> It's not a matter of "doubt-mongering" or "wanting
> a different result" or "dumping on them for no
> good reason", or any other subjective, personal,
> ideological bias. It's simply understanding the
> methodology enough to realize its real
> limitations: contamination, lack of proper
> calibration, and unfounded assumptions in the
> "best fit" distribution. These are very
> significant problems with RCD methodology which
> can completely and logically explain why the
> pyramid mortar samples may be far older than RCD
> data would have us believe. I realize that the
> data as reported might fit certain hypotheses, but
> considering the logical flaws that very likely
> caused a bias the data, such matching with
> hypotheses is coincidental, artifactual, and may
> likely simply render such hypotheses incorrect by
> virtue of the skewed results of the RCD methods in
> the first place.
> That Abu Roash tested older might simply be an
> artifactual reflection of the far fewer tourists
> that visited that site over the centuries, or the
> far fewer restoration projects conducted by
> dynastic kings compared to Giza and the other
> pyramids, the latter having applied far more
> "modern" mortar which would certainly make Giza
> appear newer than Abu Roash.
The summary that Lee provides of quite elaborate studies deserves more respect. It certainly is true that C14 dating is imperfect, and not only the specific dates presented, but the relationships presented may be incorrect, misleading, or hopelessly wrong. However, discarding, or disregarding the results is not what scientists do: we replicate, correct, and improve. Replicating and improving these studies is possible. Improvements have already been made, and will continue. Given the implications of the results as they stand, that is exactly what one would hope would happen: many times, in many ways.
I think that has already started, and this published review Lee partly summarizes indicates both concerns and progress over the last 30 or so years. I'm ready for--and hoping for--more.