Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Dr E,

Thank you for your answers, especially concerning C14. Just so you know, I am an avid supporter of this method and have witnessed first hand just how reliable the results can be. I agree with you on that point. However, I don't agree with how certain strains of Archaeology use it indifferently. Let me explain.

There is an imperative catalyst used in this application and I'm sure you recognize it's scientific force---and something I'm sure you'll agree on---and that is: blind testing. Unfortunately, a great many tests have been conducted without this safeguard throughout the Egyptological field for many years. (As an aside, an interesting story by Mark Lehner himself revealed that tests conducted as far back as 7 yrs ago have yet to be completed. Regardless of how much faith I personally have in radiocarbon dating, procrastinate actions like this make it very easy for anyone to raise an eyebrow in bewilderment, not to mention a solid and curious "hmmmmm..." reverberating throughout the scientific field in general, if not so in the minds of relatively intelligent people like you and I).
Continuing on, two adept writers from Great Britain were kind enough to publish a brief summation on their own experiences with the C14 method, and the results were indeed interesting. Perhaps unknowingly (or without insight) they decided to show how the scientists conducting the tests were TOLD where the samples came from, and even worse, the possible time frame. When the results came back, there was a large spread in the dating (upwards of a thousand years). They even went so far as to actually CHOSE a resulting date for their study because it was 'the closest to the pre-chosen dates'. Not only that, the MAJORITY of the results were NOT consistent with their theory.
It gets worse.
They then go on to say how foolish, unbalanced, and unsupported the theories of Graham etal are!

***

Another area of concern is the sample validity, ie. level of contaminates; probability of contamination (where remains of such are no longer readable); location source (which may have allowed oxidation and/or causticization); combining multiple components in situ (eg. mortar); etc.
I'm simply not convinced at this point as to wether or not these factors have been considered. I am also not convinced the samples were handled according to strict measures (using instruments instead of direct contact; sterilized packaging; etc.). On the whole, the perspective given to me by the orthdox community doesn't show any honesty toward science. Yet they feel comfortable in using non-objective reasoning when making their conclusions achieve factual status, furthermore demonstarting their inability to incorporate basic logic when called upon.

Thanks to the efforts of unorthodox writers these deduction capabilities (or should I say 'incapabilities') have been brought to the forefront. In turn, the method is questioned along with what has been decided as the one-and-only truth about our history.

This doesn't make me a 'Graham' disciple. On the contrary, I hold an objective view to his theories and others like him while at the same time echoing the compliment toward orthodoxy. He designed a framework, if you will, and I certainly don't mind lending a hand holding up the walls so that in time others might join in completing the project.

By the way, your answer to my "state a fact, please" question is a little general, don't you think? I absolutely agree that people lived there in 3000BC. But try something more unique and contextual...

In due time, I'll let you know the reason I'm asking these questions.

Yours,

R. Avry Wilson

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Bravo Robert!!! 371 Trisha Webber 30-Nov-00 21:51
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 200 Dr E 01-Dec-00 12:00
And the rest of you? 167 Bryan 01-Dec-00 12:31
RE: And the rest of you? 198 Dr E 01-Dec-00 12:39
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 147 R. Avry Wilson 01-Dec-00 13:05
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 190 Dr E 01-Dec-00 13:35
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 187 MArk Chan 04-Dec-00 13:49
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 148 R. Avry Wilson 01-Dec-00 14:17
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 177 Dr E 01-Dec-00 16:24
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 184 Irritated !! 01-Dec-00 17:09
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 267 Dr E 01-Dec-00 17:52
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 188 laura 01-Dec-00 18:19
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 213 Margaret 01-Dec-00 23:54
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 132 MArk Chan 04-Dec-00 14:19
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 165 R. Avry Wilson 02-Dec-00 11:05
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 159 Dr E 04-Dec-00 10:47
RE: Bravo Robert!!! 192 MArk Chan 04-Dec-00 13:39


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.