Dr. Max Fomitchev-Zamilov

I mean, if it was done some other way, you know, perhaps, but That's all I can conclude from this analysis. What else do we have there?

Well, I would say, proper way of phrasing it, the quality of their fashioning is consistent with machining. So I cannot say they were machined, but I would say the quality of fashioning is consistent with machining, yes. Whereas the other one is quality of fashioning is consistent with manual labor.

Well, I would say, proper way of phrasing it, the quality of their fashioning is consistent with machining. So I cannot say they were machined, but I would say the quality of fashioning is consistent with machining, yes. Whereas the other one is quality of fashioning is consistent with manual labor.

Well, I would say, proper way of phrasing it, the quality of their fashioning is consistent with machining. So I cannot say they were machined, but I would say the quality of fashioning is consistent with machining, yes. Whereas the other one is quality of fashioning is consistent with manual labor.

And I think it's a defensible statement, you know, given the data that I presented.

And I think it's a defensible statement, you know, given the data that I presented.

And I think it's a defensible statement, you know, given the data that I presented.

I rather doubt that because, you know, that's not Olga's result. You know, she tried and her objective was to disprove.

I rather doubt that because, you know, that's not Olga's result. You know, she tried and her objective was to disprove.

I rather doubt that because, you know, that's not Olga's result. You know, she tried and her objective was to disprove.

And she tried. She tried very hard. and her bars are no, you know, was it 100 times worse? Yeah, 100 times worse than V4 and V18. So, you know, based of this, I mean, it's not a very large sample.

And she tried. She tried very hard. and her bars are no, you know, was it 100 times worse? Yeah, 100 times worse than V4 and V18. So, you know, based of this, I mean, it's not a very large sample.

And she tried. She tried very hard. and her bars are no, you know, was it 100 times worse? Yeah, 100 times worse than V4 and V18. So, you know, based of this, I mean, it's not a very large sample.

50, 60 times worse, right, and she tried very hard. So based on this, you know, limited sample, I would say no, right?

50, 60 times worse, right, and she tried very hard. So based on this, you know, limited sample, I would say no, right?

50, 60 times worse, right, and she tried very hard. So based on this, you know, limited sample, I would say no, right?

Obviously, you know, if you had 100 manual ones, you would have a better sample, but we had only two.

Obviously, you know, if you had 100 manual ones, you would have a better sample, but we had only two.

Obviously, you know, if you had 100 manual ones, you would have a better sample, but we had only two.

Some advanced manufacturing. I would say it would be fair to say... Whatever was used to make it was not a primitive tool or primitive technique. Definitely not a handheld tool.