Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This group seems more Sitchin supporters than
> > Hancock ones. I am sure these types of debates
> are
> > not what Graham had in mind when this boatd was
> > created.
>
> Sitchin supporters who don’t know that they’re
> Sitchin supporters.
>
> M.

Ok ... so back to the mortar/samples taken for dating? Jon, are you listening?

Ask: If this is mortar, what was the mortar made of? Clearly, a mortar composition would be of local materials and water. Mudbrick 'tech' is very well documented, so we can easily search the environment to see what they would have used. Well not charcoal. Charcoal comes from burnt wood. They'd have to burn a forest to get the charcoal to make the mortar. So they used something else... hmmm.... like nearby straw and mud. Well what's in this mud? Surface 'mud' material would contain decomposed plant material from centuries past only a few feet deep.

And there we have the dates being a few hundred years earlier in the samples.

Poof.

So, bye bye Jon.