Was this artifact technologically designed and manufactured?

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

You can sand wood smooth and flat but you can not sand it to a flatness of .003".  

They looked at thousands of points on the vase and most of them were within .003" of the correct place.  

Sure you can. 

Look at any gemstone.  They're actually polished by sanding (we used to run a tiny in-home lapidary.)  And we can easily do that with our tools.

ALSO... you're going on what they say in a video.  How do you know it's true (OMG!  THEY SHOWED IT IN A VIDEO!  THEY WOULDN'T POSSIBLY LIE OR MISADJUST THE EQUIPMENT OR EVEN FUDGE THINGS BECAUSE IT'S A VIDEO!!!!)

Okay, that's snarky, but I'm tired of videos that show "amazing results" being taken as gospel truth, because we've all seen videos that turned out to be lies (particulary in this field and in cryptozoology and UFOlogy) and with the new AI tools we have to be even more skeptical.

But people who see videos that present what they like aren't going to check to see if they're lies.

In any case, I think that if you examine things like statues and other products of the Egyptians you will find that they achieve this kind of polish frequently.  

I also kind of doubt that result because the surface of the jar isn't THAT shiny.

[Kenemet]

32 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

The double lion in the lower right, that has its origins in Mesopotamia correct? A variation of the Master of Beasts motif?

No, the serpopod is older than that.  The object shown is the Narmer Palette.

[Antigonos]

34 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

No, the serpopod is older than that.  The object shown is the Narmer Palette.

Serpopards are older than what?  Mesopotamia, or the master of beasts motif? 

That’s not the Narmer Palette, which does have serpopards, which do come from Mesopotamia and are older.

Those are ordinary cats, most likely lions. I thought perhaps the iconography of double felines facing one another might have had its origins with the Mesopotamian master of beasts motif. Need to look into it.

 

Edited May 27, 2023 by Antigonos

[Kenemet]

1 hour ago, Antigonos said:

Serpopards are older than what?  Mesopotamia, or the master of beasts motif? 

That’s not the Narmer Palette, which does have serpopards, which do come from Mesopotamia and are older.

Those are ordinary cats, most likely lions. I thought perhaps the iconography of double felines facing one another might have had its origins with the Mesopotamian master of beasts motif. Need to look into it.

 

Ack.  You're right.  That's the Four Dogs palette.  The serpopods are from the somewhat similar Two Dogs Palette  https://xoomer.virgilio.it/francescoraf/hesyra/palettes/dogs.htm

I did find a dissertation by a PhD student at U of Manchester (where I got a degree) that says the motif of "Master of Animals" is Mesopotamian and points to another source that I haven't checked out yet: https://www.academia.edu/2537340/Seth_as_a_Foreigner_in_Protodynastic_Egypt

[Thanos5150]

9 hours ago, Antigonos said:

The double lion in the lower right, that has its origins in Mesopotamia correct? A variation of the Master of Beasts motif?

The "Four Dogs Palette", among several other Naqada III/Dynasty 0 palettes, the Narmer's as well, that show Mesopotamian (Uruk/Susa) motifs and artistic stylings. 

It is debatable whether this would represent a variation of the master of beasts motif, but clearly Mesopotamian stylings nonetheless. The Master of Beasts motif is found on the Dynasty 0/1 period Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle:

With Mesopotamian man no less:

And the famous Naqada II Tomb 100 mural at Hierakonpolis:

Another Mesopotamian motif is the Serpopard found on the Narmer and Two Dogs palettes: 

Perhaps the most interesting imported motif is that of the tied lotus flowers found on the serekh building. Tell Billa, late Uruk Period c. 3400-3100BC:

 

1st Dynasty, Djet:

Close Up.

One of many examples found on OK serekh sarcophagi: HERE.

The connections are irrefutable.

[Thanos5150]

9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

No, the serpopod is older than that.  The object shown is the Narmer Palette.

Gadzooks. 

