General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Austin Kole Carlisle
World of Antiquity
comments

Comments by "Austin Kole Carlisle" (@AustinKoleCarlisle) on "World of Antiquity" channel.

@WorldofAntiquity there's still time to get on the right side of history, here. nobody will judge you for changing your mind, but we WILL judge you for refusing to acknowledge reality.
10
@mrjones2721 none of the replication attempts have reproduced the same level of precision. until they achieve that, you can't use their efforts as proof of reproduction because if you can't reproduce the most difficult element of something, then it's not a true reproduction.
7
@emmitstewart1921 yep. all those used up saws and drill bits, but not one of them was ever physically found in the archeological record.
5
@varyolla435 if we cannot prove this is how the ancients made these vases, then how is it the official explanation? Ben is simply asking people to show their work because THEIR claims seem improbable at face value.
4
cutting logs does not equal stone. but i wouldn't expect less from channels that rely on intellectually dishonest arguments such as this. three conditions need to be met in order to be considered a true reproduction: scale (size), quality (material hardness, etc), and precision (the degree of detail). this theory meets none of those conditions.
4
@WorldofAntiquity so you're just speculating then. and poorly, at that.
4
@WorldofAntiquity because if the official story cannot be backed by evidence, how can they claim that's how it happened?
4
@WorldofAntiquity so you're in agreement with me that we don't know how these ancient vases were made, right?
4
@WorldofAntiquity if you don't know, then say you don't know. you can't make a claim about something like this without strict, experimental science backing it.
4
@San_Vito if they can't do it, then you can't claim the vase has been reproduced. this is basic logic.
4
@WorldofAntiquity every culture all over the world seemingly decided "to go with smaller blocks" overtop of megalithic stonework? that doesn't make sense, surely there would still be one culture creating megalithic stonework, but every example we see of it is always on the bottom, always underneath inferior work, never over top of cruder work.
4
@Eye_of_Horus ah yes, it all boils down to "dating", which is problematic because stonework cannot be dated, we can only date the culture that occupied at a given time. and the argument isn't that those different cultures you mentioned existed in different times, nobody is denying that. what we're arguing is how it's assumed those cultures created the stonework and not simply inherited it. you also keep ignoring the sheer coincidence of separate cultures developing three-dimensionally curving stonework that we could not even replicate today without computer aided machinery. and anywhere it's found on earth amongst other styles of stonework, it's ALWAYS located below inferior, cruder stonework. neither you nor the channel owner can address this topic, you keep avoiding the elephant in the room. that's why i keep pushing you into this corner, because it's obvious to anyone reading that neither of you have any answers.
4
the whole point is the vase displays modern precision while having handles that would've complicated the production process beyond just lathe work, yet they still achieved modern precision between the handles.
4
@WorldofAntiquity so freaking what dude? would that somehow invalidate the evidence he presents? just go ahead and label him a racist and be done with the conversation, i just KNOW that's what you're waiting on doing, when the opportunity presents itself, that way you don't have to think and back up your failed beliefs.
4
@Leeside999 the only people claiming these vases could be made using primitive tools is your side. the burden of proof is on your side. sorry, that's how arguments work. if you can't substantiate your claim, then please refrain from using it in an argument.
4
@WorldofAntiquity you'll find every reason to not reach out to him directly, i have no doubt.
4
@Eyes_Open nobody said anything about perfect symmetry. that's why the concept of TOLERANCE is heavily stressed in the videos about the vases
4
@Leeside999 please provide a timestamp where Ben claims these statues or vases are perfect in every way.
4
@emmitstewart1921 and the copper quickly wears down in the process, using up just as much as the stone it erodes.
4
@WorldofAntiquity it's in the pursuit of truth. you're just in the pursuit of debunking someone. hardly objective.
4
 @Eyes_Open the proof that these can't be made with simple tools is Olga's videos.
3
@Eyes_Open so you're claiming that primitive methods can create these precision vases? yet we don't have any examples of someone reproducing them to the same precision, so why do you feel the need to believe in something not backed by experimental science?
3
@Eyes_Open but simple methods CAN'T make these precision objects because nobody has come forth and recreated them. you keep saying it's possible but you haven't proven it so.
3
@WorldofAntiquity no, academia and Egyptologists made the claim that precision ancient vases (that we can clearly see in museum display cases) were made by hand using primitive methods--it's up to them to prove it's possible. if they can't do it, then just admit we don't know how it was done.
3
@WorldofAntiquity the original claim by Egyptologists is that we know how it was done. we DON'T. don't hate on people who demand others show their work.
3
@WorldofAntiquity if known primitive methods cannot explain how ALL THE VASES were made, then it's not a good explanation. remember, if a theory cannot explain ALL THE EVIDENCE then it's not a sufficient theory, is it?
3
@NinjaMonkeyPrime precision is an object measured against itself. it doesn't matter if we don't know what the creator was attempting, we're still left with precision in granite across many different geometric relationships that simply couldn't be possible with the tools of the time.
3
@WorldofAntiquity the scan data is open source. and the metrology report is available online.
3
@darklight2.1 i'm sorry, but Egyptologists/academia are the ones who made the claim that these vessels were made using primitive methods, yet nobody has been able to reproduce vases with this level of precision. if they can't substantiate their claim, then it's not a sufficient explanation for how these were created. it's not illegal for them to say "we don't know how these vases were made".
3
precision isn't art, though. precision almost always has a function.
3
@MrAchile13 i can guarantee you it's not symmetric
3
@MrAchile13 although "symmetric" by eye, i'm willing to bet high resolution scanning would show it's not machine-level precise like Ben's vase is. it doesn't matter anyway, this sarcophagus is from the 19th century, made with the best 19th century technology of the time, and precision only comes about from the industrial standards of the time. the fact that a vase displays current machining standards 5000 years ago should tell you that something was going on that we do not understand yet.
3
@MrAchile13 These stone vessels were made in the Oldest Kingdoms, and later Egyptian efforts could never recreate them. It wasn't until 1000s of years later that humanity could even get close to recreating these vases. That's kind of the opposite of what you claim. And why do you discount the precision of these vases? Nobody has been able to fully recreate them with the same level of precision--not just an approximation.
3
@WorldofAntiquity Well, you have to admit it is quite a coincidence that we find stone construction all over the world with a similar style oftentimes including curious nubs, the the stones themselves being quite large, but not always...AND this style is always the bottommost layer anywhere it is found. combine this with the fact that this style is not today leads one to believe that either the technology or knowhow was lost in time, or it was one big coincidence....what do you think?
