> The extract being part of a historical
> survey, citing for the quote emphasised by Audrey
> a paper of 1970 (Säve-Söderbergh and Olsson).
It wasn't a paper, it was a symposium. You're lost already
> Then we get a selection of letters from the
> Velikovsky Archive, dates omitted, although we can
> tell from internal evidence that the first one
> quoted dates to January 29th, 1973—and of
> course, those to Velikovsky himself likely predate
> his death in 1979.
In all your brilliance did you see that Merrell said the exact same thing as museums and Egyptologists did 50 years ago? Or are you too dense to see the connection. Hear that whoosh? That's the sound of facts flying over your head. Merrell is proof that the attitude hasn't changed.
> The remaining dates, as given in the archive
> versions, are April 19, 1973, January 21, 1955,
> 11th August, 1960, September 29, 1960.
> And this concoction is served up as evidence of
> the state of play in 2017.
When did it change? Oct. 3, 1996? When exactly did this archaic ignorant self-serving attitude turn around? Are Egyptologists doing testing now? Publishing the results now? You show us when it changed and show us it's not happening now. Then tell Merrell she's waaaay behind the times.
You have no idea what's going on in Egyptology.
> Next we have some material from Beta Analytic
> Laboratories, which has appeared in various places
> on the Web, then disappeared from them. It’s
> not clear where Audrey got it from, as her order
> differs from that of the original, which is here:
You are incoherent. My "order", what the hell are you talking about? The "original" what?
So you managed to find the name I gave, "Beta Analytic Laboratories". Let's hear a round of applause for that amazing feat of research. Now you want to make it sound like you found something else, something "original".
Do you have anything that remotely resembles a point with this?
> Page title is “Radiocarbon Dating and
> Archaeology - Beta Analytic” and as indicated,
> the page concerns archaeology in general, not
> Egyptian archaeology or “Egyptology”, neither
> of which is mentioned. This is the only material
> cited which could properly be called
That shows how you know nothing about RCD. Learn about RCD before you shoot your mouth off. You could start by learning about Libby and Egyptology. Eventually you'll learn that Egyptology is hardly mentioned anymore, in regard to RCD, but is still at the base of it.
> Finally, we have a paper of 1991, “Radiocarbon
> Dating and Icelandic Archaeology” by Vilhjdlmur
> örn Vilhjrilmsson:
> Yes, that’s right, Icelandic archaeology.
> Nowhere does the paper mention Egypt, even for
And everything I posted is 100% more than you've posted.
Why should it mention Egypt? Is RCD confined to Egypt? Another one flies over your head. I might as well be talking to 5 yr old pods.
> No, you should go and do some reading, take a
> course, get a clue.
Looks like I'm the one reading, about RCD past and present. While you are what? What an insecure twisted little ego you have.