Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OCaptain Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > 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.


Can you please provide documentation for your claim of where the mortar samples were acquired - and also, from where they are normally acquired in 14C tests that you agree with? (In other words, are there other studies that acquired samples in similar ways that produced dating results you agree with?)

Can you further provide documentation for your claim that the ages derived from the mortar samples were up to 11,000 BCE?

Thank you.