> Audrey Wrote:
> It isn't. Think they only did one comparison to a
> relatively dated item?
Yes! That's exactly what was done.
>Think Libby didn't vet out
> the science behind the decay beforehand? Think it
> hasn't been tested and re-tested since then?
They've had to make major adjustments because the test results have been so whacky.
> Please read this:
Please read something other than wiki.
> Those are opinions. Opinions, I might add, made by
> people firmly planted in the alternative genre.
Because there are no engineers in Egyptology. Egyptologists are expert in memorizing what they're told and in digging for pottery.
> (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.
Take a couple of deep breaths. Relax, focus. Stop rambling.
> Wow. Can you read?
No, I can't read. Wonder how I manage to post. Dumb ass question Avry.
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.
Uhhh, none of the above are scientists. I said scientists, not historians.
> Note here how she completely dodges responding to
> the point made, instead, invokes absolute nutjob
> David Icke.
David Icke?? Don't even know who he is.
(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?
Crystals, Cayce?? You're bouncing off the walls.
> 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.
How is it you expect people to go on a wild goose chase looking for some half baked reference you make in an incoherent sentence. If you can't write a complete thought with a source you're not participating in a debate. You're just "flapping your jaw".
> Again, dodging having to answer the point, and
> unable to type a few words into a search engine.
To search for what exactly?
> 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?
No where in the report does it say they drilled 3-5 feet between casing stones. You're making that up.
They picked specks of black from exposed surfaces that you think are impervious to contamination.
> 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.
Where did you input anything? I haven't seen a link, a source, a quote, nothing from you.