3
@WorldofAntiquity then why can't we recreate these walls today with razor-tight joints going the entire depth of the mating surfaces? this building style is clearly more advanced than the Incan repair work we see on the top layers at Machu Picchu, for instance. you also believe the typical inclusion of knobs on these walls is merely a coincidence, when we don't find that feature at all on later work literally anywhere on earth?
3
@WorldofAntiquity the fact remains that you simply hand-wave away the points I raised, as if all that i brought forward is simply explainable and commonplace..
3
you realize that's slander, right?
3
@NinjaMonkeyPrime the only people "unwilling to look through the telescope" are the ones who don't want more of these vases analyzed.
3
@WorldofAntiquity an "academic" is honestly comparing shooting a basketball to making a precision granite vase with handles? tell me my good man, if these are so easy to "fake" then where are all the fakes? these things can go for upwards of $100,000 on the secondary market.
3
I'm curious, what's going to be your excuse when we get the results of multiple scanned vases that show equal if not greater precision than the original vase?
3
@WorldofAntiquity so far, nobody has been able to reproduce a granite vase with handles & the same precision.
3
@WorldofAntiquity so you're saying these precision vases couldn't have been made using primitive methods?
3
how DARE he try to scan more vases using the only means he has. what a "grifter", amirite?
3
@jellyrollthunder3625 the only thing you all can point to is provenance, which really is a secondary issue to the topic of precision.
3
@jellyrollthunder3625 why are you faulting him for showing evidence proving his hypothesis? that's literally what you asked for.
3
@Eyes_Open except they don't replicate the precision of what we see on these ancient artifacts. the marble vase replication attempt was a joke. still waiting on the making of that diorite vase...lol.
3
@Eyes_Open good thing the conversation isn't whether a vase can be carved out of stone using primitive means. Ben's ENTIRE VIDEO is about PRECISION.
3
@Leeside999 where are all of these copper chisels you speak of? are they here with us now? can you point to one? show me on the globe where the copper chisel touched you.
3
@WorldofAntiquity PRECISION. why do you keep ignoring that fact? nobody is saying the ancients couldn't make stone vases, we're talking about PRECISE STONE VASES.
3
@N8Dulcimer please post a link. imagine the stuff they don't display? detractors act like everything that's found is displayed, i'm more interested in the stuff that they refuse to show.
3
@Leeside999 by all means, please focus on the one erroneous statement as opposed to the elephant in the room. you're reaching.
3
@Leeside999 is this going to be the perpetual coping mechanism going forward? you realize you're standing on the edge of the proverbial rabbit hole of psychological distress if you continue finding excuses for denying the reality that we live in. try to keep up.
3
@WorldofAntiquity Prove you made an offer in good faith.
3
@Leeside999 why should he engage in debate with people who constantly use ad hominems?
3
@Devilboy689yoblived Brilliant! Just brilliant, my man. This was an education I was certainly not expecting today. Thank you so much, and keep up the good fight. By the way, I don't have anyone else to talk about this stuff with, either. I'd like to run some things by you that I've worked on over the years but eventually came to a standstill. It's regarding special relativity and this subject, I think you might have touched on the missing link I've been looking for in regards to a unified theory of physics.
3
@Leeside999 why the concentrated effort to sow discord surrounding this subject? I mean I don't see people trying to convince me the moon isn't made of cheese, despite me never going there personally. we haven't conclusively ruled out it existed, so it's best to keep an open mind.
3
@San_Vito sounds like you're suggesting lost ancient technology then. to that i can say the advanced machines that made these artifacts ALSO rusted away. i don't need evidence for my claims, right?
3
@WorldofAntiquity i beg to differ. academia's official explanation for how these precision vases were made cannot be backed up with experimental science.
3
@Leeside999 his channel is dedicated to "debunking" people as opposed to actually pursuing the truth.
3
@varyolla435 if academia didn't claim that these vases were created using primitive means, then you'd have a point. but as it stands, they made the claim, so they need to substantiate it. if they cannot reasonably do that, then they need to say "we don't know how these were made". don't get mad at Ben for calling them out for not showing their work.
3
@varyolla435 appeal to authority...nice. so if academia says so, it must be true. i'm guessing you would've believed the phrenology stuff 100 years ago, or you would've believed the Earth was the center of the universe, right? consensus of opinion equals fact, right? pathetic.
3
@WorldofAntiquity The sea level has risen 400 ft in just over 15,000 years. That covered up a LOT of ancient sites, without a doubt. So why is it outside the realm of possibility that an ancient civilization could have existed along these old coastlines?
3
@WorldofAntiquity Do you know something we don't as to why the topic of Atlantis is off-limits?
3
@WorldofAntiquity Sure...until then, it's just air.
2
@Eyes_Open except the argument isn't whether a vase can be made using primitive means. that's called a strawman fallacy. the argument is whether the ancients could make these PRECISION vases using known primitive methods.
2
what would it matter to you, anyway? you'd just conclude it took more time and slave labor to achieve.
2
@Leeside999 sure they did. they also did it in a controlled scientific environment huh? get back to me once they write up a peer-reviewed paper on their accomplishments.
2
@Leeside999 are you suggesting the open-source light-scans aren't legit?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime no my friend. Egyptologists made the claim that these precision vases were created using known primitive methods. they made the claim first. they need to back up that claim with evidence. don't get mad at people like Ben who demand to see evidence for a claim. the burden of proof isn't on him because he didn't make the claim.
2
@WorldofAntiquity but your side makes the claim to know how these were done, despite never showing how it was done.
2
@WorldofAntiquity so you're claiming we don't know how they were done, then. we're in agreement.
2
@WorldofAntiquity nice deflect, bro. research is never done for any topic. science is always evolving, keep up or get out if you can't take it.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime none of the Etsy granite vases I've seen have handles.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime i mean if you have examples, then please post them. thanks.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime but you're the one that made the claim. you may as well have said "they exist on earth". yeah, that literally does me no good if you can't provide a direct link to something you say exists. sorry but if you can't back up a claim, then don't make it, it's a simple concept.
2
Please address this elephant in the room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FxP5_QyrnQ&t=560s Razor-tight, machined joints on multi-100 ton stones part of the foundation at Baalbek.
2
@WorldofAntiquity This wasn't Roman construction. The joints look machined. Did you even watch the video? I linked to the example at hand.
2
@WorldofAntiquity now understand that the entire mating surface of the joint is razor-thin all the way through, and this is done on all of the base work including the trilithon stones which weigh 1000 tons, but this feature isn't present on the Roman style work above it. don't you think that is a little odd?
2
@WorldofAntiquity there are imperfections in the stone faces, but the mating surfaces (of the base stones) are indeed perfect, from what i've seen. perhaps you can link me to the imperfections you see? remember, the inferior Roman construction on top is not the discussion, we're talking about the foundation stones.
