[NHQ]

This is a solved case, they were used for textiles. But to admit this would break history, so instead it is constantly rattled academically. Put one next to the Voynich Manuscript in the Museum or Jurassic Technology.

The cause behind this narrative hustle is the industrial historical arrogation which teaches that knitting was not invented until 1000 years after "The Romans". They had textiles, weaving, but no knitting.

This is early mere patent protection during the capitol rush of industrialism, claiming devices which were not actually invented as pretended, and therefor should have no claim to copyrights. The cotton gin was not invented in 1793.

Moreover it is a supremely ignorant and abstract notion, showing how detached academia is from reality. Anybody with time on their hands and some vines may invent weaving, knotting, knitting, and with metal slivers many ways to make pins. There has never been a people without this technology.

[ameister14]

The cotton gin was not invented in 1793, but the claim wasn't a narrative hustle.

The short staple cotton gin was invented in 1793.

[tengwar2]

Coming up with a possible use is a very long way from being able to declare this "solved". There are many such claims. For the idea you discuss, a problem is that the projections were balls - not the easiest of things to dislodge loops from, which you would have to do at every step.

[harimau777]

My understanding is that this would be equivalent to loom knitting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spool_knitting). Is it possible that loom knitting was invented earlier but needle knitting was not?

[mjanx123]

What is the matter with the Voynich Manuscript?

[Loughla]

I'm a little lost here. Your argument is that this is part of a grand conspiracy in academia to protect. . . big textile?

The thing about conspiracies is that there tends to be a purpose behind them. What would be the point of this one? That the cotton gin couldn't be patented? How would that possibly impact any single person today? What would be the incentive for continuing this conspiracy?

In general, historians are pretty quick to correct mistakes from their past interpretations of facts. So why would this be different?

[NHQ]

That would be 2025 logic, but at the time it was not "big textile", it was universal control over industrialization. As if big textile is any different than big oil, all the same owners today as in 1800, owning everything and protecting that claim to rights.

The point however is not that of protecting copyright, but that copyright protection was invented to usurp technology which was not truly invented. This is how controlling history controls the present, for if all roads lead back to "we invented this and own it" then all roads forwards must pay that toll. If the narrative were not true, then the premise could not hold.

[meindnoch]

You have to admit, this is a pretty unhinged conspiracy theory.