-
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.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History
- By stevevw
- Physical & Life Sciences
- 753 Replies
What is spread. Why did both Max (mean) and Karoly (median) both claim the vases were in the precise class based on this measure. Karoyl explains this measure is the best way to measure the precision of the vase.
I mean we can go back to Dunns team who did the gauge and CT scans. They determine the vases are in the precision class both through the gusge and CT scans. They list the precision on the specific points down the vase. Or the perpendicularity and paralellism.
Max also measures the Parabolic Fit.
The outer and the inner surfaces of the ‘precise’ vases exhibit excellent fit to a parabola with RMS error on the order of 0.005”. For comparison, parabolic fits of the outer surfaces of the ‘imprecise’ artifacts are on the order of 0.030”.
Nevertheless they fall in the precise class. If Max's precise class is M < 25 thousandths of an inch; then the Petrie vases are in the precise class.
Yes and this is why its an out of place artifact. That we find maching marks like modern machining on 5,000 year old vases. It is the same for the modern circular saw cuts in the stones. These are out of place signatures and they cannot all be modern fakes. Like someone was going around with a circular saw in the 20th century hacking into Egyptian monuments and works.
I guess if they can cut granite like a circular saw they can cut vases like a lathe or with some circular cutter. Take a close look at the last image where the circular saw has actually over cut and then backed up to straighten the line and continue cutting. Classic circular saw signature.
Someone on this thread said the three circular saw cuts in the basalt paver are modern circular saws done later in the 20th century. I think this just acknowledges what I see. That these are out of place signatures for that time. They look like modern machine signatures.
What Were the Ancient Egyptians Using to Cut Granite ..
Lol new digs. I think they have dug up aaabout everything. Unless the authorities are hiding stuff from us. Or a new grave or tomb is found with some vases. Like I said we don't need to do that when theres literally 1,000's already available in museums and private collections.
The best examples have already been found and are in private collections. These are the ones that we need to test as they are the best. But theres 1,000s in museum basements as well lol. Karoly has another two museums to test more vases. One with the Petrie museum and another with the Egyptian Museum in Turin, Italy.
Yes I agree. But I think there is pretty good provedence already on at least some of the vases. Like from the Petrie museum. Put it this way. Do you think they are good enough, round enough to have been turned.
If you were to compare a precision vase sitting in the Petrie museum with a known softer vase handmade with a borestick you will see the difference in signatures just by eye sight. You will see those machine marks on the inside where they have not been fully polished out. Funny enough the exact same machine marks on Bealls vases. Must have used the same maker.
Do you mean the difference of the radius from the center point of the vase slice to the outside of the vase at that particular point. Then the error or deviation from a perfect circle for that radial point. This is done for each and every point around each slice.
What about this.
UnchartedX - Ben Van Kerkwyk
Exploring the mysteries of our past, civilizations, cataclysms, and what it all means for us today.
unchartedx.com
We can’t measure accuracy of the vase since we don’t know what the original design was. An example of accuracy is creating a 1kg weight. How close it is to actually weighing 1kg is a measure of its accuracy. 1kg is a predetermined target.
For this vase, we are going to measure precision. We can see that it has a circular shape. This is true at any vertical position. So one measure of accuracy would be to take points along a narrow vertical height, say less than 1cm (the vase is about 12cm high) and compare the distance to the center axis for all the points. This would give an idea of the precision of the vase for representing a circle.
This has already been done for the vases. Why is this not a representation of the vases roundness.
Because lets say that most of the vases have been found now. There are no more. So they are now either in a museum or a private collection. Most of the vases in museums are from Petrie. Yet Petrie gave 100s away as gifts from the same digs. But he gave away the very best ones. The vases that will be the most likely candidates of the precise class.
So if we discount all the private collections then we are probably left with the lesser quality vases even in museums. There will be some. But the majority will be in private collections. So we also need to devise a way to test these private vases so they can be included. It is silly to exclude the majority of the best examples.
Yeah that will come. In the mean time its a bit of fun. But also as I said getting fixated on this specific example takes away from the overall view of out of place works all over the world that lend support for ancient lost advanced tech and knowledge. As with the circular saw cuts and many other examples it gets to a point where you cannot deny something is out of place in ancient times.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Curious as to what precisely makes Full-Preterism considered an non orthodox heresy?
- By Ed Parenteau
- Controversial Christian Theology
- 27 Replies
And you're saying the bible says "He came down physically". Highlight where it says "He came down physically".Your probably not aware that the phrase "second coming" does not exist in the Bible. It is however replete with examples of the coming of the Lord.
The Bible has dozens of examples where the Lord physically and literally came down to earth on certain days to administer judgment, oversee calamity and fulfill promise and prophecy. These days of the Lord where he physically and literally comes down to the planet is where the Bible's doctrine of the coming of the Lord comes hails from. What does not exist in the Bible is the phrase "the second coming." Unlike the phrase "the Trinity" that is also not in the Bible but that at least goes along with what the Bibles teaches. The idea of a "second" coming or advent changes the Bibles teaching on the matter and renders the Bible's prophecy incomprehensible. Which by the way is design of the phrase. To turn peoples eyes away from the supernatural clarity of the Bible's prophecy and turn those eyes to something the Bible does not prophesy at all. Apocalyptic end of the world scenarios. See more...
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