2
@San_Vito well someone had to make the "forgeries" right?
2
@WorldofAntiquity your channel is fringe because it doesn't even create content.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime what part of precision don't you understand? if you watched the video, you'd realize the conversation was about precision, not whether ancient people could carve a vase.
2
@WorldofAntiquity because they made the false claims. nobody held a gun up to their heads and forced them to say these precision granite vases were made using primitive methods, yet they made the claim not backed by any evidence. that makes them unscientific and dogmatic and they deserve to be called out for not substantiating their claims.
2
@Eyes_Open we don't have all the answers. are you suggesting we do?
2
@WorldofAntiquity if you were correct, then the market would be flooded with these things at $100 a piece. but, unfortunately that isn't the case and they are harder and harder to come by.
2
@WorldofAntiquity making reproductions is illegal?
2
@joqqeman but experts determine what is a Rembrandt. Experts should be able to tell a forgery vessel from the real thing.
2
@Leeside999 vases with provenance have been scanned, and we'll see the results soon. is that good enough?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime what's your excuse going to be when more vases are scanned and they all come back with equal if not greater precision than the original vase? what then? because it's going to happen and you better be ready.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime You didn't answer the question. And he is going to have vases with provenance analyzed. What then? What's the talking point going to be?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Well sure, you have to have an idea of what you're going to say if these vases turn out to be as precise as the original vase. That some vases may not turn out as precise as the original doesn't discredit the original OR the other vases that are scanned and are just as precise. What are you going to say when the results of these vases are released and some of them are just as precise if not moreso than the original vase? Or are you waiting to be told what to say? Just wondering.
2
@MrAchile13 What is your excuse going to be when the other vase scan results show them being as precise if not more precise than the original vase? What is the group consensus talking point going to be then? I love watching goalposts change, it fuels my soul.
2
@MrAchile13 ah yes, the "it exists therefore it exists" argument. let's not focus on HOW they achieved machine like precision tolerances that weren't able to be measured until the 19th century...let's just look the other way, right?
2
@MrAchile13 You have to start somewhere my friend. Are you implying this endeavor shouldn't be undertaken? I, along with Ben et al, would LOVE for many ancient vases from museums to be scanned. And if no other vases have been scanned, like you said, how can you say the later Egyptians replicated these precision "Old Kingdom" vases 3000 years later? Yes, they made vases out of alabaster, etc, but none were visually as precise as the ones Ben focuses on.
2
@MrAchile13 perhaps you have difficulty understanding precision? nobody is denying that anyone at anytime in history could make something visually precise, but to make something MACHINE level precise (over many different dimensions, not just flatness) requires precision machines and tools in order to maintain tolerance of how much material has been removed and how much is left. the fact that we find these characteristics in a vase that is supposedly 5000 years old deserves all the investigation and study we can afford to throw at it, let alone toward other ancient vases who display extreme precision. We'll find out who's right in due time.
2
@carriekelly4186 so they were supposedly really advanced, but their technology never improved over 1000s of years?
2
@MrAchile13 yet none of them were able to recreate the precision granite vases from the oldest Kingdoms?
2
you've never created a computer from scratch. promptly turn it off and go live with the Amish.
2
@Itsjustme-Justme well, that's why Ben includes expert viewpoints in his videos.
2
@WorldofAntiquity who said anything about perfect? you claim the precision vases can be recreated. they HAVE NOT been recreated to the same level of precision so you cannot claim they have been recreated.
2
@jackrifleman562 Let's cut the fluff. Do you agree that more of these vases need analyzed? Yes or no.
2
@jackrifleman562 WOA featured one of these scanned vases in a video about Dynastic vases. If you think these scanned vases are fraudulent, are you suggesting WOA needs to do better research?
2
making something flat is nowhere near the difficult as making a complex three dimensional object *by hand*. the "reproduction" attempts just show how difficulty if not impossible this would've been by hand.
2
@WorldofAntiquity smaller doesnt imply cruder, but cruder work is always found overtop precise megalithic work.
2
@WorldofAntiquity Perhaps you are not aware of Machu Picchu, which has a distinctly different megalithic core than the surrounding Inca workmanship. The megalithic core features razor-tight joints that go the entire three-dimensional depth of the stone (evidenced by earthquake damage revealing the inner stone faces). This megalithic style is found all over the world, and that was what I was referring to when I mentioned "megalithic", I wasn't simply referring to "large" stones such as those found in Mycenae and Malta, although they are impressive. Once you get an eye for this megalithic construction style, you will see that it is always the bottommost layer anywhere it is found, indicating that it is the oldest style not only at one location, but all over the earth, from Easter Island, to Peru, to Egypt, to India, to Cambodia, and elsewhere. Here is the megalithic core I was referring to in Machu Picchu: https://hiddenincatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/quake-shifted-stones_5509.jpg https://images.fineartamerica.com/images/artworkimages/mediumlarge/2/peru-ancient-megalithic-site-of-machu-picchu-sergio-correa.jpg https://hiddenincatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/wall-at-machu-picchu.jpg Notice the crude Inca repair work above the mortar-less, razor-tight megalithic work below. Here's more at Easter Island: https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Megalithic-Wall-of-Vinapu.jpg https://hiddenincatours.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Cusco-A-boy-walks-down-the-foot-street-Hatunrumiyoc-in-Cusco.-The-wall-on-the-left-is-rumored-to-have-been-part-of-the-palace-of-Inca-Roca..jpg You can see "smaller" stones on the bottom, but those stones are just as precisely fitted as the stones above, size doesn't necessarily mean better, but it's obvious that the Inca used smaller blocks above larger megalithic-style stones because smaller stones were easier to work with.
2
@WorldofAntiquity you're not answering the questions, you are evading and hand-waving them away--it's a big difference. the correct answer was that it wasn't continued because the technology or knowledge was lost. why is that so hard to admit? i mean, you're a supposed academic, you should be aware that we know very little about our actual past.
2
@Eye_of_Horus are you sure? off the top of my head, machu picchu comes to mind, with several distinct building styles, the best quality stonework with the smallest spaces between stones found on the bottom, with cruder styles on top. this is noted all over the world. not sure why you're disregarding reality, here.
2
@RegularFlyGuy why did archeologists never once think to analyze these vases with a precision light scanner?
2
Marxists hate facts and truth. They will fight this endeavor tooth and nail because it will expose them as the deceptive frauds they are.
2
@Eyes_Open the vase scans aren't evidence?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Well do you? You didn't answer the question. Secondly, when the results come back as some vases having equal if not greater precision than the original (with provenance!) what is going to be the excuse then?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime so that's a "Yes, more vases should be scanned." Got it. I agree!
