Dudes Think They Can Prove Atlantis by Measuring a Vase 

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

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.

@@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.

Don't laugh, I'm sure someone actually believes this.

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?

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.

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."

Back up with the added shame of being known to have tried to suppress it. 😂

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 🤣

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

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.

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!

Actually me too!

Years lurking around on YT and never came across those guys...

Yes. Creating a thing by machine presupposed a desire to achieve given dimensions. Accordingly as you alluded to what follows should be = consistency of replication. Further having perfected the technique one should subsequently see repetition in the form of countless things produced which are dimensional duplicate for as long as the tech was employed. If however you have multiple craftsmen who are following "a template" as far as aesthetic style then you will end up with visually similar pieces as far as how they look = with variations as far as actual dimensional outcome - reflecting the relative skill of the craftsmen and the time and resources they devoted to their project. As an aside. The false rationale behind the "alternative" claims of supposed "machined" stone vases or whatever also applies to other things. Consider the "geopolymer" nonsense. There also one sees people claiming blocks supposedly created from mixtures/molds = yet the actual blocks we see reflect wide variance of outcome. How can that be??? Common sense say blocks created from molds should show uniformity in size/shape/consistency.

Okay...but according to Egyptologists they didn't have machines...they allegedly made these precise granite vases with chisels, pounding stones, and abrasives.

@@ericosoave and your point is what. I couldn't put a door frame in by EYE BUT a good chippy can

@@markbriten6999 nobody's putting in a door frame in at +/- 5 thou. Your surface grinder is made from cast iron which ancient egyptians did not have.

@@ericosoave Olga from Scientists Against Myths has finished her first diorite vase recently. The video is coming soon. It seems you don't need machinery to shape hard-stone as experimental archaeology shows.

@@ericosoave they had potters wheels, and abrasives. That's a lathe. But it's all beside the point. The purported provenance of the object under discussion has zero credibility. Any debate about the technology of the day has no relevance, since it could have been made relatively recently. You might as well be arguing how ancient Egyptians could have produced a '67 Ford Mustang rag top that belonged to King Tut, because a dodgy antiquities dealer has one to sell you.

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!

Why would this highly accurate object not be a fake? "Uhm, some families, 1800s, saqqara, and did you know it looks ancient?"

Reminds me of how Von Daniken, of “Chariots of the Gods” fame, acquired his artifacts. He went to the area where the locals were known to surface finds with some regularity, and mentioned to his guide that he was hoping to find evidence of [insert theory here]. A few days later, just such a find would come on the market. He ended up with golden artifacts depicting Mesoamerican UFOs, flying machines, all sorts of wild nonsense. It did untold damage by fueling pseudoarchaeology, but it was a major windfall for the folks who just happened to find wacky artifacts when the nutty white man was in town.

(Though for the record, it’s a nice vase. If I were more into ancient Egypt, I’d be happy to own a piece like it, even if it’s just a well-done replica.)

@@mrjones2721 I seem to recall something similar happened in Argentina (I think?) in the 1940's; a young earth creationist was furnished with 'ancient' figurines depicting humans interacting with dinosaurs, which he would buy for a pesos each from a local farmer who would conveniently dig them up as needed. Went on for decades apparently, and is still mentioned as evidence by young earth creationists today.

Your just another doubter who doesn't do any work just criticism cuz your jeoulous

Germane to your point. Egyptologists over the years have uncovered underground caches of mummified animals = literally millions of them. They reflected a wide array of quality with some representing "museum quality" mummification - and others being little more than "knock-offs". An example of the latter would be what appears to be a cat which upon being x-rayed showed to be nothing more than sticks wrapped in linen in the shape of a cat. So the point being an entire industry produced what they found which catered to the customer as the mummified objects were intended as votive offerings or as burial items for tombs. Then as now as you alluded to = they had something for everyone depending upon how much the customer wanted to spend. A craftsman can make you a cheap facsimile - or if you wish to make the investment they can take the time to create museum quality work. It is up to their patron/customer.

Yeah...even across Europe in the middle ages and up into the infamous workhouses there were industries catering to producing the same statues over and over again for the aristocracies' gardens, using nearly unskilled labor. (I say nearly unskilled because surely people working there learned something after awhile.) Amazing what you can do with simple pantagraphs ...which we pretty much know they had.

