Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
- my position is that these anomalous megalithic structures are physical evidence of earlier civilizations we have lost record of. Given that the vast majority of the Establishment tries to now insist that Seti I built the Osirion, in the face of all physical evidence and logic pointing away from that, I say the Establishment has lost its credibility when trying to date megaliths in order to fit their dating agendas.

And yet all your "evidence" is a huge lump of assumption paired with a personal bias against "the establishment". Fight the power!

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying you couldn't possibly be correct. I'm saying there's no evidence that you are. Again, arguing from silence. You're taking a lack of evidence supporting your supposition, and claiming that absence itself is evidence.

Almost all of the known megaliths are not easily explained by the narrow-focus thought of modern archaeology as it is always trying to date everything inside of the parameters of recorded history. To suggest anything before that is heresy in the field and you know it.

Just like suggesting they might have actually been built by Egyptians is cause for petulant insults and smarmy attitudes from the "True Believer" crowd.

And yes, there is strong resistance. And there's good reason for that strong resistance. There's simply so damn many crackpots out there telling straight-out lies, that the bar for acceptable evidence has to be set pretty high, or else human history becomes a superstitious mish-mash of apace aliens, apocryphal Judaic myth, worldwide atlanteans, hollow-earth mastadon-cloning Soviets with time machines, the list goes on.

In order to do that modern archaeology has to overlook, look away from and furiously, narrow-focusedly 'date' these megaliths to fit their agenda. While they are also unable to come to any kind of final consensus on how exactly they were buiilt and how exactly the cultures they assign them to could no longer keep building in that fashion.

Is there any indication that the dating used on this particular structure is incorrect, or is this just more of your insistence that The Man is keeping you down?

You don't know me, and you surely don't know my color or views on race. So I suggest you seriously consuder treading a little more lightly before you go throwing feces like that around again...

Sure don't. I addressed this above, though.

Here is another question i have about radiometric dating:

How can we even begin to utilize this technology, as it is completely self defining?

We know that there have been supernova's in the recorded past. Well...we assume that is what it was, as the event described matches something being monitored in today's sky.

Each of these events releases large amounts of neutrino's, which is well known for its ability to skew radiometric dating.

If we consider the current state of our local star, it isn't a stretch to see large amounts of neutrino's bombarding the Earth. I would say that the presumption of a static local environment is among the most fool hearty things I have seen come from the "orthodox view".

Yes, i know there is no evidence for such. But, what evidence would we find? If we were bombarded with neutrino's, what kind of footprint would we see left behind? It is obvious that the radiometric dating is one such footprint, but I do not expect orthodoxy to let go of such an important part of their faith.

Further, what about volcanic flows? It is well known that volcanic flows will push the date back exponentially.

So, in essence, what we have here is a VERY tangled web of circular logic. We believe that the radiometric dating works because it is supported by other geological finds. These other geological finds are "proven" because they are supported by the radiometric dating. Archaeology supports geology, while geology lends credence to archaology.

I really have a hard time fathoming how such well educated people see so little flaw in such circular logic that they would take a position of obstinance and insistance. But, then again...that Cramer guy from Mad Money was adamant that Behr-Stearns was a solid investment. So much for the experts.

Is there any indication that the dating used on this particular structure is incorrect, or is this just more of your insistence that The Man is keeping you down?

I am not sure there is any indication that the dating used on any structure is correct, if it uses radiometric dating.

Further, i would say post contemporary settlements make the dating of it by using other clues would yield little results.

What it seems we are left with is a guess. Sure it is a guess made by educated people...but that does not make it an educated guess.

Reply to TheWalkingFox

TWF - "The people who live here could not possibly have ever been smart enough to do any of this, it must have been someone else." And it keeps getting recycled by quacks like Hancock and Sitchen, and people keep buying into it... And yes, I would speculate that people keep buying into the quackery because of some racist ideas.

So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

And because I'm not as nice as BFFT -- who at this point is bordering on sainthood in my books -- I'm gonna say say that's some pretty all encompassing, WILDLY OFFENSIVE speculating on your part. And then I'm gonna suggest you take it someplace else... I need a drink.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is where my thinking lies: Schoch is fairly well known, and somewhat well reputed. When discussing Yonaguni, a skeptic will happily cite Schoch when trying to dismiss the potential site.

So, why the double edged sword? Why does Schoch's dating of the Sphynx get ignored almost wholesale? If it wasn't the status quo, what could it be?

Schoch dismisses Yonaguni due to a lack of any supporting evidence.
Schoch dismisses the Bosnian pyramid due to a lack of any supporting evidence
Other scholars dismiss Schoch's Egypt theory due to a lack of any supporting evidence.

If he's right about the age of the Sphynx, then what that means is that the date for a stone-working Egyptian civilization gets pushed back a thousand years. However there's no collaborating evidence of a pre-egyptian advanced civilization that was catastrophically wiped out - no remains, for instance. In fact the most sensible thing we can get from his egypt theory is that the Egyptians got started earlier than we thought. Interesting, but hardly earth-shattering.

Let's not mention the vested interest that the Egyptians have in keeping their monuments as theirs, and the constant obfuscation by Zahi Hawass.

