> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > Audrey Wrote:
> > Audrey?
> > It isn't. Think they only did one comparison to
> > relatively dated item?
> Yes! That's exactly what was done.
Really? Let us quote the paper, for starters:
W F Libby included three Old and Middle Kingdom samples in his initial set of known-age
samples as a test of the method (Arnold and Libby 1949). In the following twenty years, numerous
laboratories have followed Libby’s lead and analyzed similar samples. From the published results it
became apparent that close agreement with the historical chronology was often lacking. A closer
study of this disagreement was needed.
See the bold and italic in there, Audrey? See what they wrote contextually as well?
> >Think Libby didn't vet out
> > the science behind the decay beforehand? Think
> > hasn't been tested and re-tested since then?
> They've had to make major adjustments because the
> test results have been so whacky.
Do you think these 'whacky' results came only from the IVth Dynasty of ancient Egypt? There were other more recent events they knew with absolute certainty that led to reviewing what may have caused some errors. Lengthy study has helped reveal what those were, for example the nuclear age input. More basic search engine stuff.
> > Please read this:
> Please read something other than wiki.
So just because something appears on Wiki, your default response is everything on Wiki is wrong? I provided the first link that popped up in the search. What's you're problem with Wiki?
How about you pick one out of the other 822,000 results:
Are they all wrong Audrey? Hey, if it's only Wiki that's wrong, these others must be right, eh? Or are they all wrong? And if you're answer is 'yes', then you're more off the reservation than I thought. You choose to regulate the entire field of current and ongoing science in the matter of C14 to the dustbin just because you believe a silly theory?
> > Those are opinions. Opinions, I might add, made
> > 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
> > been built long before the accepted time frame
> > because of your blind attachment to a bogus
> > You seem to think the casing was gone in the
> > Millennium BCE, and the AEs of the time found
> > that way. That's your way of 'explaining' how
> > C14 results 'fit' the squatter idea (which
> > you'd have to accept the C14 is correct) or you
> > think the C14 is wildly wrong when confronted
> > casing being intact until a few centuries ago,
> > arguing about sandstorms bringing in
> > Both arguments contradict one another in the
> > extreme, yet you employ both because you argue
> > whatever you think fits a current topic point.
> > 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
Translation: "I have no answer for that."
> > Wow. Can you read?
> No, I can't read. Wonder how I manage to post.
> Dumb ass question Avry.
Sorry. I'll rephrase: Can you comprehend what you read?
> I state it is not faith, and
> > you respond as though it was my 'belief', when
> > actually wrote " ... it's an adherence to the
> > structural proofs of the science ... ". Do
> > Audrey, where in that phrase do I profess my
> > position is a 'belief'? Mind you, you may like
> > think there are scientists who don't share my
> > position, however, you either (A) can't provide
> > single one (you're just typing what comes to
> > or (B) your 'scientists' are loony alternative
> > historians like Von Daniken, Sitchin, Alford,
> > 'Windblast' Tsoukalos and of course the
> > Saint Scott.
> Uhhh, none of the above are scientists. I said
> scientists, not historians.
Gag**! Lol, What?! Dare I give you a Wiki link to the definition of 'historian'?
Not to mention, you've dodged yet another round of relevant points against your position. Can't imagine what it would be like to be in a live, on-stage debate with you. Care to cite the 'scientists' _you_ brought up? Yes? No?
> > Note here how she completely dodges responding
> > the point made, instead, invokes absolute
> > David Icke.
> David Icke?? Don't even know who he is.
WIKI: DAVID ICKE
You were dodging again and inserted something about the 'reptiles'. Oh, and you are so blinded by a focus on a few authors it shows how little you are aware of the full scope of the 'alternative' genre.
> (Single slow golf clap from rear of
> > auditorium glides through the silence.) Such is
> > the mind of someone who can't release
> > from the bond of supporting a bogus theory
> > it feels right ... or something to do with
> > holistic crystals sending you messages from
> > Cayce, perhaps?
> Crystals, Cayce?? You're bouncing off the walls.
WIKI: EDGAR CAYCE
> > It is hysterical you conclude I am making it up
> > when all it takes is a very simple online
> > of a few key words to show different. It's
> > how you refuse to do something so intensely
> > remedial. Suit yourself.
> How is it you expect people to go on a wild goose
Googling is that hard for you, is it?
WIKI: GOOGLE (VERB)
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".
Maybe it's your reading comprehension.
> > Again, dodging having to answer the point, and
> > unable to type a few words into a search engine.
> To search for what exactly?
*Looks silently around room with stunned, gaping jaw at everyone else with stunned, gaping jaws*
> > 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
There are no casing stones, Audrey.
And it's _your_ sandstorm 'poop' that got into the samples prior to the casing being removed only 'recently'. Your sandstorm poop would need to penetrate the casing stones (which could be said to have an average thickness of 3-5 feet) in order to contaminate anything.
> They picked specks of black from exposed surfaces
> that you think are impervious to contamination.
No, they did not pick specks from the surface. More strawman. More comprehension problems.
Sorry, I just can't finish this post. At every turn you can't understand what someone writes. It is tiresome to have to respond just to clarify, clarify, clarify. It's like trying to talk into a poop sandstorm.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jul-16 06:00 by R Avry Wilson.