​@@AveragePicker You simply don't comprehend precision and what it takes to achieve it. Measure those statues in the same way as the vases, and you'll find that they're far, _far_ from this level of precision in relation to each other. There's a book titled "Foundations of Mechanical Accuracy" that goes into detail what it takes to achieve various levels of precision, and the history of the iterative development of mechanical accuracy throughout the centuries. Just getting the first flat enough reference surface to start building machines with any degree of precision is a laborious process requiring three stone surfaces to be ground against each other. There is no timeline of the slow development of mechanical accuracy in ancient Egypt. It just kind of appears, which is exceedingly unlikely.

@spracketskooch It does not just appear. There is a very clear line of development. And you are basically trying to sell back some hyperbolic language and making pretty grand claims that do not apply to this. But there have been plenty of videos countering the claims made by x (including the misuse of tools and that he's cherry picked his own data...you can find his raw numbers and they don't suggest the claims he makes) with his vases and my one more comment on it isn't going to make a difference. You're determined that a people couldn't work stone. ...ever question all the exact same matching relief work done over and over on a cathedral? Let me guess, somehow that isn't the same thing. Lol

@@spracketskooch It's the combination of the precision of the objects and the sheer number that have been found. Think how many must have been lost and it implies that these objects were *mass produced*. Decorative objects done to an insane level of precision just churned out by the thousands. The question is not only how, but why?

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. .

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!

This would be a different level of forgery though. Just making vases with walls that thin out of such hard, brittle stone would be exceedingly difficult, without even worrying about high symmetry and precision. It would also be realistically like at least 9 - 15 thousand dollars worth of forgery. Possible I suppose. We'd have an entirely new mystery on our hands if true. What kind of psycho goes to those lengths to fool these guys? Because regardless of if they're correct or not, they actually believe what they're claiming.

@@spracketskooch Considering these videos get millions of views there is obviously a market. Though your figure is fucking insane, give me a CNC lathe and I could make it for 200$, if it was mass produced it probably only cost little more than the materials themselves to produce.

@@spracketskooch _"What kind of psycho goes to those lengths to fool these guys?"_ The one making thousands of dollars out of youtube videos.

@@spracketskooch It wouldn’t take *anywhere near* that amount of money to reproduce a vase of this quality with today’s technology.

​@@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv Ok, how much would it cost then? Give me an estimate. Then multiply that by five to include the other vases. I'm willing to be wrong, but not based on what is essentially a "nuh uh".

So ridiculous. I wish Hancock and they all knew how completely ridiculous they are.

Lol, almost everyone that has been asked has refused to debate, or even appear with any of these guys. The few times it has happened it has always been interesting at the very least. Pretty hard to have a balanced panel when the opposition won't even engage with you. Disingenuous bullshit.

@@spracketskooch Pick any topic you consider yourself an expert on, then see if you are willing to debate someone with very little expertise but who has a lot of "theories". Not exactly productive is it.

@@minimumriffage7520 Then don't complain that there isn't opposition on the panel. Also, yes, personally I would do that. I enjoy arguing though. Whatever happened to embarrassing your opponent in a debate? Take an unproductive day to have fun and flex your knowledge at little bit.

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.

Holy shit, you've actually realized a huge problem with the dating of stone constructions. Just because you find some organic material that dates to a certain period does not mean the construction was built at that time. Just because someone carves their name on something does not mean that they created it.

@@spracketskooch It sounds as if you think that only a single dating method is applied to date archaeological sites.

@@spracketskooch Egypt is absolutely rife with dating inconsistencies. Most of the incredible sites there were not constructed during the reign of a single Pharaoh, but most likely were built upon over thousands of years. Most sites are dated to the cartouche of the oldest known pharaoh, but we know that before the 5th Dynasty, the Egyptian civilization did not engrave cartouches or heiroglyphics on their structures. Some of the oldest structures such as the Valley Temple and The Osirion have almost no markings on them, likely because they were almost completely buried by the time the Middle-Kingdom Pharaohs came around and started putting their name on everything, which is further testament to their extreme age. Pharaohs like Ramses II were some of the worst offenders, he's carved his name on hundreds of these sites, many which are known to be far older construction. Dating of organic material is a bit harder to get around, but could it could be explained that the mortar may have been used in repairing older structures, as the oldest builders in Egypt generally didn't use mortar (and the oldest buildings are FAR more impressive from an engineering standpoint than the Middle and New-Kingdom buildings).

