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.

 

Mysteries of The Great Pyramid Explored...

page: 10
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

I must say that is sage reasoning.

The pyramids at Giza stand as a muse to us.

Since so many of our own trash/relics/future artifacts have infiltrated the area ... if the pyramids continue to stand maybe 40,000 years from now intermixed with currently modern artifacts, then hah ... future generations may even attribute them to us hah

The pyramids may be the 'forever muse' for humans to consider, and as in this forum ... discuss. Forever.




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Hanslune

future generations may even attribute them to us hah




They'd have to lose the radiocarbon results first,
www.aeraweb.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuyinKY
Why does that make you mad? Why would I allow you to decide what I find thought provoking?



Because trashing threads and hijacking the debate it's what he's known to do best. Do what I and way to many members in this board have done: Ignore it. And continue to post your opinions and ideas.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   
That is true ...

Radiocarbon dating is true.

I guess I assumed that future generations may lose all knowledge between now and then, before trying to look back after the fact 40,000 years or whenever in the potential future, assuming the pyramids at Giza still exist. Then they may mistakenly assume it could be a construction of our times, until of course they re-invent radiocarbon dating first hah



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


While the iron plate's physical properties apparently argue in favor of its authenticity, its provenance argues against.


You can hypothesize with the rest ...there is no definitive proof of you claim other than being convenient .

The whole they couldn't do it argument is a self serving cop out for mainstream Egyptology Dogma .

I place a thousand times more credibility on Vyse and the FIRST PERSON description no matter how deputed .

beside having a viable purpose within the structure which people like you Dogmatic naysayers have no clue .

And that is because you try to make everything fit your false paradigm .




.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Marduk


While the iron plate's physical properties apparently argue in favor of its authenticity, its provenance argues against.


You can hypothesize with the rest ...there is no definitive proof of you claim other than being convenient .

The whole they couldn't do it argument is a self serving cop out for mainstream Egyptology Dogma .

I place a thousand times more credibility on Vyse and the FIRST PERSON description no matter how deputed .

beside having a viable purpose within the structure which people like you Dogmatic naysayers have no clue .

And that is because you try to make everything fit your false paradigm .




.


Ok, so you are choosing to ignore a modern laboratory test because it doesn't agree with something you have imagined which has no supporting evidence.
fair enough




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
.

Does anyone here really understand the Problem with Radio Carbon Dating ?

With a practical limit of 50000 yrs . it is not reliable unless you have and idea of when it was deposited .

Why because of the half life !

It becomes a guessing game .

But Egyptologists love guessing especially when they don't know ..

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
.

Does anyone here really understand the Problem with Radio Carbon Dating ?

With a practical limit of 50000 yrs . it is not reliable unless you have and idea of when it was deposited .

Why because of the half life !

It becomes a guessing game .

But Egyptologists love guessing especially when they don't know ..

.


Well one thing is for sure, you have no idea how carbon dating works
You should read this
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Yes it works on assumption .

perhaps you will explain decay rates with regard to radiation exposure ...

I suppose you are going to try to tell me they are stable

Maybe you should read more and comment less then you will have something to contribute ?

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Marduk

Yes it works on assumption .

perhaps you will explain decay rates with regard to radiation exposure ...

I suppose you are going to try to tell me they are stable

Maybe you should read more and comment less then you will have something to contribute ?

.

Carbon dating is solid science, no assumption required, clearly you still don't understand how it works, I suggest you go read the link, I provided you with last post, your claims made without the knowledge contained in it are making you look a little unhinged

I have so far provided you with links for my assertions which prove yours fallacious
You have provided nothing but personal attacks
I have already started reporting your posts
If you can't debate properly
Don't debate
edit on 9-7-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-7-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: GuyinKY
a reply to: Harte

Shall I place you among those that you've placed Scott for failing to answer my question? Have you bought any of his books or not?

Please don't make statements such as "there's nothing to learn from Scott." I know you really, really want to mean that but the truth is you know it to be false. If Marduk was to think I believed you he would accuse me of being gullible- and rightfully so.

Besides, I could prove you wrong right here for everyone to read if I needed to.

Whatever.

I guess the truth that I tried to impart is one of those truths a person has to learn for themselves.

Harte



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

.

Deny you own Ignorance and learn something new .

You didn't answer my relevant question either .

Obfuscation and denial .. Love your style

but it doesn't fly with me


Report me OMG LOL

why don't you report yourself for crapping all over these threads

.

Do you know carbon decays at variable rates ?

A yes or no is adequate .

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Marduk


Do you know carbon decays at variable rates ?

A yes or no is adequate .

.

I am well aware of it, and also the measures that Scientists use to recalibrate the dates
Isn't it odd to you, that every radiocarbon date from Egypt comes down to the correct period of Egyptian history

I take it you are relying on a now completely missing Super Duper radiation source which has reset all the carbon dates taken, even the ones taken from different parts of Egypt which date to exactly the same time period.

So what have you got so far
1 Monoatomic Gold hoax
2. No supporting evidence
3, Every archaeologist on earth collaborating together to hide the truth
4. Only you know the truth, but as of yet have completely failed to convince anyone
5. Your inability to discuss anything without accusing people who disagree with you of "worthless opinion"
6. Science is wrong, you are right
7. Wanna buy a timeshare




edit on 9-7-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:35 PM
link   
*** ATTENTION ***

Please keep the discussion on the topic which is "Mysteries of the Great Pyramid Explored" and not about each other. Any future posts that contain personal jabs will be removed and the member warned.

Please be civil and carry on!





(Do not reply to this post)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Yes its called guessing ... or as scientists like to call it a calculated conclusion .

from Wiki


Radiocarbon dating relies upon the assumption that C-14 production ... Theoretically, that is how ages are determined by carbon 14.


It is Bogus 1

Go beat that drum why don't you .

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
.

If it is this ridiculously difficult to get one person to examine what science is telling us ..

Why bother ?

That is why usually I don't . Besides

I have far better things to do .

later folks

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Marduk

Yes its called guessing ... or as scientists like to call it a calculated conclusion .

from Wiki


Radiocarbon dating relies upon the assumption that C-14 production ... Theoretically, that is how ages are determined by carbon 14.


It is Bogus 1

Go beat that drum why don't you .

.

You just posted a quote that destroys your claims, well done, finally you seem to be accepting science



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

.

So you agree it is an assumption

.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: R0CR13
a reply to: Marduk

.

So you agree it is an assumption

.

No
its proven completely accurate and fit for purpose
you are the one making assumption after assumption



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk




new topics

top topics



 
55
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join