2
@Leeside999 if the vase is a forgery and is easy to recreate, then why aren't more flooding the market given that these routinely sell for >$10,000?
2
@Eyes_Open Aren't you glad? Now you don't have to think or respond.
2
@WorldofAntiquity you didn't answer the question. or have you not been told what to say yet?
2
@Eyes_Open All I'm concerned about is finding the truth. Channels like this rely on obfuscation and mischaracterization--hardly traits of a truth-seeker--yet proclaim to be impartial. Just come right out and say it like a real man--you and your ilk are simping for the establishment and will do anything in your power to derail the building arguments against your crumbling narrative.
2
@Eyes_Open why did archeologists etc never once decide to virtually scan these vessels, and it took an average joe to realize their precision?
2
@WorldofAntiquity why do you keep insisting the vase can be exactly reproduced using primitive methods?
2
@jellyrollthunder3625 umm...i don't know if you're aware or not, but people have been at this project for around 10 years, we are JUST now seeing the results of those efforts. i mean the first vase was scanned several years ago. baby steps.
2
@hedgehog3180 i don't see how you're conflating data with "grift"
2
except one of these argues credibly, the other relies on misrepresentation of argument.
2
@Eyes_Open the most recent video i can find on the diorite vase is 2 years old, and it wasn't even completed.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime if you can't stand behind the precision of the replication, then don't use it as evidence that it can be done. this is not a hard concept.
2
@Eyes_Open that's called metrology and mathematics, two concepts apparently over your head.
2
@WorldofAntiquity perhaps you should start with academia who tells us these vases were made using primitive methods, yet nobody has been able to recreate one of these vases using those methods. sorry, but that means they cannot back up their claim and need to officially declare they don't know how it was made. you can't get mad at people who call out false claims.
2
@donadams5094 your pal above just said that metals degrade to nothing over time. so which is it?
2
@donadams5094 that also goes for the copper saws and drills--the very things we're told by academics that were used to cut and shape granite--which have never been physically found in the archeological record. right?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime kinda funny that all the ones on Etsy don't have handles.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime why wouldn't they compare a modern vase to their supposed ancient specimens?
2
@WorldofAntiquity yeah it might be an indication of high technology, so what? how elegant and humble that it comes to us in the form of vases that have been displayed in museums for over a hundred years.
2
@Leeside999 why do you keep deflecting by never acknowledging that we're referring to PRECISION VASES? that's the whole point of Ben's endeavor, to understand how these ancient precision artifacts were made. nobody is denying that ancient people made vases, duh, we obviously see them so they must've been made.
2
this is all one giant argument from incredulity. just because we don't understand the meaning of it doesn't mean it wasn't on purpose.
2
@Leeside999 "For each of the radii marked in the graphic below, we found the place where the object deviated the most, from the mathematically pure representation of the function, and collated these statistics across all observed radii" He didn't read math into it, he extrapolated it from the equation likely used to create the vase. And the maximal radial deviation is 68 μm.
2
@Leeside999 whatever you have to tell yourself so you can sleep at night, I guess. what is your response going to be when it turns out some of these other vases are just as precise, if not more so, than the original vase? what is the talking point going to be? or have you not been told what to say yet?
2
@varyolla435 No, I was referring to the equation used to describe the shape. the person said "why is it 6 over 2?" and that's why I said that statement. regardless, just because YOU don't understand this topic doesn't mean it's made up.
2
@Leeside999 the point is that you can't proclaim there were no tools when we obvious have not excavated everything there is to excavate.
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime you dont understand concepts such as perpendicularity, parallelism?
2
@NinjaMonkeyPrime Yawn. Get back to me after you go through puberty.
2
you assume this channel is interested in the truth.
2
@Leeside999 he claims these vases are perfect? please, post the timestamps.
2
@dansihvonen8218 faith. but regardless, the metrologists in ben's video say that this would be next to impossible for current million-dollar CNC machines, anyway, so I wouldn't hold my breath about some random Russian recreating this anytime soon.
2
@Leeside999 how many vases have you made using primitive methods? how do you know what was possible for the ancients to make by hand?
2
@Leeside999 please show proof of your claim, then.
2
@WorldofAntiquity so what if he's referring to Atlantis? so what? why is that a big deal? do you know something we don't?
2
@Leeside999 do you all know something we don't as to why Atlantis is off-limits for discussion?
2
@Leeside999 if you were interested in evidence, then you wouldn't post Olga's failed reproduction attempt as proof of how these precision vases were made.
2
@Leeside999 saw it, red flags everywhere. get back to me once they replicate this in a controlled environment. showing people rubbing a few stones here and there doesn't mean the bulk of the material was removed by hand. who knows what they used when the cameras were off. like i said, replicate this in a controlled environment and then get back to me.
2
@contrarian8870 yeah but after his experiment, Dunn didn't claim he knew how it was done. in fact, he was left stumped because he used known methods and it didn't match Core 7.
2
@Eyes_Open the spiral toolmarks have never been replicated though.
2
@Eyes_Open they do in sections, nobody ever said it was one continuous, uninterrupted groove. the generalized slope of the grooves cannot be ignored, this is why SAM's video had the photo of the grooves tilted to hide this.
2
@Leeside999 then why did SAM tilt the panoramic photo of the grooves of core 7.
2
@contrarian8870 in the video titled "Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of deception | Fake science spotlight", timestamp 10 minutes 53 seconds. there is a large empty wedge to the right of the laid-out core, while the left side is parallel with the frame of the video.
2
@Leeside999 in the video "Out-of-place artifact: 100 years of deception | Fake science spotlight", timestamp 10 min 53 sec. the left side of the core is parallel to the frame of the video, but there is a large wedge of empty space to the right of the core. if the core were shown perfectly vertical, both empty spaces on the sides of the core would be equal.
2
@Leeside999 the photo at 11.24 is cropped. i think it's telling that every time photos of core 7 are brought up by naysayers, they use tilted photographs?
2
@Leeside999 it wasn't spun, it was a series of photos showing the core from various angles, and nearly every photo of core 7 was tilted.
2
@Leeside999 the difference is that photos of core 7 are tilted. given that the core is tapered, take a closer look at the core being "rotated" at the 11.24 timestamp. nearly all of the photos of core 7 show one side of it nearly vertical, while the other side is angled.
2
@Leeside999 yes, they are both tilted. the non-horizontal grooves in core 7 are hidden by showing it tilted. it's a fairly simple concept, here. why else would the photos be tilted if not to hide the fact that they grooves are angled, as well?
