> > > Then you do not comprehend basic statistical
> > > analysis. Given 100 samples, 99 say date X, 1
> > says
> > > date Y, and you have the audacity to think
> > 1
> > > date of Y defines the whole set.
> > No No No No
> > Incorrect AGAIN.
> > I say 99 samples say date X
> > One sample says date Y.
> > No "audacity", a simple statement of fact based
> > upon the dating of individual samples.
> > You may care to disregard the date Y, FOR
> > REASON. I do not.
> Either way, Jon, you need a reason to keep Y. I
> have a reason for disregarding it. Actually, two.
> One, because it is outside the norm, and two,
> because of contamination. What's your logic for
> keeping it?
I need a reason for keeping it? I disregard nothing.
Disregarding hard data that sits outside of accepted belief seems to be standard practice among many Egyptologists.
You can prove contamination? Did the lab prove contamination? If they did prove contamination why was the sample date tabulated and published.
> > The test lab obviously found the test of date Y
> > be correct and therefore tabulated and
> > it.
> They reported the result, not if it was correct or
> not. Know the difference?
They published the result after carrying out the correct test procedure. As they did with the other samples that you have no difficulty accepting as correct.
> > it is
> > > more likely the 1 sample is an anomalous
> > > that can be removed. The importance here is
> > that
> > > all dates were reported, not thrown
> > > before publication. They included data no
> > matter
> > > how odd it seemed, and that's honest science.
> > It is indeed anomalous.
> > Begging the question as to why would one single
> > test and measurement be anomalous when 99 are
> > not..
> In science, it would say there is something wrong
> with the single sample tested.
Not necessarily, it would say that the single sample tested is anomalous, nothing more nothing less. Possibly necessitating re tests. Which if found correct would be published. Which it was...
> > Which is why all data is published leaving the
> > individual free to analyse the data, choosing
> > consider or disregard each individual
> > measurement.
> Well, thank you, Jon. I have chosen.
Good for you.
> > Disregarding any anomalous reading without
> > understanding the reason for that reading is a
> > dangerous practice.
> > Thank Christ you don't work in aviation.
> That's why I gave a reason, ergo, no dangerous
> practice on my end. Thank Christ you don't work in
> English grammar courses.
Who said I'm English . Are you English? If so what dialect? I can't place it.
> > > But then, you don't even care to ask the
> > question
> > > of why these dates are what they are, you
> > run
> > > with them. So how are you going to explain
> > mortar
> > > made from local mud deposits with centuries
> > > flora in them?
> > From the information you have given. I would
> > accept that the deposits are centuries old, or
> > they have been contaminated with centuries old
> > flora. The arrow of time can only fly in one
> > direction.
> Your level of comprehension is stunning. Shall I
> explain it again?
> If the samples contained carbon input from
> material that is centuries older, the results of
> the tests being in the range of centuries older
> therefore makes sense. It explains why the dates
> are off. Are you daft?
What does "daft" mean
I think what you are trying to say is..
If the sample test results revealed dates earlier than expected, then there is a possibility that the aforementioned samples may have been previously contaminated by older organic material.
Is that correct??
Another possibility is that..
If the sample test results revealed dates earlier than expected, then there is a possibility that the aforementioned date expectation was later... than expected.
> > You then appear to have edited your statement,
> > preserved for prosperity by Corpuscules quote.
> No idea what you are referring to. I did not edit
> my post. Otherwise the Phorum software (which none
> of us has access to) would have placed one of
> these on the bottom of my post :"Edited 4 time(s).
> Last edit at 15-Jun-16 23:26 by Jon Ellison.",
> like yours just did. Do you see one in mine?
> Anyone? Beuller? Beuller? Anyone?
Maybe Corpuscules fabricated the quote from your post.
> Yes, bye, Jon. You seem determined to fragmentize
> context at an alarming pace, drilling down to
> micro-point after micro-point in order to try and
> substantiate this lunacy. Go on then, have your
> way. You are truly just boring me, anyway.
I prefer to think of it as paying attention to detail. Which I admit can be tedious. Something you obviously disapprove of.
> Cheers and good luck,
Have a nice day.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 16-Jun-16 00:55 by Jon Ellison.