> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > Audrey?
> > Yes, the 'expected date' is an assumption, but
> > is a best guess assumption using relative
> > ie other context. Being that those who made the
> > assimption know full well it is only that, thus
> > employing a C14 test helps to check on the
> > validity of the best guess.
> If the first test had given a date 1000 yrs off
> from the expected, the test would have been
> scraped. It's preposterous that an assumed date is
> the yard stick for a science test.
It isn't. Think they only did one comparison to a relatively dated item? Think Libby didn't vet out the science behind the decay beforehand? Think it hasn't been tested and re-tested since then?
Please read this: Radiocarbon_dating.
> > I'm sure many
> > scientists
> > around the world await your paper on this.
> I'm also sure they are waiting and routinely check
> this board for my opinion.
I gather they don't. It is clear I meant they'll await your paper somewhere where they _can_ see it. And that would be a scientific paper, not your 'opinion' - two completely different things.
> There are the tests and measurements made by
> qualified engineers and machinists who are able to
> interpret tool marks and have determined that
> primitive tools cannot produce some of the cuts at
> pyramid sites.
Those are opinions. Opinions, I might add, made by people firmly planted in the alternative genre.
> Something's wrong with C14 testing OR the C14
> dates are when the casing was removed by
(As she reveals her hand.)
You have no basis on which to decry C14 dating. The problem is you just want the pyramids to have been built long before the accepted time frame because of your blind attachment to a bogus claim. You seem to think the casing was gone in the 3rd Millennium BCE, and the AEs of the time found them that way. That's your way of 'explaining' how the C14 results 'fit' the squatter idea (which means you'd have to accept the C14 is correct) or you think the C14 is wildly wrong when confronted with casing being intact until a few centuries ago, arguing about sandstorms bringing in contaminants. Both arguments contradict one another in the extreme, yet you employ both because you argue whatever you think fits a current topic point. You are so desperate to cling to Saint Scott and others making a trash of history that you don't even realize the contradictory statements you make. Sheesh.
> > It's not faith I have, it's an adherence to the
> > structural proofs of the science backing it up.
> There are scientists that do not share your
Wow. Can you read? I state it is not faith, and you respond as though it was my 'belief', when I actually wrote " ... it's an adherence to the structural proofs of the science ... ". Do tell, Audrey, where in that phrase do I profess my position is a 'belief'? Mind you, you may like to think there are scientists who don't share my position, however, you either (A) can't provide a single one (you're just typing what comes to mind) or (B) your 'scientists' are loony alternative historians like Von Daniken, Sitchin, Alford, 'Windblast' Tsoukalos and of course the venerable Saint Scott.
> > Again, the world awaits your scientifically
> > reviwed study on how C14 is all wrong. Quite
> > different task there merely stating it, eh?
> > you have the science to show it is wrong, you
> > remain wrong. That's just the way it is.
> Again, it's you who are wrong. The replicants have
> it wrong.
Note here how she completely dodges responding to the point made, instead, invokes absolute nutjob David Icke. (Single slow golf clap from rear of auditorium glides through the silence.) Such is the mind of someone who can't release themselves from the bond of supporting a bogus theory because it feels right ... or something to do with holistic crystals sending you messages from Edgar Cayce, perhaps?
> A "few centuries" would be about 2-8 centuries.
> I'm not going on a wild goose chase for something
> you are not able to clarify.
> You're making a vague statement, you look it up.
> I think you're making stuff up.
It is hysterical you conclude I am making it up when all it takes is a very simple online search of a few key words to show different. It's amazing how you refuse to do something so intensely remedial. Suit yourself.
> I kindly suggest you form something other than a
> vague meaningless statement.
Again, dodging having to answer the point, and unable to type a few words into a search engine.
> Penetrate casing?? That doesn't make a bit of
> Porous and pitted stone/mortar. Small particles
> that fill every hole.
> Yep, that's a tough one to visualize.
And now you discount how precisely tight these casing stones were fit in order to support the idea particles from a sandstorm can penetrate sealed 'cracks' to a depth of 3-5 feet. And you think _I_ don't make sense?
See what I mean? You'll say _anything_ (even if utterly wrong, factually or logically) because you can't come to grips with admitting your error. Sorry, I've added enough input on this current point, and don't intend to bother going around in circles. Over and out.