2
@Leeside999 every photo they showed of core 7 was tilted. happy?
2
@Leeside999 i that doesnt' change the fact that the photos of core 7 were tilted in that video you claim debunks it. why do they tilt the photos?
2
@Leeside999 if the spaces on each side of the core aren't equal, then the core is tilted to one side as opposed to being perfectly vertical.
2
@Leeside999 ask him
2
@Leeside999 regardless if the core itself is tilted, or the photo itself, it still serves the purpose of cancelling out the angled grooves. the tilt is apparent anywhere there are photos of core 7. notice that photos of the "reproduction" or the reproduction core itself aren't tilted. it is perfectly vertical.
2
@Leeside999 10.45 is the best view of core 7, the core is relatively vertical and it clearly shows grooves that angle up from left to right. 10.54--the panoramic view is shows the left side is vertical while the right side is angled. 11.20 doesn't count because it's cropped. 11.47 doesn't count because it's cropped. the rotation at 11.54 shows tilted photos of core 7, the right side is almost always angled while the left side is nearly vertical. 12.35 is cropped. 14.08 is cropped.
2
@Leeside999 look at 10.45, an actual photo of core 7 that wasn't tilted. the grooves CLEARLY angle up from left to right, i just measured the angle to be about 2 degrees. it's not much, and that's why most photos of core 7 do not show it perfectly vertical. even the "debunk" of Chris's claims that was decades ago used tilted photographs of core 7. the video you linked isnt cute or funny, it's just more of the same BS that isn't concerned with finding out the truth, just muddying the waters with disinformation.
2
@Leeside999 the entire controversy surrounding core 7 is whether the grooves are angled (spiral) or flat (concentric). the video makers are obviously aware of this, why is why they don't even acknowledge the angled grooves of core 7, and actually do their best to obscure it with trick photography. they're essentially claiming the grooves are horizontal like their "reproduction" attempt but that clearly isn't the case, hence the trick photography.
2
@Leeside999 why do they tilt the photos of core 7 to obscure the angled grooves?
2
@Leeside999 why are they claiming to know how core 7 was made when their replication attempt doesn't replicate the same type of grooves?
2
Wouldn't you double down too, if your worldview was crumbling all around you, invalidating the education you spent 10s of 1000s on?
2
@San_Vito i wasn't talking about copper chisels. i was referring to copper saws and tube drills. you're suggesting all of these cuts were made by copper chisels?
2
@Leeside999 why would he not pick the most precise looking? that's the whole point, to see how precise these ancient vases are.
2
@Leeside999 why wouldn't they display the non-precise specimens? they literally display the wonky alabaster vases no problem.
2
@WorldofAntiquity yeah but you don't hold academia to the same standards as UnchartedX. again, hardly objective.
2
@Leeside999 the point is that this channel owner is refusing to acknowledge reality and because he doesn't have an actual argument, he relies on argument fallacies and misrepresentations of arguments to "score points" with people who don't even understand the implications of what Ben is working on.
2
@WorldofAntiquity oh? we certainly have proof where earthquake damage is present. Machu Picchu and Preah Vihear Temple are good examples, two entirely different cultures that just happened to figure out how to build in a way that we can't even properly explain today. here is the footage with timestamp: Machu Pichu https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz0LDHk0_r0&t=9m25s Cambodia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGBohb_2xx0&t=9m Where the stones are separated, you can see how the rocks perfectly conform to each other throughout the depth of the joints, not just at the facade.
2
@WorldofAntiquity will you or will you not respond to the video evidence I provided to you in my reply above? i'd love to know your theory on how this type of stonework was created by supposedly independent cultures around the world but was never continued anywhere nor do we have any reasonable idea how it was achieved.
2
@WorldofAntiquity you're purposefully avoiding this issue i (and others) keep bringing up, which is how so many supposedly isolated cultures all around the world all developed this building style where the stones perfectly mate throughout the depths of the joints, even curving three-dimensionally, but yet it was continued nowhere and nobody really knows how it was done aside from baseless speculation like the videos you feature on your channel. to even come close to reproducing these walls today, we would need the assistance of CNC machines. that's a fact.
2
@WorldofAntiquity Who cares. It's not an immediate invalidation of an argument. You're just lazy.
2
@joshsmith5980 This channel owner is a Marxist, it should come as no surprise that his worldview relies on misrepresentation and distortion of the truth.
2
@Leeside999 then why is it so important for you and others like Miano to convince people to not believe in the Atlantis myth? i mean you all don't exactly go around telling people why Santa isn't real, so there must so some type of conflict of interest, here. tell me we're over the mark without telling me.
2
@WorldofAntiquity do you know for a fact Atlantis didn't exist? yes or no.
2
@WorldofAntiquity absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially considering the sea levels rose 400 feet since the last glacial maximum 18,000 years ago.
2
@bodinski100 there is no lesson here, from this channel, merely Marxist argument tactics.
2
@Leeside999 It's not ad hominem if it's true. Marxist beliefs focus on lies and deception in order to achieve power. There is no element of truth or virtue in their worldview, it's about achieving power at any cost.
2
@Leeside999 Marxists like the channel owner and yourself cannot stand truth and facts. it's a flawed and lazy worldview because it's way easier to destroy something than it is to create it.
1
@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.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime did you miss the point where when dealing with measurements and geometric relationships beyond what the hand can touch and eye can see, you need some type of tool able to maintain tolerances down to the 1000th of an inch?
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime precision is measured against itself.
1
@WorldofAntiquity in that's your reasoning, then just admit you dont know how it was done.
1
@alienrenders Don't even waste your time, man. This channel is Marxist in nature, and the thing about Marxism is, it relies on lies and destruction in order to exist. These people can only lie and destroy, they have no concept of creation and truth. So, it's no surprise they want to destroy any competing theories instead of working together to figure out the truth.
1
@MrAchile13 no, why would it matter if there was a vase made of corundum? you'd just say it took more time to make and that's that.
1
@MrAchile13 it wouldn't matter TO YOU
1
Marxists like this channel owner HATE truth and facts. their worldview relies on lies and deception. once you understand Marxism and how it infects societies and destroys them from within, then you'll understand why this ideology is so pervasive. the answer is that it's very easy to destroy something than it is to create it, though it is sold to the ignorant public as helping them overcome their "oppressors". "woke-ism" is the latest variant of this dangerous ideology. basing a society around destruction and lies ultimately erodes society; it's a tale as old as time, and it explains why a certain group was historically banished from most major cities and civilizations.
1
@Eyes_Open how many modern vases like this have handles?
1
slaves and time, of course.
1
more and more vases will be scanned, this project is just getting started.
