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).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > As far as radiocarbon goes, samples were taken
> > from more places than just the pyramid of
> > Khufu—and there from multiple locations, between
> > the exposed core blocks (and away from where
> > tourists most usually climb).
>
> All of the samples taken from the pyramid in the
> '95 study were taken from the surface which
> exposed them to contamination by modern carbon in
> the atmosphere.
Possibly it did. The area is polluted. I find several papers which touch on the topic, but none of them quantifies carbon deposition on the pyramids.
> Which deep samples were taken (in either study)?
You want me to read the paper for you? Or is this a purely rhetorical question?
> > To explain away the
> > whole of the radiocarbon results by “repairs”
> > would require these “repairs” to account for
> > the entirety of the casing,
>
> Relatively small amounts of contamination by
> modern carbon can significantly bias the dating to
> a significantly more recent time.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about what the “repairs” explanation entails.
> The '95 study did not indicate that there was
> randomness applied to the location of each sample.
> In fact, the '95 report states that the samples
> must contain a 1-2mm clump of "charcoal" visible
> on the surface of the mortar. Do we know with
> certainty that such charcoal in the mortar is
> equally distributed across the entire pyramid?
Do we know anything with certainty? You seem to have forgotten your sig again.
Are you suggesting that modern carbon can somehow penetrate clumps of charcoal? How does it do this?
Or that the samplers made no distinction between loose charcoal sitting on the surface and charcoal partly embedded?
> Might such charcoal be visible only in a cruder
> batch of mortar created centuries after the
> original construction, perhaps a more modern
> mortar used in a restoration project (dynastic or
> modern) resulting in a sampling bias? Is there a
> study that characterizes whether the mortar is
> homogenous across the entire pyramid?
Back to “repairs” again.
If the mortar were modern, the charcoal would be modern. It didn’t date modern, did it?
So back to a “dynastic restoration project”—which is where I came in, with a point which has yet to be grasped.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > As far as radiocarbon goes, samples were taken
> > from more places than just the pyramid of
> > Khufu—and there from multiple locations, between
> > the exposed core blocks (and away from where
> > tourists most usually climb).
>
> All of the samples taken from the pyramid in the
> '95 study were taken from the surface which
> exposed them to contamination by modern carbon in
> the atmosphere.
Possibly it did. The area is polluted. I find several papers which touch on the topic, but none of them quantifies carbon deposition on the pyramids.
> Which deep samples were taken (in either study)?
You want me to read the paper for you? Or is this a purely rhetorical question?
> > To explain away the
> > whole of the radiocarbon results by “repairs”
> > would require these “repairs” to account for
> > the entirety of the casing,
>
> Relatively small amounts of contamination by
> modern carbon can significantly bias the dating to
> a significantly more recent time.
What does this have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about what the “repairs” explanation entails.
> The '95 study did not indicate that there was
> randomness applied to the location of each sample.
> In fact, the '95 report states that the samples
> must contain a 1-2mm clump of "charcoal" visible
> on the surface of the mortar. Do we know with
> certainty that such charcoal in the mortar is
> equally distributed across the entire pyramid?
Do we know anything with certainty? You seem to have forgotten your sig again.
Are you suggesting that modern carbon can somehow penetrate clumps of charcoal? How does it do this?
Or that the samplers made no distinction between loose charcoal sitting on the surface and charcoal partly embedded?
> Might such charcoal be visible only in a cruder
> batch of mortar created centuries after the
> original construction, perhaps a more modern
> mortar used in a restoration project (dynastic or
> modern) resulting in a sampling bias? Is there a
> study that characterizes whether the mortar is
> homogenous across the entire pyramid?
Back to “repairs” again.
If the mortar were modern, the charcoal would be modern. It didn’t date modern, did it?
So back to a “dynastic restoration project”—which is where I came in, with a point which has yet to be grasped.
M.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.