Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- 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 RUclips 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. RUclips 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/a40...
►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity RUclips 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/gr...
Marián Marčiš' Analysis:
ma...
Twitter (X) conversations:
Dr...
Er...
To...
On Stone Vases:
www.almendron....
sci-hub.se/htt...
www.objects-fo...
journals.sagep...
www.francescora...
scholar.cu.edu...
www.ijetjournal...
sci-hub.se/htt...
www.metmuseum....
amzn.to/45pVLmN
amzn.to/3R18esP
amzn.to/3OSNvF4
www.proquest.c...
sci-hub.se/htt...
archive.org/de...
www.semanticsc...
fount.aucegypt...
sci-hub.se/htt...
www.britishmus...
antropogenez.r...
Scientists Against Myths videos:
• Что внутри у ваз Древн...
• Making a stone vase wi...
• Making Egyptian Drill ...
On Predynastic Egypt:
smarthistory.o...
isac.uchicago....
Accuracy vs Precision:
www.production...
plato.stanford...
On the Illegal Antiquities Trade:
cfj.org/report...
Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:
www.amazon.com...
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
Not many people know this, but during the cold War, NASA had originally planned on making a super-awesome, super-precise vase as a display of Western technological superiority. However, NASA engineers soon discovered that making a vase was far too ambitious and opted for the simpler task of landing a man on the moon instead.
Oh no, NASA didn't actually land on the moon, they realised spending billions of dollars on space equipment, R&D and salaries was a waste of money, so they decided to do all that stuff anyway and spend some additional trillions of dollars covering up that they didn't actually do it.
Ironically, the methods and tools that are currently being used to measure and analyze the precision of these vases are way more sophisticated than the computers that we used to get to the moon. It does beg the question: If the vases are precise and symmetrical on a level that can't been seen with a human eye, how exactly could someone make them without a similar measuring device?
@@N8Dulcimer For some real world insight into what's likely going on here, I suggest checking out the long sorted history and fairly recent revelations concerning the "crystal skulls". It would be difficult to overstate the similarities between them.
When it comes to my original comment, I wasn't refering to the specific technology required to produce such a vase, I was adressing the bizzare behavior implied by it's hypothetical creators. Why would such a civilization devote their advanced technology solely to the creation of precise pottery? Why do we only find these artifacts made only from naturally occuring igneous rocks? Why do we find nothing made from synthetic materials, which our own advanced civilization produces by the ton. Intelligence does not seek a way to shape stone, intelligence realizes how to ctreate it's own "stone."
Thats my quick response anyway.
@@SteveMorrow-b5c yeah I'm very familiar with crystal skulls and even more familiar with these vases and I personally see almost no similarities at all. Crystal skulls are not a real thing at all, whereas these symmetrical stone vases are definitely a real thing. You can see *hundreds* of them at Egyptology museums, and over 40,000 were found in the tomb of Djoser.
@@SteveMorrow-b5c As to your question, the most obvious explanation would be that metals and concrete and plastic bags all decompose eventually, whereas rocks can basically sit in a dry place indefinitely and barely degrade at all.
I totally disagree with this channel. All that we need is ONE vase of high quality chain of custody, that involves a level of accuracy that we modern humans would find impossible to duplicate without using a computer. Although this one-off object may not conclusively PROVE anything (given that the object may still possibly be a fake) nonetheless, if it was sufficiently accurate then this fact should at the very least then trigger the need to do a lot more research as well as to question some of the basic assumptions being made by conventional archeology.
I find your tone to be unnecessarily patronising. As such it is more or less unwatchable by any normal, open minded mainstream person who seeks the truth.
You are also being pedantic in the way you score every single pathetic little point that you can think of.
For these reasons it comes ovet as being that either you are only interested in singing to your own fanclub or you are not interested in finding the truth. Or both.
Look I don't have a dog in this fight. i.e. I have no professional reputation and no intellectual baggage to defend. I am only interested in listening to people who are open-minded and being intellectually honest.
Any GOOD scientist should be open to changing their opinions in light of new evidence.
If you are sincere about claiming to be a GOOD scientist, then the tone and style of your content is letting you down severely. I am utterly impartial on this topic but TBH I simply can't bring myself to watch the whole of this defensive, snarky, pedantic video.
Please raise your game.
If I shoot a basketball at a net 40,000 times and make it in once, does this mean that I have excellent aim? If not, then if one vase out of 40,000 has amazing tolerances, that doesn’t mean it was made with a special precision tool. It means it is an example of a 1 in 40,000 chance.
If all you can find wrong is my tone and style, I know I did a good job. Thanks.
@@WorldofAntiquity @WorldofAntiquity You are being disingenuous and you know it.
What I said was "TBH I simply can't bring myself to watch the whole of this defensive, snarky, pedantic video." So given that I have stated that I have not watched the whole video, how can you say that the tone and style is "all" that is wrong with your video?
You don't believe this. And neither do I.
Either way I am not interested in a war of words. I am would like to get to the underlying truth behind all this.
Please re-shoot.
@@AStewart-jd8ep You want him to re-shoot the whole video because you're triggered by the tone? Dude, get over yourself.
@@Leeside999I don't have a dog in this fight, i.e. my ego is not involved. But yes, if he wants to be taken seriously by impartial, intelligent, educated, free-thinking people then yes, my best advice would be a re-shoot into a more objective video.
What he has produced is unwatchable but any sensible, impartial person.
The Eiffel Tower could not have been built without computers and laser pointers. Surely it's the legacy of an alien civilization that lived in France by the end of 19th century.
@@dominiqueubersfeld2282 that is factually wrong
Yes, and it's twice as tall. The great mud flood covered the bottom half.
i don't think rolling out some steel and joining it by drilling holes and beating hot rivets to form a head is quiet the same as creating a granite vase with 2mm thick walls where the roundness varies by less than the width of a human hair.
What they've proved is that today, somewhere in the suburbs of Cairo, someone is making tourist souvenirs with modern tools.
PROVEN.... Learn to speak proper English before even bothering to a pile of tripe.
@@bujfvjg7222 _"Learn to speak proper English before even bothering to a pile of tripe."_
His statement made far more sense that yours.
@@SteelDriving Where can I buy one? or is this just a conspiracy theory with no evidence?
@@jamemswright3044 Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy...
What
@WorldofAntiquity offers is greater than the treasures a thousand camels carry.
Rub the sand from your eyes and see it clearly.
If they'd taken its temperature this vase could have still been warm from the mill.
What the Ancients did do is more impressive than what you've imagined them to do.
Don't gild lillies with almuinum foil.
@@SteelDriving Where can I buy a precision granite vase? Or is it just a conspiracy theory?
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."
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.
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. 😂
This guy's analysis is good too: ruclips.net/video/O_4SaxVP44g/видео.html the 'precision' claimed is merely an illusion
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?
As a former appraiser a fine art, I found the gaslighting around the issue of provenance hilarious.
I have to thank Ben, his ideas stoked my interest in Ancient Egypt and got me doing my own research. I have to thank David for helping me find the truth. Ben will always be deaf and blind to anything that contradicts what he is selling, he would have to get a real job if he acknowledged any of it.
Exactly - it's all grift, as it is for most of those he associates with like Dunn et al.
