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).
Jon Ellison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Try to understand. The published RC dates
> > > > > bracketed millennia, not just centuries. The
> > > > > earlier dates at the summit.
> > > > > The later dates toward the base.
> > > >
> > > > I’ve read the papers—and if I read correctly
> > > > now, your “bracketed millennia” takes in a
> > > > conspicuous outlier.
> > >
> > > I don't dis-consider the "outlier".
> >
> > Thanks for confirming.
> >
> > > The earliest sample date is relevant, not the
> > > mathematical average or the latest.
> >
> > Relevant to what?
>
> The earliest date possible. Based on sample date.
That’s not how it works.
> > Are you ignoring statistics, in a method which is
> > inherently statistical?
>
> A sample is taken, it is tested, a date is
> obtained. That sample date/position cannot be
> later.
Thanks for confirming. You are ignoring the statistical content of a statistical method.
[SNIP]
> Who was shooting at the summit of G2?
> Which is also in a ruinous state.
What on earth are you talking about? That’s after all of the damage done in the medieval period! Most of the casing is gone. Didn’t you notice?
> You are assuming
> that G1 was in an as new condition?
When it was new, yes.
What’s that got to do with my point? The samples were taken from a level reached by the complete removal of the casing. Patch repairs won’t account for them. It would take a complete recasing—and probably a fresh layer of core blocks or backing blocks as well—but we see where you’re going with this (rationalisation) below.
> Already ancient eroded, weathered casing requiring
> repair. Just like the Bent which was heavily
> repaired in ancient times.
. . . by the builders, in the course of building. This is not repair of eroded blocks, let alone replacement of them. It is making good the surface when blocks get chipped.
> Cracks, fissures and openings between casing
> blocks, repair plaster/slop poured in.
> Similar to summit of G2 today.
> It was re-pointed. Some of the pointing slop
> finding its way down through open joints and
> fissures to core blocks.
And magically, miraculously and conveniently, all of the samples were taken from this slop, which was poured through the huge gaps we know there are between the casing stones—or was it injected, like cavity wall insulation?
Complete fantasy. Rationalisation, not thought.
[SNIP]
M.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jun-16 20:52 by Martin Stower.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Martin Stower Wrote:
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Jon Ellison Wrote:
> > > > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > Try to understand. The published RC dates
> > > > > bracketed millennia, not just centuries. The
> > > > > earlier dates at the summit.
> > > > > The later dates toward the base.
> > > >
> > > > I’ve read the papers—and if I read correctly
> > > > now, your “bracketed millennia” takes in a
> > > > conspicuous outlier.
> > >
> > > I don't dis-consider the "outlier".
> >
> > Thanks for confirming.
> >
> > > The earliest sample date is relevant, not the
> > > mathematical average or the latest.
> >
> > Relevant to what?
>
> The earliest date possible. Based on sample date.
That’s not how it works.
> > Are you ignoring statistics, in a method which is
> > inherently statistical?
>
> A sample is taken, it is tested, a date is
> obtained. That sample date/position cannot be
> later.
Thanks for confirming. You are ignoring the statistical content of a statistical method.
[SNIP]
> Who was shooting at the summit of G2?
> Which is also in a ruinous state.
What on earth are you talking about? That’s after all of the damage done in the medieval period! Most of the casing is gone. Didn’t you notice?
> You are assuming
> that G1 was in an as new condition?
When it was new, yes.
What’s that got to do with my point? The samples were taken from a level reached by the complete removal of the casing. Patch repairs won’t account for them. It would take a complete recasing—and probably a fresh layer of core blocks or backing blocks as well—but we see where you’re going with this (rationalisation) below.
> Already ancient eroded, weathered casing requiring
> repair. Just like the Bent which was heavily
> repaired in ancient times.
. . . by the builders, in the course of building. This is not repair of eroded blocks, let alone replacement of them. It is making good the surface when blocks get chipped.
> Cracks, fissures and openings between casing
> blocks, repair plaster/slop poured in.
> Similar to summit of G2 today.
> It was re-pointed. Some of the pointing slop
> finding its way down through open joints and
> fissures to core blocks.
And magically, miraculously and conveniently, all of the samples were taken from this slop, which was poured through the huge gaps we know there are between the casing stones—or was it injected, like cavity wall insulation?
Complete fantasy. Rationalisation, not thought.
[SNIP]
M.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14-Jun-16 20:52 by Martin Stower.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.