1
where is a single reproduction showing how these precision vases were made?
1
@Leeside999 until then, don't claim to know how these ancient vases were made.
1
@Glitter_H_Hoof imagine believing this is an argument in 2024.
1
they wouldn't be trying so hard if we weren't over the target. i don't expect to see these fools on flat earth videos. quite telling if you ask me.
1
@Leeside999 have you mapped out all of the ancient coastlines and verified that no ancient civilizations existed? you haven't? so how can you rule out that some type of civilization didn't exist +13,000 years ago? we only recently found gobekli tepe, and that doubled the age of civilization as we know it.
1
@WorldofAntiquity proof of acceptance?
1
@WorldofAntiquity "Why would I explain something that no one believes?" why would you believe in the official narrative without factual, experimental evidence supporting it?
1
@WorldofAntiquity the only people lazy are the ones who claim Ben is wrong but don't want to reproduce a precision vase to prove him wrong.
1
point?
1
@WorldofAntiquity so you're claiming these were made using only primitive methods, right?
1
@wizwhat8186 Does her vase have handles?
1
@wizwhat8186 is there a video of this vase being made?
1
@Leeside999 please show us a recently replicated vase with 0.001" precision then
1
@Leeside999 it's being worked on, unlike this channel who can only tear down others for content creation. i can't see the objectivity in channels whose sole purpose is to "debunk" rather than pursue the truth.
1
@WorldofAntiquity i'm glad you acknowledged reality that this project has only begun. what is going to be your excuse when vases with actual provenance come back as being just as precise as these three scanned vases? please tell the class, professor.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime you could literally tell me the exact phrase to google to get a link. like the name of the seller, etc. back up your claim.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime none of those vases have handles.
1
@WorldofAntiquity Just watch the video I linked.
1
@San_Vito yeah and nobody is or has ever suggested that the ancients couldn't work stone with primitive tools. if you've watched any of Ben's recent videos on the granite vases, you'd realize the conversation is actually about the extreme precision of these objects. "I guess you're now claiming that the accuracy is not good enough compared to a vase with no provenance." the "reproduction" vase spammed in these conversations is visually imprecise, you don't even need a light scan to see that. how can you claim to know how these ancient artifacts were made when the reproduction isn't even as visually precise as a large majority of the artifacts we can see in glass cases at various museums? the most difficult aspect of making a true reproduction IS THE PRECISION. if you cannot replicate the precision using hand tools, then some other type of method was used.
1
Excellent argument, you sure convinced us on the fence. When's the last time Ben has resorted to personal attacks like this? I can't think of any. Shows where your character is, IMO.
1
@Eyes_Open i'm pretty sure academia made the claim that these precise vases were made using known primitive methods, yet this has never been proven because nobody has been able to reproduce something like this using those methods. it's not illegal for academia to say "we don't know how these vases were made". but why make the claim with unfounded evidence?
1
@Eyes_Open they lumped all of these vases together. do you agree they should probably reclassify some of these artifacts?
1
@Eyes_Open a precision artifact.
1
@WorldofAntiquity yeah but you love to claim these vases have been fully reproduced which they have NOT. why do you lie?
1
@Leeside999 if these are so easy to make, then where are the reproductions?
1
@MrAchile13 ah yes, we all know the Romans never took anything from Egypt, right?
1
@MrAchile13 The Romans had steel and were closer in time to us than they were to the Dynastic Egyptians who made the granite vases, so I don't see how this invalidates my arguments about why this technology was seemingly lost over time. you never provided me with examples of precision later Dynasty granite vases, either. Besides, I'd LOVE for those Roman vases to be scanned, too. I want all of the vases to be scanned.
1
@MrAchile13 do you not see how it would be very challenging to cut granite without iron, let alone steel? of course the romans could cut and shape granite, etc, but oftentimes they chose to transport older, existing pieces from Egypt as opposed to making it themselves, so that just goes to show you how difficult it was using the known methods of the time. they would have rather transported something across land and sea and risked death than shape granite from scratch. what's that tell you? so when we see granite vessels from the Oldest Kingdoms in Egypt shaped with machine-like precision without the ease of iron or steel tools, you can't help but ask yourself why this task was undertaken. one is led to believe it was apparently easy for them to do, because it wasn't until the Romans 1000s of years later that this proficiency in shaping extremely hard stones was displayed again.
1
@MrAchile13 did later Egyptians make any of these precision granite vessels, or did they just carve hieroglyphs on them? many of these were found with mud lids, so why would later Dynasty Egyptians, who supposedly had the ability to shape granite so easily, use mud lids instead of using granite? "The Roman author Pliny the Elder tells us that's how they were cutting stone during his time, using sand and goes into detail about how the quality of the sand affects the cut." But sand doesn't "cut" anything, it abrades. Sand abrasion doesn't result in clearly defined cutting grooves consistently spaced about 1 mm apart that are glazed in appearance.
1
@MrAchile13 sand abrading doesn't result in a polished/glazed surface. and you still never tackled the uncomfortable issue of the Serapeum polish.
1
@MrAchile13 Regarding the Serapeum boxes, the polish seemingly seals roughly textured granite evidenced by the drip marks underneath the lid.
1
@htlein is this AI?
1
the focus is actually on the precision, not the age of the vase. the people who analyzed the vase were shocked at the machine-like precision, regardless of when it was made, because making it would pose a huge, expensive challenge even today using modern million dollar machinery.
1
@jackrifleman562 more "Dynastic" vases. In his recent video, Ben showed a photo of about 20 vases that are being scanned and are close to being completed. Ben said some of these have provenance and also that some of them are even more precise than the original scanned vase. so I ask you, what is the excuse going to be when we get these results?
1
@jackrifleman562 one of the vases he scanned was actually featured in one of WOA's videos as an example of a Dynastic vase. do you support more study and research of these vases? yes or no.
1
@jackrifleman562 "Its not an issue of what I think. What I know is that you stated that Ben has a sample of vessels which includes some lacking provenance. That alone raises a big red flag. Its not an issue of WOA doing better research but rather one of Ben et al yet again doing a crappy job of properly vetting and generating a legitimate sample, and thus leaving themselves wide open to valid criticism." The goal is obviously to scan vases with provenance, but the problem is museum curators and Egyptologists have been unwilling to have their vases scanned and analyzed. so, the only other option is to procure vases from private collectors which oftentimes do not have a provenance history for their pieces. so what? this endeavor is just getting started, and these won't be the last vases scanned. again, do you believe more of these vases should be scanned and analyzed? yes or no. The results are open source, Ben has nothing to do with it. You sound paranoid.
1
@varyolla435 experts were in Ben's video. perhaps you should watch it.
