Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It doesn't seem reasonable to you because you're
> making an incorrect assumption. Modern
> contamination can be accounted for by at least two
> possible sources other than the lab (I never
> claimed the lab introduced any contamination):

I misspoke as was only thinking after pretreatment which I address in my post to Audrey about the same:

Quote

Yeah, that didn't come out right as I was only thinking after pretreatment, sorry. Ironically, it still does not change the point as it applies even more so to samples contaminated in the field. So as it pertains to field collection this would mean that all 400+ samples between 2 studies taken 11yrs apart were contaminated the same way with the same basic amounts of modern carbon to make them all fall within the same contaminated date range that just so happens to be c 4,000-2,000BC which according to your chart below would require 50% modern contamination or more for every single sample to make 18,000BC into 3,000BC.

> Modern contamination most certainly can take
> off[[/u] thousands of years, the more and more
> older] the original sample really
> is, as I've explained in my
> [[url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
> 54014,1055124#msg-1055124]earlier post to
> you[/url]].

And as I said for it to take these "thousands of years" off means the sample must be significantly contaminated to the point of otherwise being worthless. Again, this is not one sample of mortar, the least of which only those taken from G1, it is over 400 samples from multiple sites which include short lived materials as well that all tell the same story regardless.



These samples would have to be contaminated straight across the board by at least 50% to turn 18,000BC into 3,000BC. Its not like they took these samples and wrapped them in cheese sandwiches then tested the cheese sandwich.

Again, I have no interest in this conversation particularly when it is nothing but the same things being repeated over and over again regardless of what is said. I accept the RCD studies, and RCD in general, for what they are-a guide. One sample, even several samples may have issues, but not over 400 which show the same thing straight across the board.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 19-Jun-16 20:28 by Thanos5150.