Yes, the channel Sacred Geometry Decoded has some good videos pointing out the false claims of some of these grifters
that's exactly what he's doing. He's has his errors pointed out to him many times and he ALWAYS just sweeps it under the rug before his followers see it.
He’s aware he’s full of crap. He’s notorious for deleting comments and blocking people who point out his errors. He never addresses them.
I think the ancient high tech theory is total BS and agree that the people who promote it like Ben uncharted X, Randal Carlson, Graham Hancock et. al are all grifters. Nevertheless I don’t think that Chris Dunn is a grifter. I don’t get the sense that he’s dogmatic nor do I think he does it for fame or money. I just think he’s a guy with a certain set of skills that he applies to an interest for the sake of the pleasure he derives from it with genuine motives. I don’t see him being antagonistic or anti-intellectual which is a disturbing strain that I see running through this movement and promoted in the work of the others. I’ve heard him say that he’s fine with being wrong and he’s not married to any of his theories - he’s just someone who isn’t particularly satisfied with the traditionally accepted explanation for some of this stuff. And I have to say I’m sympathetic to that sentiment. Bc I’m not really either, for some of it, like just how exactly was the Great Pyramid constructed, for instance. But that’s as far as I’ll go bc the consensus explanations are still far more probable than any other, aside from possibly geopolymer.
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 hate how pseudo archeology and history gets views. like our real history isn't fascinating on its own.
1. There are not a large number of bronzes unearthed in Egypt. The latest archeology of the pyramids proves that they were built by construction workers, not slaves. Slaves could eat high-quality beef and be buried near the pyramids. 2. There is no history of bronzes in Europe. There are only a small amount of bronzes picked up from the water or bought from antique markets. In this way, it is impossible to do carbon 14 testing (compare Sanxingdui in China to see what bronzes can be carbon 14 tested), or natural copper products. Not smelting. 3. There is no astronomical calendar in Europe, so ancient Europeans did not know the exact time and could only roughly estimate a period of 6,000 years (there are many observatory sites in China, and there are no such sites in Europe. It takes hundreds or thousands of years of continuous observation and calculation , only through accumulation can we have a calendar. The history of civilization alone can be recorded to nearly 5,000 years, of which 3,000 years are not stories, but almost completely real history, verified by multiple evidences) 4. Europe does not have unified weights and measures, but China has unified weights and measures. It has been more than 2,000 years, and many measuring instruments have been unearthed in China. There is no unified weights and measures in Europe, so where can advanced arithmetic come from? 5. There is no writing in Europe that can record history. Language expressions are different in different places and in each period. The only writing in the world that has recorded history is Chinese characters, which are Chinese characters in China, Korea, Japan and Vietnam. Moreover, speaking and writing are separate modes, and the writing mode has not changed for thousands of years. Only in this way can history be recorded. Can anyone overturn the above points? If it cannot be overturned, then ancient Babylon (has any ordinary person obtained a cuneiform dictionary and translated the clay tablet text?), ancient Egypt, and ancient Greece are all stories. Can the stories be discussed as real things? Ancient Rome (in northern Arabia), which China called fulinguo (purum), was not called Rome (rum). It had a certain degree of civilization, but people in the Song Dynasty also thought that their technology was ordinary and crude (Sharaf al-Zamān Marvazī: "Tahā'l al -hayawan"), Europe is likely to rewrite this as the Roman Empire. If you look at the technology of China's Song Dynasty and the Sanxingdui ruins, you will know why. Note that the first steam engine-driven car also appeared in China, but it is a pity that the Ming Dynasty, the creator of civilization, had the technology stolen by the barbarian Manchus and European missionaries, and forged a false history. 6. If the Babylonian civilization was as great as described in the textbook, why was the writing still written on clay tablets? Why not use noble sheepskin? 7. There is no such grammatical dictionary for cuneiform writing. With the help of grammatical dictionaries, ordinary people can translate these clay tablets into modern writing. Without such a dictionary, they can make false claims at will.
If there are 1,000 bronze artifacts unearthed on earth, 999 are in China. This is an estimate, and the real ratio is definitely higher. Apart from China, there is no other bronze civilization (a civilization must be proven by the simultaneous appearance of a large number of bronze smelting sites and a large number of unearthed cultural relics of bronze vessels used in daily life). This should become a public opinion in the field of history.
The ancient nautical chart of ancient Egypt is marked as Babylon, which is the map of China 600 years ago（it was codified by European missionaries to 1601）：
www.loc.gov/item/2010585650/
This is a map of Europe：commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geographia_by_Ptolemy,_Aphricae_Tabula_III,_1540_Basel_edition_-_Maps_of_Africa_-_Robert_C._Williams_Paper_Museum_-_DSC00625.JPG
Babylon was so civilized, so why did it write on clay tablets? And Egypt is so developed, why does it not have any steel smelting, and even bronze tools and cultural relics are very few. In China alone, Sanxingdui estimates hundreds of tons of bronzes, and there are all kinds of daily necessities. In addition, as for the calendar you mentioned, there are many observatory sites in China, and the officials who observed astronomy in ancient times have been dedicated to studying the world for more than ten generations. Everything China does is related to agriculture and life. It is not a waste of energy and no use value as you said. The Great Wall was built to protect against barbarians such as the Mongols, Turks, and Huns. Did the Pyramid of Khufu spend so much manpower for the exhibition?
Bronze ware was first found naturally in Asia Minor. But it is made of natural copper, while China discovered smelted copper pipes 6,700 years ago
，The early bronze objects discovered in Europe and the United States were very small, while the early bronze objects in China were very large. If ancient bronze ware weighed 100kg, then Europe accounted for 0.001kg, and China accounted for 99.999kg
There are still people giving you likes. Your knowledge is completely flawed. Buddha appeared in Nepal. As a thinker, I think he was very great. However, he developed in China. Now almost all Mahayana Buddhist scriptures are in China and very few in other places. As for the situation other than Buddhism, I suggest you read Sharaf al-Zamān Marvazī's "Tahā'l al-hayawan". This book says that the Chinese people have no technology in the world, but fulinguo (purum) ) is a little bit technical. The history you see is a part of world history that was faked by European missionaries and Manchu barbarians. Also, take a look at the map link I gave you. Is there anything you want to say?My friend, Sanxingdui has only been dug one thousandth of a percent, look at the bronzes from Sanxingdui and compare them to their contemporaries all over the world, please!
@@beamazed1162 Everything you said is a lie.
@@hedgehog3180 Please refute point by point
@@beamazed1162huh?
LOL I love this line "there are lots of examples of precision artifacts, at lease to the eye"
It's pretty dishonest, because even when this video was released, several of these vases had already been scanned with structured light, and analyzed in CAD. Now, dozens have been scanned with structured light, several have been analyzed mathematically, and a handful have even been x-rayed, including one that is currently in an egyptology museum. The results of these scans consistently show precise symmetry at a scale of between 5 and 60 nanometers, depending on the specific vase. The absolute best proof of their precision is in the scans and mathematical modeling, NOT what can be seen with the naked eye.
@@N8Dulcimer I am missing your point.
You would miss his, and every other point even if it punched you in the face, that's what makes you and your kind a special kind of dense!
@@LordDavidVader The quote implies that their precision is passable at a glance, but the errors are more obvious when measured precisely. The reality is that modern technology allows us to see that it is far more precise than the naked eye is capable of seeing.