1
@Eyes_Open it's basic metrological conclusion. you're dealing with tolerances across surfaces and geometrical relationships within a few 1000ths of an inch. it had to have been made with a machine because the human hand and eye cannot discern 3D relationships to within a few 1000s of an inch.
1
@Eyes_Open i'm not talking strictly about human touch, i'm talking about how one can verify concentricity, parallelism, etc to within a few 1000ths of an inch across many different geometric relationships without a machine. it's simply not feasible, no matter how good of an artist you are.
1
@Eyes_Open yes, just like how it should be easy to replicate one of these vases because you claim it's so easy.
1
@WorldofAntiquity please give me examples of cruder work below megalithic polygonal masonry.
1
@WorldofAntiquity well, it goes hand-in-hand with the style, typically, but not always...the polygonal style is more prevalent in South America, whereas Egypt and elsewhere is more square-shaped. the fact remains that you won't find precision megalithic work overtop of cruder work. please find me one example disproving this if you're so confident that i'm wrong.
1
@WorldofAntiquity if we can recreate it then why wasn't this style continued throughout antiquity? why are the only instances of this particular style always found below another building style?\ and never on top? just through sheer probability this style would have been located above crude work, but that isnt the case anywhere on earth.
1
@Eye_of_Horus it still doesn't explain why the construction style was abandoned, it's obviously a superior style evidenced by it still lasting to this day AND always being located below cruder construction styles, never overtop. which means it's more than likely older than any other style.
1
@Eye_of_Horus the focus isn't block size, the focus is the quality of construction. and the conversation I was having with the channel host was about stonework with nubs, if you could find me examples of stonework with nubs located overtop of cruder stonework, i'd appreciate it.
1
@Eye_of_Horus because the ancient stonework featuring nubs are found all over the world, then suddenly discontinued. i cannot find any photos of the Parthenon with nubs, can you link some photos showing that?
1
@Eye_of_Horus but it's not just the nubs, that is the easily identifiable feature. like i said before, the quality of construction seems to have gotten worse overtime, evidenced by the quality of stonework almost always being different and better on the bottom compared to that above it. it's correlated with the nubs, but not always.
1
@Eye_of_Horus there are varying degrees of stonework quality one top of one another, and not just a result of modern day repair work, so your hand-waving explanation for "higher quality stonework only being for royal quarters" doesn't hold any water.
1
@Eye_of_Horus just because it's the best fit doesn't mean you should ignore further evidence to the contrary. it's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy at that point. the facts remain that 1. razor-tight jointed polygonal masonry that perfectly mate in three-dimensions (usually but not always associated with exterior "nubs") was somehow independently thought of all over the world in supposedly isolated cultures 2. anywhere it is found it's always located below inferior stonework, indicative of a very ancient date of construction. 3. this construction style was also "coincidentally" abandoned everywhere it was practiced and replaced with inferior construction styles that continue to this day because we cannot rationally explain how the three-dimensionally mating stones were carved besides "trial and error" but when you stop to think for one second, this explanation becomes irrational when you're talking about 50 ton stones like at Sacsayhuaman.
1
@Eye_of_Horus If high quality stonework was still being continued until recently then it stands to reason that it would be found in some instances overtop of inferior quality stonework, but that isn't found anywhere on earth. we still can't explain how it was created besides trial and error, which doesn't hold water when you think of the logistics of multi ton stones. why can't you admit we simply don't know how it was done?
1
@Eye_of_Horus show the proof then if it's so easy to refute, but you can't, and hence why i keep pushing you (and the channel host) into this corner. there is a clear DEGRESSION of stonework quality from bottom to top layer at numerous sites ALL over the globe. i mean, how you can just blatantly say something that you know is wrong?
1
@Eye_of_Horus still waiting on your "proof"...
1
@Eye_of_Horus the polygonal style is found all over the world, it isn't just isolated to the "Inca". Easter Island, Egypt, Cambodia, India, etc.
1
@Eyes_Open the fact that we didn't see machining marks is telling, meaning the vase was polished. so how were they able to discern how much to polish and for how long if they didn't have access to a micrometer that measures in the 1000s of an inch in order to maintain tolerances around the entire surface of the vase?
1
@Eyes_Open i'm saying the equivalent was definitely required, i mean the precision speaks for itself. it's either a very expensive forgery, or it's genuine. take your pick.
1
@dr4g0nt4nk3r the "presupposition" was that some of the vases appear to display precision that is impossible by hand. if there are a "million" different ways to achieve the result, why hasn't anyone done so?
1
@Leeside999 perhaps you should read up on the origins of Marxism, if you don't realize who they are and what they stand for.
1
he's willing to have it done for free.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime do you agree that accurate measurement and analysis should be done on more vases?
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime I don't recall what you said. all of you guys literally have the same talking points, excuse me for not keeping up with who said what.
1
@Leeside999 yes and provenance isn't even the focus, because we would have severe difficulty recreating this object today using million-dollar machines.
1
@TheMoneypresident if these objects are not made to the precision of ancient artifacts, then they are not "duplicated".
1
that's ridiculous.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime it has nothing to do with "predetermined specification". a rotating object will ideally be perfectly radially symmetric, as in, no deviation. but life isn't perfect and that's why we have tolerances in machining. the fact that these objects have tolerances only a few 1000ths of an inch from perfect means they were rotated on a VERY precise lathe/machine with a VERY rigid cutting apparatus.
1
@Eyes_Open Sure thing. We all know who resorts to personal attacks. every. time. when they are losing the argument. The person who cannot back up his claims.
1
@Eyes_Open i'll let the vases scans speak for themselves. that kind of sums up everything wrong with archeology righ there.
1
@Eyes_Open museums scanned these items down to the 1000th of an inch? and of course nothing is perfect, but there is a huge gap in quality between these precision granite vases and other cruder ones. "But Ben needn't bother opening his mouth until he has actual vase examples to discuss." That's the thing. I ask you what will it take to get you to admit that some unknown process or technology was used in the ancient past? Ben is getting more vases scanned as we speak, will 10 be enough? 100? something tells me nothing is ever going to be enough, they call that moving goalposts, which is why you and others like you refuse to say exactly what it will take to make you admit you were wrong.
1
@DilbertMuc Benx's channel?
1
@Eyes_Open who do you think they were referring to when they said "Gods"? especially considering that most of them talk about Gods coming from the sea.
1
one side doesn't jump to conclusions, though. doing actual science isn't jumping to conclusions.
1
@San_Vito yeah but did she make it at least as visually precise as a large majority of the precision artifacts we see in museum display cases? let alone getting light-scanned to a tolerance of 0.001".
