Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Again, Femano, care to cite a peer-reviewed
> paper
> > on the organic content of dust storms
> > contaminating (and defeating pretreatment of)
> > charcoal samples taken for 14C
> dating?
>
> Feel free to believe there is no organic content
> in Egyptian dust storms, (as well as wind and
> rain) that would significantly contaminate the C14
> dating of ancient charcoal after being exposed,
> 24/7 for centuries, to what has become one of the
> most hydrocarbon-pollutedenvironments on the planet.
You can't see your own error in logic? If indeed mere century-old contaminants got in, the samples would show dates only a few centuries old. Like hello? Are you that dense? They don't. The results are a tad earlier than the mid-3rd Millennium BCE. Do tell, Philip, how do you think modern samples make samples miraculously older by thousands of years when what you suggest should make them only centuries old?
> Considering that the
> "daily air pollution intake isakin to smoking a pack of cigarettes",
> I think you're going to have a very hard time
> finding a scientist who would agree that a piece
> of ancient charcoal wouldn't be contaminated after
> being exposed by such an intense barrage of
> hydrocarbons.
Then why do you think they were so careful with the tests, hmm? You still think they just grabbed specks of black carbon right off the surface?? I'd post WOW in million-point font but it might crash the MB. How about this? :
-------------------------------------------------------
> Martin Stower Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Again, Femano, care to cite a peer-reviewed
> paper
> > on the organic content of dust storms
> > contaminating (and defeating pretreatment of)
> > charcoal samples taken for 14C
> dating?
>
> Feel free to believe there is no organic content
> in Egyptian dust storms, (as well as wind and
> rain) that would significantly contaminate the C14
> dating of ancient charcoal after being exposed,
> 24/7 for centuries, to what has become one of the
> most hydrocarbon-pollutedenvironments on the planet.
You can't see your own error in logic? If indeed mere century-old contaminants got in, the samples would show dates only a few centuries old. Like hello? Are you that dense? They don't. The results are a tad earlier than the mid-3rd Millennium BCE. Do tell, Philip, how do you think modern samples make samples miraculously older by thousands of years when what you suggest should make them only centuries old?
> Considering that the
> "daily air pollution intake isakin to smoking a pack of cigarettes",
> I think you're going to have a very hard time
> finding a scientist who would agree that a piece
> of ancient charcoal wouldn't be contaminated after
> being exposed by such an intense barrage of
> hydrocarbons.
Then why do you think they were so careful with the tests, hmm? You still think they just grabbed specks of black carbon right off the surface?? I'd post WOW in million-point font but it might crash the MB. How about this? :
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.