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The "Four Dogs Palette", among several other Naqada III/Dynasty 0 palettes, the Narmer's as well, that show Mesopotamian (Uruk/Susa) motifs and artistic stylings. 

It is debatable whether this would represent a variation of the master of beasts motif, but clearly Mesopotamian stylings nonetheless. The Master of Beasts motif is found on the Dynasty 0/1 period Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle:

With Mesopotamian man no less:

And the famous Naqada II Tomb 100 mural at Hierakonpolis:

Another Mesopotamian motif is the Serpopard found on the Narmer and Two Dogs palettes: 

Perhaps the most interesting imported motif is that of the tied lotus flowers found on the serekh building. Tell Billa, late Uruk Period c. 3400-3100BC:

 

1st Dynasty, Djet:

Close Up.

One of many examples found on OK serekh sarcophagi: HERE.

The connections are irrefutable.

No real comment other than to say "nicely done" and "Thanks!"

[Antigonos]

9 hours ago, Thanos5150 said:

The "Four Dogs Palette", among several other Naqada III/Dynasty 0 palettes, the Narmer's as well, that show Mesopotamian (Uruk/Susa) motifs and artistic stylings. 

It is debatable whether this would represent a variation of the master of beasts motif, but clearly Mesopotamian stylings nonetheless. The Master of Beasts motif is found on the Dynasty 0/1 period Gebel el-Arak Knife Handle:

With Mesopotamian man no less:

And the famous Naqada II Tomb 100 mural at Hierakonpolis:

Another Mesopotamian motif is the Serpopard found on the Narmer and Two Dogs palettes: 

Perhaps the most interesting imported motif is that of the tied lotus flowers found on the serekh building. Tell Billa, late Uruk Period c. 3400-3100BC:

 

1st Dynasty, Djet:

Close Up.

One of many examples found on OK serekh sarcophagi: HERE.

The connections are irrefutable.

Outstanding reply, thank you my friend. The information you provide is always first class.

Jeez, yes those are quite obviously dogs. At first glance I thought they were female lions. I must have stunned everyone here with my powers of observation on that one.

These connections demonstrate a much greater interaction between these two cultures during predynastic/early Dynastic times than mere contact through trade. 

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Antigonos

[cladking]

On 5/27/2023 at 1:47 PM, Kenemet said:

Look at any gemstone.  They're actually polished by sanding (we used to run a tiny in-home lapidary.)  And we can easily do that with our tools.

Perhaps you can grind something flat to .003" by using light reflection to tell you where to grind but how do you smooth a rounded section such as the vase?  ...And especially the sections between the handles?  

[Kenemet]

55 minutes ago, cladking said:

Perhaps you can grind something flat to .003" by using light reflection to tell you where to grind but how do you smooth a rounded section such as the vase?  ...And especially the sections between the handles?  

You mean like this?

Or maybe this jade?

Or maybe this ruby?

Or this (it's emeralds, by the way)

 

Or maybe a nice crystal skull?

 

 

 

[cladking]

11 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

You mean like this?

 

Or maybe this jade?

 

Or maybe this ruby?
\

Or this (it's emeralds, by the way)

 

 

 

 

What makes you believe any of these is accurate to .003"?  

[Kenemet]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

What makes you believe any of these is accurate to .003"?  

What makes you think that they aren't?

[cladking]

9 minutes ago, Kenemet said:

What makes you think that they aren't?

It requires precision tools to achieve such tolerances.  

[Kenemet]

7 hours ago, cladking said:

It requires precision tools to achieve such tolerances.  

And you know this... how?

(I suspect you never tried making a circle or an ellipse with string and a pin - very primitive tools) 

I'm going to say that I'm skeptical of their reading - the surface of that jar doesn't have a high gloss polish which means there's dips and peaks in the granite (granadorite, I think it is)  A true .003 flattened surface would have a mirror-like finish.

[cladking]

On 5/29/2023 at 1:44 AM, Kenemet said:

And you know this... how?