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.

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

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".

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.

Also 12-15 hour work days, no OSHA, and no labor unions... you're gonna get A LOT done.

yeah, but that's boring and mundane, lost advanced civilizations and aliens are a much more exciting explanation.

Just like a catholic who doesn't need evidence of God? 😂

@M1ggins :: Science and scientific studies are much-more exciting. Advanced civilizations and aliens are better left to sci-fi writers.

@@dreamthread Think about what you said. I know you didn't think about it before you posted it. Think. That would apply to the ancient advanced technology argument and not the "craftsmen existed" argument. Because craftsmen existed. We can read their pay records. We have found their graves. Found their workshops. Found in-progress work. They did exist. Literally 100% of the evidence supports the existence of people skilled at handicrafts and that's why you don't need aliens or lost advanced civilizations. The advanced civilization argument IS the "Catholic who doesn't need evidence of God" side of this discussion. Because they have no evidence, and the more they try to explain their way around not having evidence the more they openly rely on blind faith.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 😊 !

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.

where do you get the idea this entire theory is based on one object? ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QzFMDS6dkWU.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.

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

Being VERY generous - especially considering that the objects are very simple despite how well crafted they are. Though by comparison to the average Hindu stone sculpture I saw in the V&A museum in London back in december they seem positively primitive - they're just basic geometric shapes with no asymmetric detail, no deep relief carvings or anything else to indicate a truly gifted artisan at work.

I think the point would still stand why these ancient pre history vases... Only turned up at the time along side the "imitations". Why wouldnt we find examples all the way back to the invented ancient pre history society.

@@acu01136 I just gave the most benefit of the doubt I could, I was never saying the argument was then unassailable.

@@mnomadvfx stonework in India rarely gets the attention it deserves

But, don't you know, the ancient Hindu stuff couldn't possibly have been made by b̶r̶o̶w̶n̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ err ancient humans, it must have been made by Space Aliens or at least the the Aryan Atlanteans or Hyperboreans. All of these alternate history notions seem to have a core of religious and/or racist beliefs, as well as hostility to critical thinking and science.@@mnomadvfx

They had a new vase manufactured, then they measured it, cleaned up the data, and presented a video saying they scanned an old vase...

if even a moment, lol

You are talking about the conspiracy of our civilisation began 6000 years ago?

@@carlos_castanaut common buddy make the argument for your conspiracy

@@carlos_castanaut You really think you're clever don't you lol

That is simply not true. People back then worked to survive, all day everyday. They didn't have time to slowly carve dozens of insane vases. We have _much_ more free time today. I'd also be willing to bet that there's only a handful of people on Earth that could recreate some of those vases. I don't think people appreciate just how difficult it would be to get walls that thin using hard, brittle stone like that. I would really like someone to take a stab a recreating these vases, just to see what it would actually take to make one, no more speculation.

So if you have more time than you can come to this perfection?

@@spracketskooch You are incredibly confident for someone who has apparantly never heard of the concept of the division of labor. Like the guys making fine pottery for kings were obviously not subsistence farmers.

@@carlos_castanaut I mean this vase is likely from the 19th century so yeah.

​​@@spracketskooch We have more free time, but our time is infinitely more valuable due to an exponential increase in opportunity cost. People paid by royalty and nobles to make these things...well quite frankly had nothing better to do most of the time. We would balk at working 10 or 12 hour days 6 or even 7 days a week on what we deem a mundane task, but that's because we have such abundance that a) covering the costs of basic survival is fairly simple in developed countries and b) we have a billion things we can do to satisfy our desires instead. If we are bored or frustrated or whatever we can go grab a bite to eat and have our preferred food in minutes. We can play a video game, watch a movie, go on RU-vid, socialize on social media, play sports, all manner of things to do. This means any hour we spend doing one thing incurrs a high opportunity cost. Back then, the options one could do with one's time were profoundly limited. Do as long as they were paid to do this, yes, people would spend nearly every day of their lives making vases. And as a result, you would have a substantial number of masterful craftsmen.

