Your response speaks different.
OK first here is the circularity. This reading alone puts the vase in the precision and modern machining level. Impossible to obtain by hand.
The Red Granite Amphora Jar or "OG Vase" was found to exhibit exterior circularity tolerances as low as 0.0004 inches or 0.0094 mm. In fact the median circularity across the entire vertical (z-axis) of the vessel is approximately 0.0006 inches or 0.0162 mm.
The exterior median concentricity was 0.0018 of an inch. The interior was 0.0019 inches.
View attachment 371509
www.artifactfoundation.org
This is from the original testing of the original red granite vase.
Based on the plate layout inspection performed, we recognize that the manufacturing precision of the six ancient granite vessels is comparable in accuracy to modern processes such as CNC lathe turning, exhibited in the modern control vessel. In terms of concentricity, roundness, and continuity, we believe such results are typically achieved using high-precision modern machinery.
Now it may be your reading a partuclar measure that is less precise in places. That is the case in some places due to wear or damage or just slightly less precise work. But its the median score that is used which puts it in the precision class. But even the less precise readings we are only talking 2 or 3 thicknesses of paper up to the best precision of a hair or two.
What context. Archeologist categorising has nothing to do with engineering or forensics on tool marks to determine what caused them. They just attribute artifacts based on form or where they are found or whose name was scratched on them. They have no idea about forensic tooling methods.
Whereas precision tool experts who come from a background in engineering. Reverse engineer the signatures and understand the types to tools that make the different marks on items. Know the tolerances, what can create tight tolerances ect into different kinds of material.
Yes this method of determining artifact origin and methods is faulty as it assums certain styles belong to certain periods or people. Two vases may look superficially the same but one is actually a copy of the other or has completely different methods of creation.
Like the precision vases were also found with soft imprecise vases which are more like later vases. So the precision vases are out of place for that peoples level of tech and knowledge.
No open source non peer reviewed published science is not some social media complains. It needs to be at the same level as the testers. Done formerly with proper equipement and a detailed analysis from the tests with diagrams and explainations.
Like for like. If you do a test in a lab with proper testing and data then this requires retesting in labs with proper equipment and analysis that goes with it.
Their tests and open source nature is designed to allow skeptics to download the files run the tests and analysis themselves and then upload the findings that disagree.
Perhaps the open source nature is part of determining any errors in the testing before it is presented in a paper. Thats good science in being open to challenging their results.
Well thats where you have to look at the video as he explains his imput and expertise on the findings. He certainly was at the testing and measuring the vases. Considering he is a percision parts expert he would know a thing or two about metrology and precision.
What is your role that you are in a position to be determining the validity of these researchers. You seem to be vague on even knowing their bac kground let alone be making judgements about which researcher counts or not lol.
I am speaking of publishing azs far as allowing others to download the results to verify or refute them. They are not at the stage of peer review publishing yet. The tests and feedback or refuting is part of determining the strength of the evidence.
So in the meantime you can submit a formal article refuting the tests or testers if you want and they can then respond. Show that your complain is invalid or reveals something.
Fait enough. But in that post I think I was responding to the same ad hominiem. So for me it was like a ad hominiem on a ad hominiem lol. Because thats all that was happening. Just post after post of ad hominiems.
The thing is I am pretty sure you have made claims ie archeologists are the best experts, ancient could have had a lathe, lathes or devices can be made easy, you just have to do this and this ect. None with any expert support lol..
But I am still engaging in reasoning the contents and not saying your not qualified to say this or that. Whereas it seems discrediting the sources or the providence of the vases has now become the attack point rather than just dealing with the plain hard data that the tests found.
No its not and thats another misrepresentation. Did the reddit guys have formal tests, did they lay out a paper that explains the steps and analysis. No. They are just giving a social media comment.
There is no obligation to show every step and explain thing. Whereis there are in these articles. Can I go to the reddit and find an article they made showing they properly calibrated or went through all the steps. Afterall your making claims. I am to just take your 1 and 2 sentense objections as a formal analysis or something off the top of your head. I can't see any steps where you came to your conclusions.
Lol like I said you need to read the reply in its context. My reply was not me trying to establish their credentials. It was skeptics attacking the researchers and I feel for their ad hominem and was defending the researchers. You just compounded the ad hominem.
I have in that at least they have bothers to get the right equipement, the experts to at least know the equipement and do the metrology and then make a formal analysis and put it in a formal article for the public with the steps they took toi show how. What you doing is no where near that. I would expect the same level of formal effort and steps to refute the researchers. Its only fair.
See this is exactly what I mean. You just literally speak the words without any expert qualification or context or explaination or steps in how you determined this and I'm suppose to take this like its peer reviewed. Your expecting unreal or unfair levels of these researchers while lowering the bar for yourself.
What is the inconsistency. They all reach the same findings lol. Theres even a couple of short videos where they use guage wrenches or callipers with digital readouts live and you see the circularity right before your eyes. How many ways do they have to measure circularity of the vase to show the numbers don't lie. Its not as if the numbers change themselves on the digital readouts.
I give up this whole post is one big ad hominem. What about your credentials in even determining all this. Are we to just take your words at face value as the true representation and that your not adding in your own bias. How do we tell.
How does any of this change the hard data of the numbers that are produced by the measuring devices. What about the gusage metrology. You can literally sit there and watch the readouts as the sensors are going round thevase or the callipers are pinching the uniformity of the wall thickness.