ fall into this class.
On the other hand, the ‘IMPRECISE’ vases in Matt Beall’s collection are characterized by the following class averages:
● = 12 thousandths of an inch (0.3 mm);
● <> = 23 thousandths of an inch (0.5 mm).
This manufacturing quality is indicative of a much less advanced manufacturing technique consistent with the ‘stone and stick’ technology, as the vases ‘O1’ and ‘O2’ that were purposefully made using primitive tools fall into this category.
Just like the Atifact Research Foundation. Notice even the title, 3D scanning vases to the micron level of precision. Its all in the name lol. Around 8 vases fell into the precise modern machining class at the micron level. I linked this evidence earlier and you have ignored it. THe results start around the 38.20 minute mark. But just previous it mentions how the classes are determined as an industry standard.
We 3D Scanned Egypt's Oldest Vases | Micron-Level .
Yes I agree, It gets too much fixated on one specific issue and it seems to be going in circles. I suggest you do a deep dive into this whole topic and discover. It may be wrong but you may learn something as well. Its the only way.
But ultimately you are right. The only way to really quell the skepticism of those who still disagree is for more data and testing of vases such as those in museums where the provenance cannot be questioned.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