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

It was only on a short term lease from an alien company so it is probably used somewhere else in the galaxy right now...

But we don't know who built the pyramid. Only because a tiny statue was found in one of its gangways proves nothing. Probably lost by some tourist 3000 years ago.

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 Great, now all you need is to find the advanced machine with 5 axis of motion!

@@San_Vito Actually, you need to prove that such precision can be made by hand with bronze age tools. I'm the skeptic here, not you. I'm not saying that it was made with a 5 axis machine, but if we were to make it in our era doing so would require a 5 axis machine. Perhaps the makers had something radically different. Regardless of how it was made, I'm skeptical of the claims that it was made by hand. If you claim it was made by hand using bronze age tools you need to prove it.

It's about the relation between the different radii, not about an exact number.

I'm not sure I understand what the OP is getting at, but if you are given a line of any given unit (inch, centimeter, cubit, microfurlong...), it's trivial to produce another line that is φ of that unit long with just a ruler and a compass. To produce √2 (another irrational), you don't even need the compass. And π is just the circumference of a circle with diameter 1, so you could, for example, make yourself a cylinder of the appropriate width, mark a point on the edge, and roll it once along your papyrus or sandstone or whatever to produce your line. No computers needed - the whole reason numbers like this are considered interesting is *because* they arise from simple, common geometric figures like circles, squares, and regular pentagons.

Dude, don't quote your dad like that. It's rude.

@@spracketskooch Goddamn you have the brain of a 5 year old.

That is not at all the argument, and don't feel silly for not getting it. I am a machinist and i could make you this vase but it's going to cost you around 5-8k. Why would you do that when a 2 dollar vase works just as well. The argument is they had an extremely efficient and accurate manufacturing process. Not just bronze tools. Don't so quickly believe one person over the other watch both videos. This guy uses many under handed tactics such as sensationalism like as if Ben is trying to prove Atlantis is real by showing you how damn good Egyptians were at making vases. That is ridiculous.

you are too dumb to realize what it takes to make it, on the other hand

@@I-HAVE-A-BOMBjust the title of this video is retarded and misleading, mainstream historians and archeologist are just getting desperate at this point

"Open mind" absent credible, compelling evidence to lend to a supposed "alternative" = "imagination run amok". It also then demands to consider what is the nature of the supposed "alternative". Alas for the naysayers what they try to rationalize as a supposed alternative has more in common with Hollywood than actual history - so imagination run amok after all.

Most are so "openminded" it's gone splat on the floor

And then usually proceed to themselves dogmatically believe in whatever their pet theory is and refuse to even consider alternate explanations.

" think critically" and " do your own research " often go hand and hand with watching RU-vid videos that you agree with

Well its a needed phrase to trick people into believing they're in the right. You have to convince them that the establishment is corrupted and lost in its ways, incapable of accepting new findings! As if they're not constantly updating their fucking theories ffs

A human finger is biologically incapable of feeling 0.003" total out of roundness.

Right. And sticks with abrasive sure aren't going to wear down either lol

@@smh9902 Human fingertips are capable of feeling bumps down to the nanometer, and roundness is pretty easily achieved by just y'know spinning the object. Like people make telescope mirrors by hand using the simple technique of just spinning it.

