> (Funny how we were in the midst of discussing the
> strength of C14, but we have to deal with this
> crap before getting back to the point about his
> lunatic ideas of contamination.)
You need to do at least a little reading about contamination. Now you're calling it lunatic.
One of the basic assumptions in carbon-14 dating is that the sample being analyzed has undergone only radioactive decay and has remained unaltered by any other process over the years since it ceased interaction with the biosphere.
This assumption, however, is rarely true. The archaeological artifacts and geological specimens sent to labs for radiocarbon dating are usually found embedded or buried with other materials that may have affected their radiocarbon content. Any carbon-containing material that affects the carbon 14 content of any given sample is therefore a contaminant.
Sounds like the labs take contamination seriously and it's not a "lunatic" idea.
You don't know about the Turin Papyrus, you think there's a kings list at a Wadi somewhere, you think the casing was removed a few centuries ago, you SAY you have video proof of the mortar being original, and now you're showing you know less about C14 than I do.
Just to set the record straight so that we're all on the same page here - you are not a scientist nor egytologist or archaeologist. Whatever your profession is remains hidden behind a fake name, so if you have expertise in anything at all, it remains your secret. So please don't try to sound like you're carrying a degree in some field of science and that you know more about AE than anyone else here. It's obvious you don't.