> Philip's position is typical of Alternate Historian's treatment
> of scientific thought, it's no wonder how the
> field Got so entangled in the pretzel logic of
> funerary context, symbolic security non-devices,
> fabricating high probability "fact" from a series
> of low probability "ifs" in lieu of evidence,
> extrapolating wild leaps in logic from loose
> semantic interpretations, and a timeline that
> contrives such unfathomable constructs as "70
> kings in 70 days".
(See Edit/paraphrase above ^)
> I tried to advise you to understand the c14 issues
> enough to at least grasp sampling and
> contamination, but the only thing you got right in
> your previous was your grammar.
Says Philip, but can't point out anything.
> If you insist on
> arguing in a field of quantitative science that
> you don't understand, it's going to take a lot
> more than merely the confidence of your claim.
You are really getting boring, Philip. More projection, like your opening paragraph.
> Where's that "video" you claimed is from the
> authors that contains the details of the sampling?
If I could post it here, I would. On the other hand, we all know damn well even that would be questioned, and on and on and on and on. Rather than review and consider facts and context given to you, you choose to spiral into reductio ad infinitum, a 'method' of science logic seen usually in small children who have innocently not yet developed a sense of cause and affect, if/then, that sort of thing.
With a little intrepid research, you may be able to get your hands on it. 'Research' as in, a necessary foundation when educated to the level of PhD. You should be a natural.