@@hedgehog3180 You're talking about surface texture specifically, we are talking about deviations across over 4 inches. It is not possible for human fingers to tell if the overall length of an object is over or under what its supposed to be by nanometers. If I handed anybody two bars of metal, and one was nanometers less than 4 inches in length and the other nanometers over 4 inches in length, it would not be possible for any human being to measure or perceive this. If it was possible to do this then measuring tools of any type or kind would have never been invented. Regarding your comment about spinning, for one, this object has protrusions that preclude a turning process. Secondly, even if we disregarded the protrusions, you can not achieve high accuracy just by spinning. You also need precision bearings, because any play or clearance between your journal surfaces will also be evident and manifest on the object you're making. Precision bearings require precision honing and lapping. In the bearing world the deviation of the bearing is called run-out. This is also true for lathes and machine spindles in general. It is impossible to achieve perfect zero runout in any bearing. So when you say "you can achieve high precision by just spinning the object" you're really stating an incorrect assertion based on an oversimplifying the entire subject of metrology and machining. The fact of the matter is that this object exhibits a degree of precision thats more impressive than gauge blocks. No amount of "more time" or "more craftsmanship" will allow human beings to perceive whether a 4 inch round object is "out of roundness" by a fraction of the width of a red blood cell. Telescope mirrors are made of glass, and glass is a soft, amorpheous isotropic material that is easy to shape and polish, and is even easier to shape when heated. This object is made of rosestone granite and has carborundum inclusions. Carborundum is more commonly known as silicon carbide, at 9.5 on the mohs scale it is one of the hardest materials known to man. Because these are inclusions it increases the difficulty to shape this object as the relatively softer constituents of this igneous rock will abrade and be removed far faster than the carbide inclusions, which would necessarily lead to an inaccurate and rough object. What we see is a smooth and accurate object, which would only be possible with an exceptionally rigid work and tool holding system that did not deflect, bend, or vibrate while being used.

@@hedgehog3180 I guess one question for you is how do you make round an object that isn’t round initially? Even if you say it’s just that simple, you put a lumpy piece of rock into a lathe and even if the lathe is indicated to within 1 thou of an inch and is rigid enough to withstand the pressure, the bigger parts of the diameter would hit the cutting tool or wheel and probably crack and fracture a bunch of the workpiece off or the cutting tool. It would be a pain in the ass even with all of the finest equipment

😂 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.

Thank you, Lee!

What makes you think that every process was done using the same device?

@@Leeside999 Once you take out the object and put it into another machine/lace etc. then by definition you get a new reference point that differs from the previous one. One can figure this out by measuring. Same with changing a tool in the same machine. The new tool ist not exactly aligned as the previous one and all new cutting are according to the new reference point.

@@Leeside999 Because once you do a tool change you lose precisions, and so much precision is lost even with a modern milling machines tool change that a single tool change would throw the parts precision off by a greater degree than this objects degree of precision. In other words, it was done from start to finish with one tool.

Your eyes play tricks on you all the time..........

Find me a forgery of similar quality, and I'll buy it for you. It can be a trophy in remembrance of that time you silenced a youtube idiot.

That’s phenomenal. How long did it take you to research and learn how to do that and then physically carry it out?

And to think that was prior to RU-vid “how-to videos.”

​@@annascott3542 Checked out books from the county library. My mailman got me interested when he saw me setting up a telescope in the yard one evening. He had made one and gave me about 10 years worth of his old astronomy magazines and some leftover supplies. My first one was a 3" f9. I silvered the mirror with supplies I got at the camera shop. That was around '87 or '88 I researched my 7" for probably a couple months. Once I actually got started, the mirror set took about a week to grind and then about 2 weeks to correct(perfect is the arch enemy of good). I sent it out to have it aluminized. While the finish is excellent, the parabolic figuring isnt great and has some annoying aberration. I keep telling myself Im going to re-grind it some day.

But you had analysis tools to measure the precision. It would be interesting to analyze Charles Messier's telescope from 1780 to see how accurate it was without modern analysis tools. I'll bet it was still within 1 wave, but it sure would be interesting to see the numbers! I wonder if Lord Ross' 72 inch mirror still exists? There are lots of astronomical mirrors and lenses from the past that could be measured and analyzed to show that precision of shapes doesn't depend on computers and can be produced by hand.

@@RockinRobbins13 Its a little much to get into here, but I did a 'knife edge' test. Its relatively modern, like early 1800s(?), but its basically a candle, a razorblade and a peephole. Essentially, you set up the mirror at its focal distance, illuminate it with a lightbulb or candle and look at it through a peephole half covered by a razorblade, to view interference patterns on the surface. I would assume something similar was used for the earliest optics; Ive forgotten more of this stuff than I remember. You can lookup 'Foucault knife edge' for more info. I didn't have any elaborate apparatus, just a basic optical bench.

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.

Why is that wrong, specifically? As far as I can tell, geometry is an integral part of our understanding of the universe. The discovery of pi came directly from people exploring geometry, which they thought of as sacred, because it could reveal truths about reality.

