> Actually, the differences between the 1984 tests
> and the 1995 tests is about 200-500 years, based
> on my reading. Both of them would push back the
> traditional dates for the building of the GPs,
> just not enough to satisfy our alt-history fans.
On the contrary, the results of the '95 study perfectly support the notion that the pyramids are a lot older than the 3rd millennium BC, once one understands the flaws in the methodology. The samples were scraped right off the surface of the mortar where the sampling investigator was able to visually detect a 1-2mm clump of charcoal. This certainly implies the likelihood of gross contamination with the very polluted air around Cairo and would make anyone that understands the technology realize the sample dates could be artifactually averaged to far more recent dates than they really are. Meanwhile, the C14 decay charts shows that it's quite possible that the samples could very well be at least 11k years old if not older, depending on the percent of new carbon contaminating those surface samples. Note that mortar is typically heated to a temperature that would "activate" any charcoal in it, thereby making the surface charcoal an ionic "magnet" for ambient particular matter, such as hydrocarbon pollution, which greatly further exacerbates the likelihood of modern carbon contamination of those samples.
And that's for the samples that Hawass agreed to use in the analysis. It doesn't include the other 50% of the samples which were inexplicable excluded from the analysis.
The study was fraught with such methodological flaws.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?