Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> > Sure, Philip.
> >
> > In your link to your assessment you posed this
> > question (I sure hope you don't come back with
> > "What?!? Where did I say that? I never said
> > that!")
> >
> >

Quote

Oddly, the authors believe the fault was
> in
> > the C-14 studies and not the historic
> chronology.
> > No explanation was offered to explain why the
> > authors did not allow for the possibility that
> the
> > historic chronology may be at fault and not the
> > C-14 studies.

> >
> > Now, from the article posted by Lee:
> >
> >

Quote

Surprisingly, the earliest date 3809 ±
> 160
> > BC of the Great Pyramid was given by two
> charcoal
> > samples from a top layer of the Great Pyramid.
> > These samples could date to as early as 3969 BC
> or
> > as late as 3649 BC. Various pieces of evidence
> > suggest that all great pyramids were built over
> > older monuments, but then we would expect to
> find
> > the earliest dates in lower and inner rather
> than
> > in higher and outer layers. Anyhow, a wood
> sample
> > from the same top layer gave a more realistic
> date
> > of 3101 ± 414 BC. But this date has a much
> wider
> > range, from 3515 BC to 2749 BC. Another sample
> > from the same layer gave the date 3020 ± 131
> BC.
> > Thirteen other samples from the lower outside
> > layers of the Great Pyramid, all radiocarbon
> > except two, ranged from 3090 ± 153 to 2853 ±
> 104
> > BC

>
> Thanos' "article" does not address the processes
> of C14 dating nor the processes of sampling. He
> merely uses the outcome of the tests. Therefore,
> his "article" does not answer the problems raised
> by Ori.


Deflection, m'lady. Can you follow what was asked? Philip wondered why the C14 study was brought under scrutiny, and I explained why. Pretty simple.

> > There is only one escape for you on
> this,
> > Philip, and it is your proof beyond doubt the
> AEs
> > had a time machine. I don't have time for your
> > childish games. There's your answer.
>
> Evidently you also do not have time to become
> educated on the complexities of C14 dating.

And what, praytell, is your basis that I don't understand the process? I'd ask you to specifically quote what I might have said that shows unequivocally I do not understand. What a ridiculous thing to say.


> > And as for Audrey's blind faith in your
> > assessment, shall I quote her again? She
> actually
> > wrote she was not interested in even
> > reviewing/questioning you opinion, preferring
> to
> > accept what you say simply because you said it.
> > Again, UNREAL.
>
> What "faith" I have, and where it lies, has no
> relevance to the accuracy of the C14 results or
> the process of sampling that would effect the
> accuracy of the results. My "faith" is of no
> interest to the readers who may however, be
> interested in the process of C14 dating.

While true - your faith in Philip has no bearing on a C14 dating - this is not the problem. The problem is you willfully defer to what he says as being correct without questioning it.

> I look forward to your rebuttal on the problems
> raised by Ori. If you do not have the knowledge to
> discuss them, I trust you will use common sense
> and defer to those who do have the knowledge. So
> far, no one on this board has answered the
> questions in Ori's mini article.

Poke to the forehead, Audrey: I personally raised this exact same discussion on these studies as Philip does here over 17 years ago with individuals more directly involved. After receiving direction, I reassessed my conclusions and saw the error(s). Your obtuse suggestion I need to have more knowledge on the subject is thoughtless and misguided. You, on the other hand, explicitly expressed you have no intention of investigating yourself, nor to listen to any other info because - apparently - Philip has spoken.

Your a googleplex more a piece of work then you assume others are.