> “Detailed records were established during both
> sampling projects and photographs were taken from
> [sic] most sampling locations. In 1984 a
> provenience data sheet was filled out for every
> sample . . . In 1995 detailed observations on the
> sample and its location were entered in a field
> book . . .”
I cannot argue the testing in this particular instance. What I do have a problem with is C14 as a whole. It was originally presumed that carbon rates had remained constant through the ages. Now they know that isn't true and are continually having to adjust for carbon fluctuations, such as wiggles. I don't believe for a second that they have reached the pinnacle and C14 problems are now totally resolved. There are too many scientists complaining of the problems with the technique.
Libby first used this revolutionary test on Egyptian artifacts from the 3rd & 4th dyn with "known" dates and when the test results matched the KNOWN dates the test was declared a success. WOT - are you kidding me! OK artifacts having known dates without being tested at all, just how ludicrous is that. What kind of science is it that declares a test valid by comparison with KNOWN dates that have no basis in fact? This isn't science, it is blatantly shoe horning test results into preconceived beliefs of AE history.
> One would also wish to know what
> 58447,1058859#msg-1058859&v=t]contamination by
> sandstorms[/url] has to do with organic
The sand blows for miles and not like a falling snow, these storms are fast and forceful, and nowhere in the sand is there a rotting carcass, insects, twigs, dried dung, food particles, ash, spittle, urine, cloth fibers, etc. It is just pure unadulterated sand.