@@spracketskooch Because it's completely wrong like what answer did you expect? Pi also doesn't tell you anything about tthe universe, it's just the ratio of the circumference of a circle to it's radius and nothing more. It shows up because circles are shockingly a very common shape. Just because we in modern science describe the universe with math does not mean that the universe is somehow intricately linked with math anymore than it is with language, and really math is just a language that happens to be very useful to science. Thinking that math somehow is linked to the universe is falling prey to the fallacy of not distinguishing between the sign and the signifier, just because math or a word describes something does not mean that it literally is the object.

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.

@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.

@FilzupBilburp to use your logic, because i do.

I'm sure they'd claim that all the identical vases have been lost to time.

If you watched the original video you'd see why it's not necessary to compare to another vase. They literally measured it again perfect computer generated shapes....Don't just watch the debunk video and immediately agree with them because you want to be a skeptic...watch both videos and draw your own conclusions. The only real criticism I agree with here is the questionable origin of the vase....assuming the vase is real, the measurements and accuracy of the vase speaks for itself and is beyond impressive. If it's fake, obviously it all crumbles....but we don't have a way of confirming or denying that. But assuming it's a real artifact, there is no need to compare it to a second artifact to conclude how magnificent and impossibly precise the vase is. Although scanning more would be very interesting and I'd love to see

Watch the original video, the arcs that define the shape are not possible to achieve without at minimum a Pantograph/tracer lathe. What you're referring to can also be proven by a single item having multiple consistent features or interrelated arcs (shared Centerpoints and/or vertical symmetry) which demonstrate pre-designed features vs freehand.

nobody denies that those artifacts were created by highly talented and educated artists with great effort. the only doubt is whether those artisans used tools more akin to modern lathes and precision calipers as the uncharted X team suggests or pounding rocks, sand and copper chisels as the Egyptologists suggest.

If someone commissioned a one off item let's say a chair is that not manufactured? I feel people think manufacture is only for large quantities and can't be used for referring to a single item.

The precision is entirely intended. And entirely achievable during the period when it was made.

⁠​⁠​⁠@@DonHavjuanI don’t think it’s accurate to say it’s “entirely intended”. I don’t see how we could possibly know that. It could just be a byproduct of the making process. Given that the ancient Egyptians had no way to measure such accuracy, it’s more likely a byproduct of the process. How could they intend a level of accuracy that they didn’t know even existed or could ever be measured. It could be like a gang saw, gang saw’s cut lines exactly parallel to each other. You don’t need to do it intentionally, the lines will be parallel whether you want them to be or not.

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?

They could tell it was made with L.O.V.E. 😅

Absolutely. Then as now you got what you paid for - consistent with the skill level of the craftsmen. Some parts of the pyramids as an example reflect a fair amount of precision = whereas some parts represent a considerable amount of "slop factor" - why?? Answer: "purpose". If the purpose was to be seen and appreciated then they made the effort to make it look good. If however no one was intended to see it then they did not concern themselves with appearances = merely functionality. So we see some examples likely from master craftsmen which might be termed as "museum quality" - then we see your run of the mill stuff likely for everyday use. Tutankhamun had a walking problem and subsequently his tomb contained many walking sticks. Those sticks however reflect varying levels of quality with some quite ornate and gilded with gold - and some just basic walking sticks which show some use his having used them in life.

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

Most of the points in this vídeo are really inaccurate. when you watch the original videos of @unchartedx there are information out of context or incomplete. This channel always try to have a lot of subscribers lying about what other said

@@MelvinCruz well he can be really lying can he? he quotes the source and show the original material with a time stamp underneath for everbody else to go and check out the exact original extract if we desire so. That is literally the most you can do without showing the whole original video. And also, how can you accuse this contect creator of lying to get suscribers but defend unchartedx, a guy who talks about electrical machinery before the dinastic period, about giants in England, about ancient computers designing vases, who sides with pseudo archeologist like Graham Handcock, and do all this without having profesional training or scientific expertise on the matter? I would check my double standards if I was you :) cheers!

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.

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?

I agree with possible lathe use but scientists disagree by 2k years, many of the jars in question are from approximately 3000 BC

@@far-middleTube drills.

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.

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.