It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: mstower
Consider the usual litany: “Test the paint!”
Several problems with that, but in the real world, it’s not in my gift to arrange it (so why tax me with it?) and after Görlitz and Erdmann, it’s never going to happen.
But suppose for the sake of argument that it did and the result came up Old Kingdom. What’s to stop someone piping up with something like this? “Vyse found a cache of ancient Egyptian paint. He broke the vessels containing it and had Hill and Raven pound the dried-up paint into powder. Then they added the purest water they could find (distilled) and used the resulting paint for the forgery.”
I can see nothing stopping someone saying this. Indeed why should they not?
Which has been pretty much their reaction to the radiocarbon test of the pyramid itself, which proved it's an Old Kingdom edifice. Instead of acknowledging the test results, a definitive proof of the type they are always demanding, they chose to ignore it..
Hawass remains categorical in his rejection of the [C14 dating] technique: "Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archaeology... carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archaeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary." - Dr Zahi Hawass (Egpyt Independent, 8th July, 2010) From here.
Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”
originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Oh my Scott still trying to lead people astray with out of context quotes? lol same old Scott I see!
For lurkers here is more info to give you the context of what is being discussed.
Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”
The quote that Scott 'quoted mined' is from the article dealing with using C-14 dating to help with determining the timing of dynasties........
What was the point you were trying to make Scott?
Oh and let me know when they find a way to test when non organic paint can be tested when it was USED.
I look forward to your PM
lol
“Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”
But sadly there have been at best limited attempts to provide such better quality radiocarbon data for the periods after the Archaic-where increasingly good data exist. Instead, publications by leading Egyptian chronological specialists concerned with the 3rd through earlier 1st millennia BC in the late 1990s through 2003 largely dismissed or ignored radiocarbon evidence; with Kitchen stating that ''science cannot solve the intricate problems of detailed Egyptian successions, and the cross-links with the neighbouring Near East; texts alone can do that." Such scholars cannot see any use for radiocarbon dating versus the believed-in dating accuracy and precision available from textual evidence.
At the end of the 18th dynasty a temple for the goddess Isis were built at the satellite pyramid G-I-c (that of queen Henutsen) at Khufu's necropolis. During the 21st dynasty the temple got extended, during the 26th dynasty the extensions continued. From this period of time several priests of Isis, which were also priests of Khufu, worked here. The so-called Inventory Stela, created at the end of 26th dynasty, tells the story about the founding of the Great Pyramid and that Khufu was the builder. From the same dynasty a golden sealing ring with the name of a priest Neferibrê was found at Giza.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
originally posted by: Hanslune
a reply to: Scott Creighton
Oh my Scott still trying to lead people astray with out of context quotes? lol same old Scott I see!
For lurkers here is more info to give you the context of what is being discussed.
Carbon-14 dating has a margin of error of 100 years. In order to date Egyptian dynasties, we need to have specific dates; you cannot use carbon dating," Hawass explained to Al-Masry Al-Youm. "This technique shouldn’t be used at all in making changes to the chronology of the ancient Egypt, not even as a helpful addition.”
The quote that Scott 'quoted mined' is from the article dealing with using C-14 dating to help with determining the timing of dynasties........
What was the point you were trying to make Scott?
Oh and let me know when they find a way to test when non organic paint can be tested when it was USED.
I look forward to your PM
lol
Hanslune,
No one is being misled. The full source of the quote was given by me in my post for anyone to go check for themselves.
If Hawass had a reliable method of obtaining C14 calibrated dates that agreed with dates (within 100 years) of other methods of dating then he would most likely give his right eye and both front teeth to have. Is Hawass seriously saying that if only he can date the Great Pyramid to within 100 years using C14 dating then the method is okay?
Well, let's think about this ...... has the penny dropped yet?
But this is all merely a distraction and does nothing to answer the anomalous entries in Vyse's handwritten journal (the actual topic of the thread in case you missed it). Any ideas how we might get to the bottom of that?
And who said the paint in the chambers of the Great Pyramid does not contain organic material (i.e. an organic binding agent)? Has it been tested? Do you know that? Can you show us the results?
Thought not.
SC
HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?
HL: I'll be waiting for your PM on the matter
HL: And yes you deliberately posted a misleading quote and hoped no one would check the source, we did and you were caught (again). You think you would learn that no one trusts a single thing you say, lol, which by the way is YOUR fault.
HL: I'd suggest in future if you are going to make misleading posts using quote mining to do a better job at it.
HL: As to the OP what is left to discuss that hasn't been discussed to death elsewhere?
BM: You do realize that quote doesn't appear anywhere on your linked source?
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune
Hanslune,
HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?
SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?
In fact, there is some suspicion that the marks in the Khufu cartouche oval have already been tested as samples appear to have vanished from the cartouche oval some time between 2004-2006 when Hawass was in charge. (This is long before Erdmann and Gorlitz). Now ask yourself—why is Hawass so vehement in his objection to the radiocarbon dating method when it can, allegedly, date organic material to within 100 years? As stated earlier, Hawass would give his front teeth to have such an 'accurate' dating method (so long as it is consistently reliable, of course). Why is he so against its use in archaeology?
snip a bunch of nonsense
SC: Why do you think I need to PM you on this?
SC: I am sure people can make their own minds up on the piece of text quoted and the entire article which I also linked to. Sure, I am going to quote misleading text that anyone, including you, can check in an instant from the rather convenient link I also provided. Don’t you think there is something a tad wrong with your logic there?
SC: And I suggest you put the breaks on your little smear campaign (for that is all it is and, seemingly, all you have in your locker) and return to the actual topic of this thread. Is it so difficult?
SC: Well, I was hoping for YOUR perspective, not anyone else's. Don’t be shy now.
originally posted by: mstower
a reply to: Scott Creighton
“No one is being misled.”
This despite all your efforts.
M.
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune
Hanslune,
HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?
SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?
Not to mentiion the soot and other organic grime that has been deposited in those chambers by a century of intruders.
originally posted by: Harte
originally posted by: Scott Creighton
a reply to: Hanslune
Hanslune,
HL: Can you show that the red ochre in the chambers - or anywhere from a similar time - has organic material in it? That shouldn't be hard for you to find - should it?
SC: And around the merry little circle we go. We won’t know the chemical composition of that red ochre paint (Mograh) until we test it, will we? I’m all for that, are you? Is Hawass?
I don't see what possible difference it could make.
originally posted by: Mr Mask
I am not wrong in thinking this is bad practice.
MM