> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > You can't see your own error in logic? If
> > mere century-old contaminants got in, the
> > would show dates only a few centuries old. Like
> > hello? Are you that dense? They don't. The
> > are a tad earlier than the mid-3rd Millennium
> > Do tell, Philip, how do you think modern
> > make samples miraculously older by thousands of
> > years when what you suggest should make them
> > centuries old?
> Avry, why are you again resorting to hostile
Dear Philip. I am not being hostile. Why are you being so repugnant?
> You need to slow down because you're
> looking kind of silly right about now.
> How do you think C14 dating works? For example, if
> half of a sample contains carbon from 100,000
> years ago and the other half of that same sample
> contains carbon from 10 days ago, what do you
> think will be the resulting radiocarbon date of
> that contaminated sample?
I defer my answer to a proper scintigraphist. Since you are the one all about the 'contamination', by all means tell us in what way the 'contaminants' _you've_ inserted into the debate have altered the results in either of the C14 studies. And please try to encompass each structure tested, not just the GP.
If you're such the 'expert', then why hasn't your review paper appeared in, say, the journal 'Radiocarbon' yet? Should be a wash, right? I graciously await your publication. (Real 'scientists' seriously concerned about the C14 results battle it out in the academic arena, not on message boards.)
> Let me give you hint: When you have a cup of
> yellow paint and you add some blue paint, does
> that turn the entire batch into blue paint?
Green. Was I right? What do I win?!?
> > > Considering that the
> "daily air pollution intakesakinto smoking a pack of cigarettes",
> > > I think you're going to have a very hard time
> > > finding a scientist who would agree that a
> > > of ancient charcoal wouldn't be contaminated
> > > being exposed by such an intense barrage of
> > Then why do you think they were so careful with
> > the tests, hmm? You still think they just
> > specks of black carbon right off the surface??
> > post WOW in million-point font but it might
> > the MB. How about this? :
> "Careful"? How were they "careful"?
Through the auspice of steps taken during the testing process, _including_ pre-screening the samples for anomalous material. They outline the process in the paper, Philip.
> Did you read their methodology?
- "Loose charcoal fragments were sealed in
> film cans or plastic vials. Mortar pieces and mud
> brick fragments were wrapped in aluminum foil (or
> plastic wrap) and put inside a plastic
> Plastic contains a lot of carbon, so I'm not sure
> how "careful" that was.
Plastic is made of polymers, with carbon locked into the hydrocarbon chain. Please tell us how these carbon atoms were leached into the samples. I expect you to consider whatever organic catalysts would be present to induce the particulate leaching. Or, you can choose not to bother because you should know what I am talking about. The collection procedure was common. Got a problem with it? Take it up with them - write your paper 'teaching' them how they created a sample environment that could have compromised the samples.
- "While searching the monuments, we examined
> seams between stone blocks for mortar filling and
> for black specks of charcoal inside the
Key word: 'inside'. See it?
> Mortar isn't transparent, so it sure sounds like
> "they just grabbed specks of black carbon right
> off the surface".
Apparently, you did not see it. The 'inside' word, up there ^^^. Couple of seconds ago. See it now?
(clip the other roundabout snuff)
> Were they careful to ensure all the mortar was
> from the same batch and not from any restoration
> project (as if they could do that)?
They'd have no reason to suspect a restoration. Had they been Sitchin priests, perhaps, yes.
> The authors sent half the '84 samples to SMU for
> "conventional" dating (e.g., standard
> scintillography) while the other half of the
> samples were sent to the ETH lab which employed
> AMS dating technology. Why would they bring
> samples to 2 different labs and risk introducing
> additional variability into the results?
You, with a Doctorate that would undoubtedly have included learning the reason for this, don't know why they would use multiple labs? Are you kidding me? Part of ensuring possible bias would be removed? Part of having two different methods to be able to compare the results for validity? Part of the blind? You do know what the blind is, right? Please tell me you were at least at that dinner.
> The only things they seemed to be careful about
> were the location of each sample, and the
> procedure the labs used to extract the carbon from
> the other components in the sample in an effort to
> keep the carbon as pure as possible during the
> dating process.
Then, what's the problem?
> You can post all the silly graphics you want, but
> you really need to read up on this dating
> methodology before you post anything else about
> it. Please.
Don't like kittens? Sorry. Served the purpose better than a meme with a guy pulling his hair out.
And on the reading thing, believe me Philip, I've probably forgotten more reading than you've done in your entire lifetime. In any event, it would seem you're the one who needs to polish up. :)