@@bujfvjg7222 I am always a great admirer of people so brilliant they can gain deep insights into a person based on one or two you tube comments. You sir are brilliant. Well done.
Had to give this another watch after Ben took it down with a copyright action! I can see why he’s so threatened by Dr. Milano’s video. He’s a quack, plain and simple.
Same here. These guys are literally brainwashing people to hate archeologists. Their comment sections are filled to the brim of loony beliefs and pseudoscience talking points. So cringe.
It's really sad, people are missing out on real amazing History because of these snake oil salesmen.
"They already know the answers, so why keep looking?"
Says the man who went in with a pre-conceived conclusion and deliberately chose the vase most likely to get the result he wanted.
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
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.
Oh dear...Hoped to see credible debunking of the light scans results, nothing here but insults?!
... And who is talking about atlantis... The mission here is a technical enquiry as to how this level of manufacturing with such mathematical precision could be achieved. This channel is not helping that research. It seems to poo poo progress.
Yeah. Totally agree. I haven't enough evidence to make my own opinion, but this "debunking scientifically" is only trying to mock others. Clear scientific evidence on either vase being fake, measurements not being right and so on is required for debunking. And who thinks about Atlantis? Maybe greedy incompetent debunker to get views...
@@ArcherNavy which insults?
Ancient aliens promoters are progressing knowledge? 😂 And yes, all this ancient technology stuff comes from people like Von Daniken and Sitchin the daddies of ancient aliens/technology thinking.
Your title shows how biased you are. Sad attempt to grab clout here.
Using logic is not bias. Try again.
@@Eyes_Open Explain how the term "Atlantis Bros" is not biased.
The title came last, after I assessed their work.
@@WorldofAntiquity Thanks for agreeing with me.
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.
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.
In the context of these vases, "accuracy" can be considered how closely the scale of the radii conform to the radial transversal pattern that the vases are based off. "Precision" can be considered the level of deviation between the circles designed off these particular radii and perfect circles of the same size.
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.
Ive once read this one:
Metrologist here. I was able to look at the scan report created by this team. Its legit, created in polyworks which is a very standard and well regarded program in manufacturing industries.
People commenting on how good primitive craftsmanship might have been have no idea how tight those tolerances are. Flatness, *maybe*. And thats a hard, hard maybe. But know that .003"/.076mm/76 microns is flat to within the thickness of a piece of paper, or for better perspective less than the thickness of a human hair which is about 100 microns.
Perpendicularity at .001" is about 1/3 the thickness of a piece of paper. 1/3 the thickness of a human hair.
And circularity at .013" of an inch is likely impossible by hand. Machines today would have a hard time reproducing these at those tolerances..
To validate for myself, I then showed the scan report to one of our best machinists, who is also an instructor at a local technical college. He said that would require a very advanced 5 axis machine and multiple setups. I didnt tell him what this vase was it until after he gave me his opinion. To say his eyebrows raised when I told him it was a scan of an ancient stone vase would be an understatement.
This was made by a machine.
Then I guess you are saying it is a modern creation.
Allow a simple question: was the goal to achieve those tolerances.......... - think about that.
Moral: as alluded to by others the major issue here is not the measurements = it is the provenance of the item(s) in question. A simple internet search can yield you Egyptian style artwork as well as put you in touch with craftsmen who would be happy to fabricate some vase or whatever for you.
Back to my question. When you measure a thing you are often presupposing = someone wanted it that way. Yet is it not possible however to simply fashion a vase or whatever based upon aesthetics and popular style??? The answer of course is = yes - very much so.
This means that unless you can show whereby some Egyptian craftsman sought to arrive at "X thousands of an inch" - when obviously they knew nothing of the Imperial or Metric systems of measurement = then whatever the dimensional outcome you ascertain after the fact is simply that - making it happenstance.
You *ASSUME* a desire to achieve "X" dimensions for purposes of duplication using modern methods = yet the Egyptians had no such assumptions. This makes the entire argument sophistry and hence moot........
@@Eyes_Open 1. There are many thousands of these objects --are they all modern?
2. It would be extremely expensive to make ONE of these objects
What you are saying is that some point in recent history someone made thousands of very expensive fakes and then hid them away in various sites to be stumbled upon by some randos. Cool story.
@@thegreatbloviator6817 Many thousands? Lost advanced technology? Cool story.
@@thegreatbloviator6817 You're making such a dishonest argument here that it hurt my eyes to read. Archeologists actually do measure their findings. They dont find stuff and throw it in a bag and call it a day. We have analyzed ONE vase with such precision and I would be very interested in analyze many others such as this one.
The first thing they need to do for you to believe this stuff is make you think that they're the only ones doing actual work. The thing is, the only work they're doing is trying to prove their theory. Not only is it not science, it's ANTI science. He chose ONE vase. The owner of that vase is a friend of his friend and both of them happen to believe in that theory. They dont know where that vase comes from, they bought it from someone. He also choses to only show the measurements that would prove his point.
Another thing that he needs you to believe is that the ancient people of Egypt were actual morons incapable of working with their hands. They would not ask a farmer to make a damn granite vase, they would ask an actual stone worker.
Finally, he also needs you to believe that ancient Egypt was not that long. Ancient Egypt was ancient to ancient Egyptians, dude. It's quite normal to see a lot of the same stuff and gradually things change. The culture wasnt always the same throughout 3000 years. If owning a granite vase meant you we're rich, rich people would buy it. The same way rich people have luxury cars and watches. Social status was important to them as well, you know. A God King did not have a budget. If you had to make 30 vases in a year for him to take into the after life, you would make 30 vases.
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 RUclips 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.
I listened to one of the long videos about the vase, it was about 1 hour and 17 minutes and at no point do the people scanning and measuring the vase make any mention of Atlantis. This makes your title is misrepresenting what they are saying and I see this as an attempt on your part to paint them as crack pots. Why not address what they actually say in their videos as opposed to setting up a straw man of the things you think that they mean to imply but don't actually say ? This is like the spin that politicians like to engage in by twisting what their opponents say into something unrecognizable. While it can be hard to resist the urge to be sarcastic. "Sarcasm" can be traced back to the Greek verb "sarkazein," which initially meant "to tear flesh like a dog." This does not sound something conducive to an intellectual discussion on a topic. If these people are not reaching out to you, it could be because they may sense a lack of sincerity on your part. You've already made up your mind and a full vase cannot be filled.
You nailed it my good sir. People are morons lol
The fact that you believe there is any sort of parity between reality and Ben's claims reflects a sad state of affairs. Dr M goes out of his way to point out illogical claims and he does so with a restraint that I find remarkable. Consider how Ben's channel is dedicated to inducing a mistrust of academia. It is a common theme these days where people are easily led and financial profit is to be gained. This video clearly points out the weakness of the claims. Even if Dr M were screaming and insulting, the truth would still be evident. I actually received a comment from someone who said that they would prefer to hear a lie from a polite person than to be rudely told the truth.
@@Eyes_Open the video title is click bait, meant to draw attention from people searching videos about the story of Atlantis and obtaining this instead redirecting views that would have gone to other content creators on the subject.
That this guy debunks a video about Vase measurements does not make it about Atlantis. The original video is not about Atlantis either. It's a misleading title.
