> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > You asking me 'why the sarcasm' desereves even
> > more sarcasm. Well gee, Philip Phd, what method
> > you think is used to date wood?
> Well, radiocarbon and contextual seriation come to
> mind right off the top of my head. But I have no
> idea which one he used, if either.
Here it is written "The date of the wood is a little older than the reign of King Khufu"
Sound like seriation to you? It doesn't say 'the pit dates to' or 'the ship dates do', it specifically notes the wood itself, ergo C14. Because the wood was deteriorated, seriation is obviously not the method employed. Why not contact them yourself?
> And so I asked where is his report on his
> methodology for drawing his "dated to Khufu's
> reign" conclusion.
Don't ask me, ask them.
> No, Avry, it's not sufficient to
> assume a responsible method was
> used by an investigator. Rather, investigators
> have the responsibility to belly up with
> authenticating documentation whenever they feel
> the urge to make such a definitive quantitative
> claim such as "dated to Khufu's reign". So I'm
> simply asking for evidence of his methodology.
Then send off your own email.
> Or are you saying you have full confidence in someone
> claiming they used "radiocarbon dating" to come up
> with the date of ancient Egyptian artifacts
> without scrutinizing the methodology?
Yes, I have there full confidence. Probably because I don't have an issue with the dating of the pyramids of Giza.
> I did not question Yoshimura's integrity. Where on
> earth did you get that idea? Requiring an
> investigator to back up his assertions by
> presenting validating documentation is what
> science is all about. It's not an allegation
> against that person's integrity! It's his
> professional responsibility to do so if he expects
> the claim to stand.
It's here. You are accusing the Waseda University's Egyptology department that there claim is invalid until you - personally - see the method employed. What comes after that? You'll need to see video to prove the samples weren't tainted or lied about? Of course you will. You have demonstrated time and again you have no intention whatsoever of altering your view. No matter what evidence is given to you, you always leapfrog around it.
We could show you the pictures of the Khufu cartouche, and still you'll argue its authenticity, or some other ramble-bamble ... just as long as you don't have to admit the Giza pyramids were built by the ancient Egyptians of the Old Kingdom.
You are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, never accepting or focusing on what is given when you ask. Your own actions make it impossible to bother with you.
No, my good man, the 'reflexive hostility that predictably ensues from traditionalists' never ceases to amaze you because you are beguilingly ignorant of your own misgivings. It is you who drags conversation into the mire of extreme misplaced pedantry, then expect us all to glow in the turbulence of your whacky oblivion. *shrugs*