Manchester Museum time-lapse 'shows Egyptian statue move'

[Russ]

Er yes it is when the explanation doesn't mention why none of the other many items in the building have been affected the same way.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

Er yes it is when the explanation doesn't mention why none of the other many items in the building have been affected the same way.

Just pretend all the others way the same as elephants, and have rough bottoms.
it'll make it more understandable.

[Qtx]

Originally Posted by Russ

Did it explain why these vibrations don't affect anything else there?

Steve also explained to Mystery Map presenter Julia Bradbury why three other statues in the same glass case at the museum were not affected by the vibrations.

He said: “This statue has a convex base. There’s a lump at the bottom which makes it more susceptible to vibrations than the others which have a flat base. This is conclusive.”

Simples, and another obvious point imo

[spreadsheet]

I used to have one of these

[Gary L]

I think some people were expecting a ghost story kind of explanation.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Qtx

Simples, and another obvious point imo

OK so we know why 3 other items in the case didn't move but what about everything else in the building? No word on that?

[Gary L]

I don't know what you want to hear, Russ. but there's no voodoo, black magic, or anything supernatural as to why one thing moved and the others didn't.

it moved simply because it had a little bump on the bottom of the surface which was most probably in contact with the glass. and the vibrations caused it to rise slightly. just enough for it to move/rotate on the the little dimple.

the obvious answer as to why that one moved and not the others is because the others had a different contact surface. no little dimple. and weren't possessed.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Russ

OK so we know why 3 other items in the case didn't move but what about everything else in the building? No word on that?

Or why the building itself didn't move, or why the house at the bottom of our road isn't spinning either.

In fact we must prove why nothing else in the world hasn't been affected by the traffic in this location.

[Russ]

Confirmation bias

Is exactly what you're displaying, Russ, in reverse. You're "selecting" the lack of evidence regarding other artefacts in the museum to cast doubt on the logical conclusion to be drawn from the evidence that has been gathered - namely that the artefact moved due to an unusual combination of factors making it susceptible to vibration.

[Russ]

I dont think so. No way am I suggesting it's supernatural but to believe that nothing else in the building is bring affected by the vibrations? That's a stretch too far of the imagination but for some it's acceptable to not investigate it further. Their choice of course

Why investigate it further? The lack of movement of artefacts in cabinets does not need investigation. The artefacts are secure and are not doing anything strange or dangerous.

When I get the repair man out to my kitchen, I expect him to spend his time fixing my tumble dryer, not stand there scratching his head over why my washing machine is working normally.

[Russ]

Why investigate it at all then?

If the building contained those 3 artifacts only and absolutely nothing else then yes that would be more conclusive. But as it's a museum I assume there are many items found in the place and I find it odd that nothing else has been moved by the vibrations.

[Pierre]

Other objects would have to resonate sympathetically to the frequency of the vibrations in question.

I would find it odd if there was another object of exactly the same size, shape, density, unsecured, resting on a convex base, in the exact same spot at the item in question.

If there was, and that didn't move, then you might have something.

Otherwise, you don't.

[multiskilled]

Maybe they are, but by an imperceptible amount between the time span of the objects being removed so the cabinets can be cleaned.