He is not rudely telling the truth as you put it. He is misrepresenting what their video is about setting up a strawman then arguing about that distorted view that he set up. If he was telling the truth, there would be a mention of Atlantis in the original video, there is not, therefore he isn't telling the truth.
@@HepCatJack You must be new to this alternative false history scheme.
@@HepCatJackSo it's not about a lost civilization just like Atlantis is a lost civilization?
*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
Uncharted X has a new video using multiple vases now. Scanned and measured. Evidence people.
Oh cool. Are they definitely authentic this time?
@@Leeside999 is this going to be the perpetual coping mechanism going forward? you realize you're standing on the edge of the proverbial rabbit hole of psychological distress if you continue finding excuses for denying the reality that we live in. try to keep up.
@@AustinKoleCarlisle What's the reality that I'm denying, Austin?
@@Leeside999 your side points to a crude, handmade vase as proof that precision vases can be made using primitive methods
@@AustinKoleCarlisle No, it proves that ancient vases made from the hardest stone, as found at Saqqara, can be reproduced using primitive tech. Something "your side" claimed was impossible without diamond technology.
I found this channel by way of Uncharted X. So, thanks Uncharted!
Actually me too!
Years lurking around on YT and never came across those guys...
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?
ruclips.net/video/QzFMDS6dkWU/видео.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.
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.
Just about every point they make about the quality can be debunked by projection. They are only speaking from the mind of a CNC machine operator. Every time they say ‘tool’ they mean ‘CNC bit’, the whole part on chipping on embedded materials (textbook CNC) to their need for a verification process because in their own line of work their customers demanded it, the need for a computer to calculate the geometry. They know their CNC production, but they don’t know anything about this vase😂
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!
I've long wondered about how many of the ancient artifacts were made given we cannot remake them today nor adequately explain how the ancients made them. I am puzzled as to why the relevant disciplines are so defensive towards Unchartered X. At least Ben K shows curiosity and tries to solve the mystery. I have read academic papers, even watched attempts to mimic ancient stone cutting methods where a laborious cut, at a snail's pace were put forward as proof of how stone was cut. My present view is that academia are missing an opportunity. There is huge public interest in these topics, an opportunity for engagement, yet no counter evidence or explanations are offered that can compete with amateur speculations given by the likes of Ben K, Graham H and Randall C. Archaeologists, if so certain, should be able to share the evidence and it should illicit similar certainty.
What makes you think we can't make them today, when I show in the video their being made today?
_"we cannot remake them today"_
Of course we can. Who told you that we couldn't? It's almost like you didn't watch the video.
_"I am puzzled as to why the relevant disciplines are so defensive towards Unchartered X"_
I do not find it puzzling at all if professions get defensive when some know-nothing twerp has a business model that depends on spreading misinformation about the works and findings of those professions.
_"At least Ben K [...] tries to solve the mystery"_
"Mysteries" he pulled out of his @ss. Again, it's part of his business model to sell you on the idea of fantastical elements being behind these so-called "mysteries".
_"I have [...] watched attempts to mimic ancient stone cutting methods where a laborious cut, at a snail's pace"_
Yes, cutting stone without the benefit of power tools *is* a slow, laborious task. Who knew?
_"no counter evidence or explanations are offered that can compete with amateur speculations given by the likes of Ben K, Graham H and Randall C."_
So what? Scientific veracity is not determined by upvotes.
Again, you have not offered me anything convincing. You have conveyed an unwarranted amount of negativity though. Yes I have seen attempts to cut stone using ancient methods, it is laborious. This is the point, it is absurd in terms of practicality that such primitive methods were employed in these ancient constructions. Also, the public have a right to engage in the arena of academia, be it with support or criticism.@@AlbertaGeek
Clearly a work in progress made with limited access to the objects, as well as funding. Well done uncharted x. Keep up the good work.
What good work has he done? Ben derives funding from social media by making unsupported claims and making anti-academia comments.
@@Eyes_Open the only unsupported claim is academia saying these precision vases could be made using primitive methods. last time i checked, nobody has come forward with a true, 100% precision reproduction.
@@Eyes_Openhater
@@Kevin-uq7nc Truth needs to be heard whether it hurts your feelings or not.
@@Eyes_Openlet him be, ffs. By the way @stevecollins4567, I’m selling some real state in Atlantis, if you are interested
Ah yes, the Joe Rogan podcast. A bastion for serious scientists to broadcast true skepticism 🦆🦆🦆🦆
I'm a nobody compared to all the dimwits with PhD's
In these comments.
But I work with Stone everyday as a profession with modern tools, and we cannot replicate those tolerances With modern tools. So for all of you with your education, that appears to be clouding your ability to apply critical thinking to your own beliefs or preconceived notions as far as I can see you're missing the forest for the trees. And everything you know now was told to you by someone else.
And any idea that can't be questioned is by definition a cult.
And I think you're missing the Objective Of uncharted x, Which is to merely pose questions.
Oh.........so many rationalizations I see. 🤭
1 - your "day job" means exactly squat unless you can provide bona fides to show whereby you are knowledgeable of ancient stone working methods - or you work with those who are.
2 - anything you likely do in your job vis a vis "tolerances" = are purposeful......... That coincidentally is critical to your argument. You see if an artisan fashions something from stone by hand based upon what "looks good" for them then no matter the subsequent measurements achieved = it represents "happenstance". Accordingly just as the saying goes a stopped clock is still correct twice a day - so people can produce things which reflect unknown at the time dimensions. If however you purposely seek to achieve a given dimension then yes how you try to do it can be relevant.
3 - "everything you know as told to you by someone else" = we call that "knowledge/education" you know...... - try it some time. As an aside. What exactly are you doing here if not = 🦜claims you got from videos you referenced in your rant......
4 - finally Ben does a lot more than "ask questions" = quite a bit more. He challenges what actual experts posit based upon the evidence so as to sow "doubt" + he monetizes his audience based on those incredulous queries + he disregards input from said experts in his "questions" - which tells you he is not really seeking answers then.
Moral of the story: ask all the questions you want...... If however you are not receptive to answers provided by actual subject-matter experts in these fields then your "feigned" questions represent disingenuous engagement. That then begs to ask = _"why???"_ The answer of course is = 💰
The entire purpose behind Ben et al's incredulous queries is not to elicit information towards some understanding. It is to generate money based upon engagement driven by conspiracy theories + pseudoscientific/historical claims via their clickbait videos + and assorted "merchandise" they hawk online......
I have heard from other people who work with stone that disagree with you.
Acadamia, ironically, is filled with close minded individuals whom all peer-suppress each other lol its like the church during the time of Galileo. Clowns.
@@thingonathinginathingYou think peer review is suppression just because it requires evidence? Your comparison to Galileo is backwards. Galileo had evidence on his side just like scientists today. Ben on the other hand relies on faith and lacks evidence like the church.
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Hopefully you all and acadamia will catch up. Or stick with Ye Old Ways.
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.
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?
You know a load of BS is coming when you hear the phrase, "harder than steel". This means their target audience are clueless peasants !
Steel is "strong". Hardness in steel is only needed if the steel object is to be used for cutting, or armor (including resistance to impact). Major part of steels toughness, is that it gives and yields, a bit, instead of shattering, like harder, but brittle glass. This is why its okay to use steel wool, on glass windows, but not sandpaper (sand/glass).