I am always amused when, on TV, Hawass is revered as the authority on Egyptology. Yet, among most who are "non-academic", he is seen as an obfuscating shill for the status quo.

You realize that if there were a pre-dyanistic great Egyptian civilization, Hawas would leap on it and cradle it like his own child to further the claim of Egyptian primacy, don't you? Such a find would in no way shake Hawas' faith in the antiquity of his nation's civilization, and in fact only expands it.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
So everyone who embraces alternative archaeology is racist? Because... that's what you just typed.

I said I believe racism plays a part. There are people who buy this crap because they find the idea that space aliens built Egyptian civilization more believable than the idea that Egyptians did it.

I don't know what you would call that sort of outlook, where the wildly speculative becomes more acceptable than the idea that Africans, Native Americans, or South Asians could have built something.

The impact event in Libya, Kebira Crater..what is the date for it? I see wildly varying ranges. 214 million down to 65 million.

Why no consensus?

What impacts do these events have with radiometric dating?

An additional comment

In the Atlantean belief stuff written in the 1940-1970 the writers did realize that their was lack of evidence for another earlier non-Egyptian culture. It was in this period I believe that the concept of "influence" by Atlanteans jelled*. Therefore there was no need for evidence of an earlier culture, the existing Egyptian culture, for which their is staggering amounts of evidence, is simply guided by advanced people who small presence left no archaeological impact.

*I believe Ignatius came up with the idea but I haven't read Donelly in many years

If i may, Marduk is certainly no loss. I dealt with that guy at atlantisrising, and he was as big a jerk there as he was here. Good riddance....if he is involved with academia, then that would be indicative of part of the problem.

Having said that....

What do you mean by "calibrated"? Certainly you can understand my concern about any dating technique, relative to its use of self supported circular logic.

If i may, Marduk...snip

Hans: Yes he was jerky but very knowledgeable. I believe he was involved in academia but not in the subjects he posted about. People should not act in that way as it interferes with the discussion

What do you mean by "calibrated"? Certainly you can understand my concern about any dating technique, relative to its use of self supported circular logic.

Dendrochronology and Dendroarchaeology are the two science methodologies that look at this subject. By calibrated I mean that they used tree ring chronologies match the C-14 dates of the southwest. From those a general concept of the error rate in C-14 has become known. The error rate is about 10% to old (I'm doing this off the top of my head)

I did a Google here to double check...
Atlantis is based on Plato's story, abotu a advanced, ancient culture that was beaten by the early Athenians. Lemuria is based off of a early and poor understanding of Plate Tectonics.

After that, however, the spiritualists of the nations seemed to capitalise on them, even more so than SciFi and fantasy authors.

There is evidence of ancient cultures, not as advanced as people want them to be, having been inundated or destroyed by intense waves.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
Anyway, and again, the point of the Osirion in this context is to point out the conflict of the dating by The Establishment aka the sworn enemy of The Curious Outside of the Box Thinkers who are getting 1 point for Harte's lazy approach!

Okay. So, please point out the "conflict" regarding the dating. A couple of sentences from you about how it "might be" this or "seems to be" that simply won't cut it.

Please explain Seti I's cartouche, found inside the wall on the dovetail joint.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeItPS - When, and if, you or anyone else on your team gets it together to come back with Larry Olcutt's sources, you can bring that on too. We're ready for ya'!

I assume he's read this (it's from wiki):

Frankfort, H., De Buck, A. & Gunn, B. The Cenotaph of Seti I at Abydos, 2 vol. Memoir of the Egypt Exploration Society, Egypt Exploration Society. London, 1933.

That's what he referenced.

Orcutt is a fine gentleman and a knowledgeable writer on Egyptology.

Though I'm fairly sure I already know it, would you care to provide your source for the claim that there is something fishy about the current date given to the Osireion?

And, yes, I'm quite lazy!

Harte


[edit on 9/30/2008 by Harte]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is another question i have about radiometric dating:

How can we even begin to utilize this technology, as it is completely self defining?

We know that there have been supernova's in the recorded past. Well...we assume that is what it was, as the event described matches something being monitored in today's sky.

Each of these events releases large amounts of neutrino's, which is well known for its ability to skew radiometric dating.

BFFT,
As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence at all that neutrino bombardment would have any effect at all on radiometric dating.

But, even if it could, there's hardly any likelihood that it would. Neutrinos are so small that any interaction between any neutrino and any other particle is extremely, extremely rare.

99.9% of all neutrinos that come this way pass right through the Earth and out the other side without contacting or affecting any other particle in the entire makeup of the planet. That's how small they are.

If you mean cosmic rays, then that's another thing. Cosmic rays can influence the amount of Carbon 14 our atmosphere contains. There are several time intervals in the past where it is known that C14 spiked in our atmosphere - presumably due to cosmic rays spiking.

As Hans said, given that C14 is only useful over the last 50,000 years as far as dating, calibration of what's known as the "carbon date" of organic material into the "actual date" has been accomplished through documenting the age -and C14 content - of trees and wood samples by comparing tree ring data (dendrochronology.)

The period from which an artifact dates can, therefore, have an impact on the margin of error given with the calibrated date. If an artifact, dated through C14 dating, dates from a time of known C14 spiking (or before,) that will cause the margin of error for that date to be larger.

Harte