(I suspect you never tried making a circle or an ellipse with string and a pin - very primitive tools) 

I'm going to say that I'm skeptical of their reading - the surface of that jar doesn't have a high gloss polish which means there's dips and peaks in the granite (granadorite, I think it is)  A true .003 flattened surface would have a mirror-like finish.

It's largely experience and deduction.  I know that no matter how perfect an object looks that if you roll it on a hard surface it will always stop on the same side.  A well balanced wheel will stop with the same side down even if it has extremely precise roller bearings.  Even in glass you can see errors if you look through it when held at a steep angle.  

 

We simply don't live in a precise world but things like fans for a jet engine must be very precise so we have invented the technology to get things to .003".  Such precision was even possible for us until the 19th century but now it is taken for granted.  

[Trelane]

33 minutes ago, cladking said:

It's largely experience and deduction.  I know that no matter how perfect an object looks that if you roll it on a hard surface it will always stop on the same side.  A well balanced wheel will stop with the same side down even if it has extremely precise roller bearings.  Even in glass you can see errors if you look through it when held at a steep angle.  

 

We simply don't live in a precise world but things like fans for a jet engine must be very precise so we have invented the technology to get things to .003".  Such precision was even possible for us until the 19th century but now it is taken for granted.  

So, you believe there's absolutely no way ancient people could have figured out how create these things without some hidden (lost) technology?

[Hanslune]

Deleted

Edited May 30, 2023 by Hanslune

[cladking]

43 minutes ago, Trelane said:

So, you believe there's absolutely no way ancient people could have figured out how create these things without some hidden (lost) technology?

No.

I'm saying they couldn't have made them with the tools Egyptologists say they used.  For all I know the thing materialized out of thin air, was divinely created, or left by aliens.  Unlike Egyptology I don't have all the answers and don't study the culture with my back turned to its every artefact.  

[Hanslune]

1 minute ago, cladking said:

No.

 Unlike Egyptology I don't have all the answers and don't study the culture with my back turned to its every artefact.  

However Cladking you are well known and documented for refusing to accept the results of experiments you set up for us do and which showed your claimed knowledge of 'ancient language' was false. Isn't that 'turning your back on the evidence?

[Trelane]

39 minutes ago, cladking said:

No.

I'm saying they couldn't have made them with the tools Egyptologists say they used.  For all I know the thing materialized out of thin air, was divinely created, or left by aliens.  Unlike Egyptology I don't have all the answers and don't study the culture with my back turned to its every artefact.  

Why do you deny what they assert? Why couldn't they? What proof/evidence do you have that demonstrates they couldn't?

Edited May 30, 2023 by Trelane

[ShadowSot]

33 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Why do you deny what they assert? Why couldn't they? What proof/evidence do you have that demonstrates they couldn't?

 

[Kenemet]

10 hours ago, cladking said:

It's largely experience and deduction.  I know that no matter how perfect an object looks that if you roll it on a hard surface it will always stop on the same side. 

DO bring this up in conversation with anyone who plays D&D (or any other game with dice.)

[Kenemet]

11 hours ago, cladking said:

We simply don't live in a precise world but things like fans for a jet engine must be very precise so we have invented the technology to get things to .003".  Such precision was even possible for us until the 19th century but now it is taken for granted.  

So you basically believe anything you see in a video?

That's a heck of a logic gap, there.  The guy reads a paper and then talks about precision but this is third or fourth hand information... he's not actually doing the scanning and he believes what's in the paper.  But he does overlay some nice designs on top of it (I think those are from the paper on second thought).

If the object is made on a lathe or on a similar setup, then if it's got a very shiny surface the measurement is believable.  The gemstones I showed you have that kind of precision (what's amusing is that you don't believe it of polished stones but you do believe it of a video.)

In any case, the video doesn't prove anything other than someone can make a video.

 

[Piney]

12 hours ago, Trelane said:

Why do you deny what they assert? Why couldn't they? What proof/evidence do you have that demonstrates they couldn't?

Geysers. 

[Hanslune]

8 hours ago, Piney said:

Geysers. 

Cold carbonated water geysers - lets be precise!