1:15:00 - Biased to CNC manufacturing. Though as someone involved in manufacturing prior to the everything being "computerized", his statements are total BS. Look at engine, and care manufacturing going back to its roots, in the 1890s. Precision was done going back to steam engines. Machinist were really highly skilled. Especially back then. Go to any machining channel, and see what they can do, with a manually operated milling machine, and lathe. No computer needed.
to be able to cut any material you need a substance considerably harder than it, for example mild steel is cut with tool steel or carbide, to cut diorite you need something harder than it, there are not many things harder than diorite, diamond would be one suitable thing, the strength of the machine and tool post when cutting stone would have to maintain accuracy under extreme load, something that's not at all easy to do, especially when cutting internal dimensions.
@@ChrisDay-sx4lv And?
Non hardened steel is still harder than copper though
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.
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!
I was subscribed to Uncharted X for a short time. It didn't take long for my 30 years of machining / process engineering experience to tell me that the channel was BS.
I have proof of a lost civilization. Well I have lots and lots of proof. I will say this. I would turn archeology on its head, so if I contact museum and tell them I have ultimate proof of a civilization that history has missed, would they come running to see what I had, no, in fact you hardly ever get a reply. So what is archeology scared of, or is it lazy? I'm not an archeologist but if someone contacted me and claimed to be in possession of something archeology thought couldn't exist, then I'd be trying to get a look. I definitely do have proof and if you "the video maker" are an archeologist then tell me how to contact you and I can email some photos.
You realize that the reason no one replies to you is because you sound like a scammer?
It`s back....unlucky Benny boy. Looks like it`s back to the (drawing) block for ya 😆😆
As predicted you won 🎉
I just watched Ben's latest video where they show the results of multiple vases it's pretty convincing
Okay. Unfortunately for you however convincing "you" is not the metric for validity here = what the actual experts conclude it. Were it otherwise then the world would be flat and UFOs would be kidnapping people in the night to perform anal probes as there are certainly people "convinced of this". 🤨
@@varyolla435 experts were in Ben's video. perhaps you should watch it.
@@varyolla435experts of what? Experts of vase manufacturing?
Are archeologists now experts in machining?
Why should we listen to archeologists on how precise a manufactured object is? Are archeologists the experts of high-precision measurements?
@@os3ujziC As Willy Wonka would say: _"strike that - reverse it."_ So the question then becomes: _"how does someone who does "machining" supposedly become qualified to opine in archeology??"_
Answer: they don't.......
Moral of the story: archeologists/historians = work with others - hence your people knowledgeable in "machining". Conversely people who engage in modern manufacturing know jack-all about ancient technologies - unless they work with those who do.
See how easy that was. Your "day job" counts for squat I'm afraid.
@@os3ujziC"Why would we listen to machining experts about Ancient Egypt vases? Are machine engineers experts on how civilizations of the past crafted things?"
This is how you sound. There's a thing called multidisciplinary studies for a reason.
The Arc of the Covenant was an Antlantean nuclear weapon, as proven in the documentary Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc.
Edit: It strikes me that measuring an object of unknown origin will not prove what they are trying to prove at all. The measurements don’t make the provenance issue moot. The unknown provenance makes the measurement moot.
Yeah UnchartedX's fans genuinely seem incapable of comprehending that like people just fucking lie. This vase might have been made in fucking 2020 for all we know.
8 days..........32K views........1,400+ comments......and spurious copyright claims made against it......... = clearly this one is getting under their thin skins. 🤭👍
The only evidence of a flood I'm seeing is "alternative" tears.
I love when the nerds turn bully
@@tcolley _"Erudites"_ 🤭
I mean, that's the whole business idea behind this video, right? foster adversity to farm interaction.
Weird that someone would have a negative reaction to having their arguments straw-manned, while also being insulted by thousands of people who think their entire argument hinges around a few vases.
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.
The comment section on his video is BEYOND absurd. His fans are convinced that this is a scientific method.
@RegularFlyGuy I really don't care about anything Uncharted says. It's wild no one has taken ancient artifacts to a machine shop before him. The CMM data is insane, and you can't dispute it.
@@I-HAVE-A-BOMB To use Uncharted's own logic: How do you know no one has taken ancient artifacts to a machine shop before? Have you personally investigated the history of *every* ancient artifact discovered around the world? I think not! I've now set the bar for proof so high you can't counter it.
@@FilzupBilburp to use your logic, because i do.
All these adds show the motivation is clearly money more than objective information...like universities money has corrupted, as It Always Does
Did you find any errors in the video?
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.
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
🤣
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.
Even without a significant dog in the fight, I have trouble with our history as written. Okay, you say there were no advanced civilizations prior to the Egyptian, and yet Gobekli Tepe stands as absolute proof of such civilizations. Yes, plural. Plato's recounting of Atlantis aside, there are too many obvious displays of advanced working's or maybe of construction and tooling that we do not understand today. It does not seem to be a far stretch to think that there may have been other civilizations before us that were all but destroyed during global or even regional cataclysmic events. It only seems reasonable that through diaspora the tattered remains of civilizations would attempt to rebuild to their former glory. Unfortunately, it seems as though these remnants of a former advanced civilization could only provide a fraction of their accumulated knowledge, based on the skills of the survivors. For instance, among the survivors of a cataclysm, there may have been no engineers, no experts in science-based medicine. But they may have had knowledge in farming, irrigation, plumbing and even rudimentary masonry. And as is easily viewed around the world it seems as if ancient sites were in some cases piggybacked by those who followed. The proof lies in the deterioration of construction techniques showcasing superior construction the older the site with the newer construction falling woefully short of their predecessors. So, yes, to answer your question about the differences in the pottery, some could be much older than others. Again, it seems only logical that the descendants of dispersed people would try valiantly to copy the constructions of their elders. The walls of Machu Picchu provide ample evidence of a newer civilization unable to construct with the techniques of the older builders. With homo sapiens having arrived 300,000 years ago, it seems only reasonable that some advancements would have been made. Yet science wants us to believe that our intelligence only arrived 5 minutes ago, in the grand scheme of things. Sorry, the premise itself is deeply flawed. Science has proven it will lie to protect itself, which seems to be an affront to science itself. The world of science all agrees that our world will end in a climate disaster in (insert the years or months based on the climate cult to which you belong). Or, as scientist, we will ignore facts about COVID19, its origins or its possible treatments. According to our controllers, COVID19 came from a bat or pangolin, no chance it came from a lab, and of course ivermectin is nothing more than a horse dewormer. So, when you tell me everything began in Sumer, and there was nothing before, I simply do not believe you. Science is not supposed to be irrational. In fact, I always thought science was both the first and last frontier. When you can adequately explain polygonal masonry with 10-ton stones whereby they seemingly fit together with a precision almost unimaginable, then you will win another convert to your side of the aisle. Till then, I will stay open minded.
Gobekli Tepe isn't a civilization. You might want to look into the definition. The reason why we know about Gobekli Tepe is because archeologists worked to find it. If you knew it existed you should have told someone so it could have been discovered sooner.