1
strawman arguments do not push anything.
1
@Eyes_Open "The burden is squarely on those claimants to prove their claim." Yes, archeologists who first claimed these precision vases were created with primitive methods. Why do you ignore this point?
1
@NickG-x6t my point stands
1
@Eyes_Open i'm surprised you didn't go with the "Petrie was probably a racist" angle. nice job coming up with something original.
1
@NinjaMonkeyPrime if you watched the video, you'd realize that they scanned a modern, lathe-turned vase.
1
@Leeside999 your side points to a crude, handmade vase as proof that precision vases can be made using primitive methods
1
@Leeside999 if someone died of a gunshot wound but no gun was ever found, would you proclaim the gun didn't exist?
1
@przemog88 speaking of flat-earther, people refused to look through Galileo's telescope because they thought it was the work of the devil. i see similarities here with the people refusing to address the precision of these ancient vases.
1
@Leeside999 yeah man, it's because those "reproduction" attempts are used for nothing more than to silence the conversation. when we can see that they are VISUALLY IMPRECISE, the conversation is over at that point. why beat a dead horse? either show one of those "hand-made" vases being analyzed and displaying the same level of precision as Ben's vases, or stop using it as "proof" that the vases can be "reproduced".
1
@DarthKookaburra the problem with your reasoning is, we weren't able to verify the precise geometric relationships these vases exhibit until the last couple years.
1
@-mattwood Don't let up on your skepticism of this channel. These people thrive off of deception and lying. They have no concept of creation and truth.
1
@Leeside999 what experiments? to my knowledge, nobody has been able to fully recreate one of these vases (with handles) to the same precision as the vases Ben and co. have scanned and analyzed.
1
@Devilboy689yoblived Hey there. First, please forgive me as I'm not as mathematically inclined as I once was, so I might not be able to eloquently describe my findings. In short, I believe there is a link between Pascal's triangle, General Relativity, and quantum mechanics, but I just don't understand why, or the implications. Essentially, if you overlay a 2D Minkowski spacetime graph overtop of an inverted Pascal's triangle (specifically, a 90 degree right triangle), the Y axis represents time, the "1's" essentially represent the boundaries aka speed of light where time doesn't pass. A spacetime curve passes through the same number throughout the triangle, indicating an equal passage of time per the theory of general relativity. I hope you understand what I'm saying. I may have used log or ln to account for the 2x binomial expansion of the middle numbers. Essentially, Pascal's Triangle is the link between general relativity and quantum physics.
1
showing an actual photo of the diorite vase would've helped.
1
 @Leeside999 the video is two years old and the vase wasn't finished. if you have a video of the vase being completed, please tell me the title so i can search for it on here. thanks.
1
@Leeside999 the only video i could find in russian was people in a museum measuring some vases. looks like the vases are ancient?
1
@Leeside999 to that i say i too can paint a Rembrandt. Show footage of me with a blank white canvas--jump cut--show a closeup of me painting a brush stroke (to the corner of modern replica)--jump cut--zoom out to show me acting like i'm applying the last brush stroke. Ta-da! I just proved i can paint a masterpiece. Trust me.
1
@Leeside999 dude they literally cropped the tilted photo in the "paper". there is a gap at the bottom, but the top is cropped out. if the top wasn't cropped out, you'd see that the core was tilted at an angle.
1
@Leeside999 why did the specifically tilt the photos of core 7?
1
@Leeside999 the entire controversy surrounding core 7 is whether the grooves are angled (spiral) or flat (concentric). the video makers are obviously aware of this, why is why they don't even acknowledge the angled grooves of core 7, and actually do their best to obscure it with trick photography. they're essentially claiming the grooves are horizontal like their "reproduction" attempt but that clearly isn't the case, hence the trick photography.
1
@Leeside999 take a screenshot of core 7 at 10.45, paste the image into MS paint, draw a few lines parallel with the grooves and extended beyond the core, and you'll clearly see that the grooves angle up from left to right.
1
@Leeside999 why would they state the grooves of core 7 are angled? the entire premise of the video is that the grooves are horizontal/concentric. the angle of the grooves in core 7 is about 1-1.5 degrees. the angle of grooves in the reproduction is non-measurable.
1
@contrarian8870 tilted grooves literally can't be made by any other process than an advanced feet rate. that's the elephant in the room that was side-stepped by that channel. that's why they used tilted photos. it's why they made the video, to silence the conversation around it. it's all disinformation.
1
the vase is precise in many different facets and proportions. it's not just a hole.
1
@hedgehog3180 one of these precision vases has never been fully recreated using primitive means in a controlled environment.
1
WOA would've been one of the people who refused to look through Galileo's telescope simply because the church labeled him a heretic. consensus of opinion does not equal fact. people don't understand this concept.
1
@WorldofAntiquity you're being intellectually dishonest in your argument because we both know the mystery is the razor-tight fitting joints, not the exterior looks of the wall. the walls vary in appearance all over the world, *but they all have perfectly mating surfaces that extend throughout the depth of the joints*. This is found in Cambodia, Easter Island, Peru, Egypt, Lebanon, India, etc. What is your argument now? That all of these supposedly isolated cultures all developed this method AND seemingly "forgot" how to continue building in this manner? Oh, and they all figured it out before any other building styles because anywhere these walls are found, they're never overtop of another style of stonework indicating a very advanced age ANYWHERE they are found. My oh my, THAT is a huge coincidence, don't you think?
1
@WorldofAntiquity i fail to see how the methods presented on this channel could truly replicate the INTRICACY and PRECISION that we see on some ancient polygonal stone walls. again, just for the record, the kind i'm talking about have perfectly mating surfaces that extend THREE_DIMENSIONALLY throughout the depth of the joint, not just at the facade. most notable examples would be Ollantaytambo, Preah Vihar Temple in Cambodia, Machu Picchu, Jupiter Temple in Baalbek, and various examples in Egypt. Nowhere these walls are found are they overtop of another building style.
1
@WorldofAntiquity I just wanted to reiterate for the public that reads this comment thread that you apparently have no idea how this type of polygonal construction was independently created in so many supposedly isolated cultures, and that you rely solely on misrepresentation and speculation to make your arguments.
1
@varyolla435 no, your side who first claimed that the known methods are capable of creating those precision vases, therefore, the onus is on YOU to prove that claim. until then, it's inconclusive.
1
@hedgehog3180 that's what people are trying to do. deal with it.
1
@Leeside999 i'm just saying, i don't get the anti-Atlantis pushback. if there is nothing to it, then it should be no skin off your back.
1
@contrarian8870 we have a photo of the group of vases he has scanned. the photo is in Ben's latest video.
1