The reason I tag Gobekli Tepi is the very real fact that construction does not occur in a vacuum. So, who built Gobekli Tepi? And no, archeologist did not work to find Gobekli Tepi, it was literally stumbled upon. Yes, it was an archeologist (Klaus Schmidt) who was the gentleman who found the stone outcropping of GT. Regardless of who or how it was found, GT proves there was a civilization apparently capable of stone cutting to a degree that was unknown throughout most of the world, at least according to scholars and archeologist who stamp the beginning of our civilization in Sumer, 3000 - 6000 years after GT. With the Mesopotamian civilization being older than the Indus Valley civilization which both occurred much, much later than GT. @@NinjaMonkeyPrime
@@tomhollandinc _"The reason I tag Gobekli Tepi is the very real fact that construction does not occur in a vacuum. So, who built Gobekli Tepi?"_ That doesn't change the fact that it is not a civilization by the very definition of the word. As far as who built it, we have evidence of the hunter gatherers in the region and no evidence of anyone else.
_"And no, archeologist did not work to find Gobekli Tepi, it was literally stumbled upon. Yes, it was an archeologist (Klaus Schmidt) who was the gentleman who found the stone outcropping of GT"_ That is incorrect. The issue was it was first identified as an old burial ground and thus ignored. Schmidt went back to look after finding evidence there might be something significant. Hancock had zero to do with any of that.
_"Regardless of who or how it was found, GT proves there was a civilization apparently capable of stone cutting to a degree that was unknown throughout most of the world"_ Wrong again. That isn't evidence of a civilization. You should really look up the definition of that word. We also have clear evidence of them working with the stone in the nearby quarry. It's not a mystery at all.
_"at least according to scholars and archeologist who stamp the beginning of our civilization in Sumer, 3000 - 6000 years after GT."_ Wrong again. GT is now the oldest structure discovered because before it was discovered we didn't know it existed. Why do you expect scientists to estimate something that wasn't found?
A structure does not make a civilization. And science can only tell you the oldest known structure by what evidence they have at that time. No one predicted GT because there was no evidence of GT.
Don't fall for the Hancock lie that science said GT was impossible.
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.
Another vase from another well documented and well credentialed antiquities collection gets measured and scanned by reputable facilities every few days... I know of at least 10 that have been scanned on professional equipment with the videos of the scanning and the results of the scans being published online for free. At this point UnchartedX has already began the process of acquiring museum vases for scans, and at least one museum is cooperating. (Flinders Petrie Museum) We are rapidly approaching the moment where World of Antiquities will have to say "Well I guess I was wrong." to which everyone will react "Who cares? No one expected you to be right. You're not an Egyptologist, you're not a stoneworking or machining expert, you're not in a field adjacent to archaeology. You are a historian of Old Testament history. Synagogues pay you to write essays on historical sites to make Bible stories seem more credible. It's weird that you even had an opinion on this topic, let alone made multiple videos on it...."
*UnchartedX has already began the process of acquiring museum vases for scans*
You hear that everyone? UnchartedX has begun the process! I guess that's all we need to know. Nate is already sold.
@@WorldofAntiquity A museum has directly expressed interest in coordinating a scan. You built half of your argument on insisting that the vase itself is a fake. You have a dishonest representation of how meticulously credentialed antiquities can be, and you pretend to not know that these vases have been documented and recorded to exist a lot longer than "modern CNC fakes" have been possible. It's one thing for you to dismiss a dozen vases from multiple collections that have previously been listed on reputable dealing sites and come with thorough paperwork. When it comes directly from a museum, you'll have no 'whatabouts' left. Within the next year or so you might find yourself eating crow. The good news is you sitting in your sweater vest calling anyone who disagrees with your narrative an 'atlantis bro' doesn't actually affect the progress on measuring these vases in any way. While the lispy history nerds say the artifacts aren't worth studying, the metrologists and mathematicians will move on forward.
@@N8Dulcimer A museum has expressed interest? Work complete!
@@WorldofAntiquity there's still time to get on the right side of history, here. nobody will judge you for changing your mind, but we WILL judge you for refusing to acknowledge reality.
@@AustinKoleCarlisle Factual actual, but honestly, he posted these comments well after the last vase video got released, so at this point he's already denying reality and frankly his responses to me are childish. He's just mocking the premise that these vases are being studied because the results of those studies conflict his narrative, and are getting danger close to proving that he is unqualified to speak on the topic.
Wait, you think you can't prove Atlantis by measuring a vase?
🤣
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.
you dont know what you're talking about, dude. I can prove the existence of Atlantis by opening my Xbox and open AC Odyssey. Check mate atheists! 🤣
@@JohnnyWednesday in a cave! With a box of scraps!
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 😁😂
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 😊 !
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
Excellent vid, Dr M. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Perfect video title also 😆
Thank you, Lee!
That vase could be a flux capacitor used to time travel. Just needs a lil plutonium. Check the sacred geometry bro. I think we are looking at a space vase sent thru Stargate Atlantis 20,000 years ago, maybe, i mean it could be, we dont know.
YOOOO THE VIDEO IS BACK
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!
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.
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......... 🤨
Hes a fan of Hancock and this is Hancock's theory.
@@Leeside999 you people are thick and a waste of time
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...
I just saw the title itself and burst out laughing. THE SHADE! 🤣
Looks like he's got another video about Vases, Atlantis confirmed right??
Darwin's evolution, okay?! Here we have a flightless creature, oh here is has evolved wings....oh no, evolution had become DEvolution as birds (willingly??) gave up their wings to settle as penguins in the worlds coldest continent. Yes, sounds like a sound theory...
Logic much
@@bujfvjg7222 There is no 'devolution' because evolution has no predetermined direction. A lot of people think it does, including a famously bad Star Trek episode, but it doesn't. It's what's useful in those particular conditions. So a creature living in a jungle evolves wings and that's useful, it can chase insects and fly away from predators, so that stays. Then some of its descendants move into colder places until having lots of blubber to keep warm becomes more useful than flying, and now being big and fat is an advantage even if it means they're too heavy to fly. A penguin works very well in its own habitat, even if it is sort of a bird that's evolved into a fish.
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.
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.
@@Mr.Robot90 Pretty sure UnchartedX is in the Grandcock fanclub, so it is humans (who used (magic) drugs to talk to interdimensional (alien) beings who taught them how to build machines). Much like him, this approaches but doesn't quite reach the third layer of nested brackets.
Imagine taking the time and effort to coordinate a highly precise vase whose geometry is entirely built off of a scale of function of a base unit, " R(x) = (√6/2)^x " which basically means that the radius of a circle sized at "x" base units is equal to the square root of 6 over 2 to the power of x.
So you make a vase with 12 radii and all 12 of them relate to each other through this function as different values of x, and now imagine your machinery is so precise that the median level of deviation between your product and your mathematical model is about *1/3000th of an inch.* Now imagine some guy who has all the tools and mathematical knowledge necessary to study your vase, and looks at all of this, and still tells you that you chipped a rock to make a cup.
@@N8Dulcimer It's so cosmically precise that the holes on each handle are asymmetrical.
Once that charlaten UnchartedX actually manages to prove high degrees of precision in objects with known provenance, people will start taking this seriously. Until then, this vase could have been made 20 years ago and you'd have no evidence to suggest otherwise.
What gets me about the claim that accuracy means the object can't be hand made is that, when we need a super accurate turning to be made, it is often given to one of the few remaining master craftsmen to lathe by hand. Also talking about accuracy is always misleading, because: accuracy to what? Those objects that slide together with an invisible seam are accurate to each other, but what is a turned pot accurate to? Only the roundness to itself can be assessed and if you think that the dynastic egyptians didnt have some kind of lathe with a decently consistent centre of rotation, and the time of a master craftsman to make such a high value item (on the basis that all such items are usually found in the tombs of high status people and in context of other high status items), yhe youre just willfully insane.
They usually claim accurate or precise to itself but you are correct in that the reality that has nothing to do with what the artist was trying to do.
by accuracy they mean low deviation throughout the whole object
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. .
So, have we asked the top tier potters to make their most accurate works, take ten from each, and then ask non professional potters or just random people to do the same. Then, take a sample of this work to see the rate of accuracy when you add in people who have done this all their lives along with the average joe. I bet it's not as good as previous works because they were forced to make these objects for everything they did.... food, beauty, laundry, funerals.... for primitive Piping and chamber pots. They used pottery for everything.
Now that we hold a method of measurement, I think we need to do a large-scale sample. Not sure how to ensure accuracy but i have faith that its possible to do with a high level of confidence. Even given current logic... id put money on old potters being way better at their jobs because of the scope of the demand for their work. I can eyeball to a rediculous degree... being able to see a canted gun down to a very small margin of error.... if i can do this.... why couldnt they.
Yes - you make an important point. The ancient Egyptians as we still see today had "castes of craftsmen" who produced various items - using mediums either ubiquitous in use and/or sought after by some - relative to their individual skill levels. Such skills were taught and subsequently honed over a lifetime resulting in individuals capable of achieving aesthetically "precise" objects - or if one prefers "museum quality work". Because stone and pottery were standard fare back then the craftsmen of the time would be highly skilled in its use.
So when considering how something was made it is paramount to account for the skill level of the craftsmen and the amount of effort employed in its creation. Michelangelo was widely considered to be a master craftsman who created works of art etc. using different mediums. Yet not everything made by him reflects the same level of skill/aesthetic quality. His magnificent Pieta was commissioned by a wealthy Cardinal for their tomb. Accordingly it reflects the high degree of detail he is famous for. Yet he also created the "cruder" Tondo Pitti - in far less time. As a quickie commission piece to be sold it therefore lacks the precision and quality seen in the Pieta.
So same craftsman = yet different outcomes because the intent behind them was different as was the time and resources devoted to their creation. The "alternative" schtick folks need to understand is built upon: "assumption" & "generalization". They cherry pick high quality examples of things to then generalize upon that while ignoring other items which might reflect lower quality for different reasons - yet still represent the same civilization. Then as now = you got what you paid for.
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.
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.
Thanks! For exposing the liar/frauds and revealing only the facts as best you can. 👍🙏 a valuable virtue worth highlighting
And thank you!
The only thing discredited here is the author if this shitty, misleading video.
Typical strawman arguments. Lets see you make a vase like this with copper tools, Mr. Sweater Vest.
You make one with one of those ancient sophisticated computer-guided machines that "must have been used" first.
@Leeside999 like another user said, it's Mr. Sweater Vest's responsibility to demonstrate how these vases were made using primitive means. Until he does all of his arguments fall short in convincing.
@@robblinnbailey583 No, it's his "responsibility" to relay the evidence for supporting his arguments - which he does. If you want see how vases can be made using primitive tech, check out the demonstrations cited in this very video. Alternatively, you could commission someone to make one for you.
@@Leeside999 the only people claiming these vases could be made using primitive tools is your side. the burden of proof is on your side. sorry, that's how arguments work. if you can't substantiate your claim, then please refrain from using it in an argument.
@@AustinKoleCarlisle Are you still not aware that someone already recreates ancient vases using primitive tech? They're shown in this video.
Hour and a half video, snarky title, Atlantis? Buckle in, this is gonna be a good one.
I find the title of the video to be untrue, making me question your intent. I'm all for debating this but I've never heard Ben claim these vases prove Atlantis existed. I also dont understand why its so hard to grasp that we are clearly missing alot of information on how these ancient civilizations were able to achieve such impressive granite work. I dont have the answers but it wasnt done by hand 😂 and are you also buying the claim that the pyramids were merely tombs?
So what do you prefer we call the lost advanced civilization that Ben is trying to prove by measuring this vase?
So a sarcophagus isn't evidence of a tomb?
@WorldofAntiquity it's not all tied to Atlantis, you're using that to try and write him off. The main point I'm trying to get across is all that's left from that time is stone. I think it's foolish for us to think we have all the answers regarding their history. It's entirely possible the pyramids etc go back even further than we're lead to believe. This planet has been here for a long time so who's to say humans haven't become advanced multiple times throughout the Earth's life. Just look at how far we've came in the last 100 years, that's a short time frame juxtaposed to how old the Earth and humans are.
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Its possible, but I don't think they would build an entire pyramid almost 500 ft tall for it's primary function to be a tomb. Seems like alot don't you think? Gotta be more to the story imo and we're missing alot of evidence. It's a reach to say that it was just a tomb due to the presence of a sarcophagus
@@RuiN4265 Are you seriously confused about humans building large structures for God's?
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.
To be clear….if that gauge is measuring tenths, just moving that hand wheel could be more than enough to completely hide imperfections. That’s why metrologists use surface plates and leave the subject in place while moving the gauge across the test surface while making sure the mount’s base stays in full contact with surface plate.
Thank goodness none of them work in the aerospace industry....🙄🤔
@@bujfvjg7222 nothing says professional machinist, QI tech, like tolerance stacking the crap out of your test setup, then proclaiming super human accuracy of test subject 🤦. I can’t believe no one in that room at least said something.
@@outtodoubt they had it in a cmm. It's most definitely better than a granite plate you reject.
@@outtodoubt it's called accumulative error. They put it in a cmm, look up what that is before you pretend to be clever.
@@I-HAVE-A-BOMB it’s also called tolerance stacking across manufacturing industries in the US. Maybe you live outside North America, but that’s the term used here. Not trying to sound clever…that is just how words do. I don’t care about the cmm. I’m watching these dolts decry grand superhuman accuracy while stacking multiple (redundant) points of error to take a “precision” measurement. Clear evidence they don’t know what they’re doing or talking about. And your “but gee golly they used this thing” comment is equally meaningless without giving error ranges and dimensional tolerances. This is how we measure for “precision”. That is how industry works whether you like it or not.
Can anyone today create anything similar using handtools?
If so, it´s debunked right?
If not...
I have no idea im just asking.
I hear it's easier to build a glass vase if you use a big hammer ⚒️
I think that has been done actually.
Did you even listen/watch the video before asking the question? He mentions the exact same thing and links to a Russian video on description. Final product is pretty impressive for amateur vase makers. Now imagine an Egyptian vase maker coming from a five fucking thousand years of vase making culture, how well could they craft the vase?
So, yeah. It's debunked.
Glad the video is back up - I wanted a second watch!
Thanks so much!
Thought of the Day: what is a "thousands of an inch" + what would that mean to an ancient Egyptian - and why would they even care???
Moral of the story: concepts based upon thousands of an inch or whatever represent = modern systems we created for ourselves...... Think about that.
So taking modern metrics as far as dimensional analysis and using those to supposedly demonstrate purported impossibility as far a dimensional outcomes for ancient manufacturing is actually a flawed approach. An Egyptian craftsman creating something had no such "constructs" in their minds when working. They simply created things as far as artistic objects largely based upon "appearance" - and when working on constructing something they of course used their own system of measurement.
Thus: how can measuring an object using modern methods supposedly disprove an ancient object which was created without consideration of the same????
This flawed methodological approach for supposedly demonstrating implausibility is actually not any different from when people try to ascribe all sorts of "correlations" to the pyramids based upon modern concepts the ancient Egyptians were not even aware of - aka _"statistical fallacies."_ So do not get distracted by "the numbers" = instead consider what they are supposed to represent and how that relates to what you actually see and the context behind it. Enjoy your day folks.
Reading some of the comments makes me so sad for all of you people. How about you prove them wrong instead of calling them names. Less and less people are taking you seriously.
Anyone can make a rebuttal video, but it seems like only a select few are willing to do the testing.
There is nothing for us to prove. There are claims being dispersed from Ben's side and no proof to accompany those claims.
A man sticks his hand on a hot stove = gets burned.
A man sticks his hand on a hot stove = gets burned.
A man sticks his hand on a hot stove = gets burned...........
Moral of the story: at some point reality must intrude. Ben et al = keep sticking their hand on the hot stove to subsequently be corrected by actual experts as here - which they simply ignore to repeat their flawed arguments ad nauseam......... So what do you call it when a person clings to a dubious belief despite numerous individuals "in the know" pointing out they are wrong??? Answer: _"willful stooopidity"_ - which then merits some rebuke by others given the intransigence of the person(s).
p.s. - you as is sadly all to common approach this backwards in that you assume possible plausibility for Ben's argument and hence demand of academia to disprove it = when as alluded to it has never actually been shown to be plausible. That represents a poor assumption for your part + it further represents the "special pleading fallacy" in that you demand evidence via demonstrations of academia which = you do not do for Ben et al.
In truth Ben should try to duplicate a vase to show it supposedly is not possible with a given technology. All he does is measure one = and make unsubstantiated claims based upon those measurements......
@@Eyes_Open I mean all the scan data is literally available on his site 🤷♀️
@@JayBear-vj4my The scan data (not the raw data) is available and what does it prove?
@@Eyes_Open the date, proves that those artifacts cannot be handmade without the aid of advanced tools
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.
All very good points --the only thing that makes sense to me is that somehow it was "easy" , i.e. practical for the ancients to make these objects. It is certainly not practical, maybe not even possible to make these vases using the known Egyptian tool kit. This implies some other technology, what that is, is unknown.
that is literally the dumbest thing I have read all day. But do go on living in that delusional fantasy world where there are no educated people involved in archaeology.
@@LordDavidVader Give me some names, babylegs
@@I-HAVE-A-BOMBAre you for real? You are not the sharpest tool in the shed are you?
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
An ancient industrialized society existed yet unlike our own it didn't mass produce items, which you'd think is the defining feature of industrialization, but instead just made a scattering of one off products to a very high precision. Oh and also it left no evidence of any of tje machinery and infrastructure actually necessary for an industrialized society nor do we see any indications that the mineral ores so fundamental to our industrial society have been mined by anyone other than us. Apparantly this society made computers without silicon, or any of the rare earth minerals needed to manufacture them, had power without burning coal, oil, gas nor did they dam any rivers or produce the glass fiber necessary to build wind tunnels and again they did not mine silicon and got around without trains, cars, ships, airplanes, space craft or any other method of transport we know of.
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".
I have always admired the work of dedicated artisans. They're kind of crazy. They will spend whatever amount of time and energy it takes to produce a fine object.
Take Dr. Miano, for instance. He produces video after video-thoughtful, well-researched, information packed, evidence-based, humorous, drenched in rationality...and all to within thousandths of an inch. Thanks, Doc.
A human finger is biologically incapable of feeling 0.003" total out of roundness. Feeling 0.001" of surface deviation is possible, but feeling 0.003" of total indicator out of roundness is not.
@@smh9902 You don't use human fingers to carve round objects, you just spin them around a central axis.
@@hedgehog3180 I never claimed that anyone uses human fingers to carve objects. I said that it is impossible for human fingers to ascertain the overall length or roundness of an object that is 4" or greater to nanometer precision using touch and naked sight alone. If an object is out of round, and every object is to a greater or lesser extend is at least somewhat out of round, there is after all no such thing as a perfect cylinder, then we must measure how out of round it is. There are four broad categories of this error, least square circle, minimum zone circle, minimum circumscribed circle, and maximum inscribed circle. There are also rates of ellipse but thats a little too deep for a surface level introduction. Regardless, the point of the matter is that our of roundness is a real thing, and requires precision measuring tools and datums to measure. A common method used to measure cylinders is the intrinsic datum method, where you take a cylinder, place it on a precision surface plate, and roll it under a dial indicator. Repeat this process across multiple datum points and starting positions, and record the lowest and greatest heights. This is your accuracy to perfect ideal roundness measurement. This is measured in such a way because neither your eyes nor your fingers can determine how round something is to this degree of precision. However, this method only works for cylinder. This is a compound curved object, which makes measuring far more difficult. Yet this object is accurate to a greater precision than all modern engine pistons.
@@smh9902 So?
What's irritating about these ancient alien types is how insulting they are to ancient peoples skill and knowledge. If you could travel back in time to an ancient Egypt workshop during one of its prosperous/peaceful times you would be amazed by what you see. You would see teams of highly skilled craftsmen making all kinds of things big and small very efficiently and much faster than any modern man could ever dream of.
These people were trained since they were children to do the work and the people training them had done the work for a lifetime just as their teachers did and this went on for literally thousands of years unbroken. They didn't have TV and a million other distractions, if they wanted to work on a stone vase for 12 hours a day (whether by choice or demanded of them) then that's exactly what they did......day in and day out. This was not a weekend hobby this was their life and since ancient Egypt was extremely religious all of this work had a higher purpose.
This cannot be recreated in the modern world, the tools are foreign to us and we have no ancient master stone workers to train us the long lost techniques, nor do we have the drive and patience to do the work every day for years. We are starting from almost zero again and although it's impressive what some youtubers have created with ancient tools it will never match what the ancients did. That's why these open "challenges" these alt history types throw out asking people to make these same objects today is absurd.
It is doubtful their visual scanner especially when combined with stl software to create tesselations is accurate to 0.001 inches. Where are their repeatability and reproducibility studies? That shows they are more impressed with their own skills than is justified. Second they do not know what the measurement units were or what their target dimensions were. They can only assess roundness and symmetry not accuracy. They are wrong about manufacturing in the 1980s. I personally did machining and die making for electronics to 0.0001 inch tolerances with manual machines and hand drawn blueprints. That had been done in the 1950s or earlier. Hand scraping and lapping had been done to build precision gauging and machine ways since the 1930s or earlier. So these guys are pitifully wrong and ignorant even in their own area of supposed expertise.
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😂
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.
the notion that ancient cultures must have relied on our technology because we do so is the height of arrogance.
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.