US lab validates Padang IS older than the Giza pyramid 14,000 BC

page: 1
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+21 more 
posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
US lab validates Cianjur ‘ancient structure’ theory

A recent analysis of carbon-dating by the Miami-based Beta Analytic Lab has apparently validated findings by a government-sanctioned team that a man-made structure, buried under Mount Padang in Cianjur, West Java, is older than the Giza pyramid.....

Carbon-dating test results from the Miami lab show that the structure could date back to 14,000 BC or beyond.....

Earlier this year, the preliminary finding was met with criticism and objections by a larger group of geologists and archeologists. Activists have also called the project a waste of the state’s budget as it has spent billions of rupiahs. Environmentalists, meanwhile, have expressed concern that the research could damage the ecosystem around Mount Padang....



ATS member Kantzveldt wrote an interesting thread on this very location Hidden Chambers at 12,000 year old megalithic site of Padang

There has been much debate and speculation but now if this story is to be believed it could blow the doors off of what we've been told about mankind's history. Some may scoff and others will view this openly.

I'd recommend reading both the latest article and Katzveldt's thread for more details.

As always
Stay tuned.
edit on 4-11-2012 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
I normally have a load to say on these subjects. But tonight, I am just interested in what the usual crowd of ATS "debunkers" has to say first.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
Science is getting better at measuring these dates.



At the bottom of a lake near Japan's Wakasa Bay, more than 50,000 years of history has been pulled out of the ground in the form of sediment and leaves.

The information contained in those samples will allow scientists to determine the age of organic materials and fossils with new clarity by improving carbon dating, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Science.



The result? A near-continuous record of atmospheric C-14 over a 40,000-year span, from 53,000 years ago to 13,000 years ago. The data will allow scientists to adjust their "clocks," changing carbon dates by hundreds of years.



That may not seem like much when we're talking about 50,000 years. But, as the researchers note, those data may help resolve scholarly debates about when Neanderthals disappeared, or whether certain climatic events led to human expansions across the planet.


50,000-year-old sediment from Japanese lake improves carbon dating

I think a lot of answers to our past, will be resolved soon.

S&F



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   


The lab used samples of sand, soil and charcoal found at a depth of between three and 12 meters beneath the mountain’s surface.



How does carbon dating apply to these samples? Not really my field of expertise so is there anyone who can shed light on that for me. First I have heard of this site so thanks for bringing it to my attention.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
What a great story. And an interesting site.

The only thing I can say, without further reading, about Padang is that there was this stuff called "Padang's Peanut Sauce" that was amazingly good.

Now I am off to read the Kanzveldt thread.

Thanks for sharing!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Carbon dating has proven itself to not be a very accurate dating measure.
www.angelfire.com...
edit on 4-11-2012 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)


Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.
edit on 4-11-2012 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Carbon dating has proven itself to not be a very accurate dating measure.


Its going to get better, with new finds.

See my above post.

You cant stop science from advancing.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
Carbon dating has proven itself to not be a very accurate dating measure.
www.angelfire.com...
edit on 4-11-2012 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)


Carbon dating is only accurate back a few thousand years.
edit on 4-11-2012 by thesmokingman because: (no reason given)


From the OP article.


“The analysis of the Miami lab dismisses doubts over an earlier test conducted by the National Nuclear Agency [Batan]. There is no more doubt that the structure beneath Mount Padang is older than the Giza pyramid,” geologist and member of the Mount Padang research team Budianto Ontowirjo said on Sunday.


Do you require a THIRD sample before you will dismiss doubts?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Very interesting but I'd agree with Ali Akbar. Once a thorough investigation is complete then you'll have a better set of data to base a conclusion on. It would also depend on what the material was that they dated.

Solheim would be happy

I don't quite understand this obsession with thing being 'older than the Giza pyramids', lots of things are to include other AE pryamids, lol
edit on 4/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 




It would also depend on what the material was that they dated.



Carbon-dating test results from the Miami lab show that the structure could date back to 14,000 BC or beyond. The lab used samples of sand, soil and charcoal found at a depth of between three and 12 meters beneath the mountain’s surface.


Key word there was bolded by me. Thoughts?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings
reply to post by Hanslune
 




It would also depend on what the material was that they dated.



Carbon-dating test results from the Miami lab show that the structure could date back to 14,000 BC or beyond. The lab used samples of sand, soil and charcoal found at a depth of between three and 12 meters beneath the mountain’s surface.


Key word there was bolded by me. Thoughts?



Kinda of a weasel word, I'd have to see what the lab report said and more importantly what exactly what the sample was, were recovered and its association with the structure.

Lots of things are that age but if confirmed that it was part/concomitant of the structures construction it would be interesting to say the least

Rereading Kantzvedlt's earlier thread. I could see this is might be a two stage problem, ie a structure built on a sacred/earlier used site and materials from the earlier site are used to date the newer structure.....solution more excavation
edit on 4/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Oh yah, "Mount Padang in Cianjur, West Java". Thats in Brooklyn right?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
This just illustrates how little we know about our own past.

To claim that we know about our origins or that we are at our pinnicle of evolution is arrogance at it's best.

SnF for giving us a larger glimpse of where we came from.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 




Rereading Kantzvedlt's earlier thread. I could see this is might be a two stage problem, ie a structure built on a sacred/earlier used site and materials from the earlier site are used to date the newer structure.....solution more excavation


I was thinking the same thing but couldn't think of the means to word it. Doesn't the name of the sight mean something like temple of the ancestors? Well, we will stay tuned, see what happens as time progresses and, like you said, excavation.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by TheSparrowSings
 


On average a site like that takes 3-5 years to be, excavated, analyzed and understood


_______________________________________________________________________


Thanks for the update Slayer!
edit on 5/11/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
This just illustrates how little we know about our own past.


Yes and we'll never know everything but we now know vastly more than we did just 150, 100, 50 or even 25 years ago


To claim that we know about our origins or that we are at our pinnicle of evolution is arrogance at it's best.


We only know what we know at this moment, but how does this comment relate to this site? If it is 14,000 years old it doesn't show a culture superior to ours, maybe over the Belgians......






posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by SLAYER69
 

Oh yah, "Mount Padang in Cianjur, West Java". Thats in Brooklyn right?



Right



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I thought you'd appreciate it



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
If 20 years ago anyone would have said there is a pyramid-like structure that is some 16 000 years old they would have laughed you off as a kook.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
Kantzveldt showed that temple like a Ziggurat. it is not odd that a Ziggurat be older than Giza pyramid. Giza pyramid is a special sort of Ziggurat. however middle east is believed to have such old Ziggurats.
and it is really interesting that they can prove that Ziggurat is of 14000 years ago ! however there is a doubt.





new topics
top topics
 
47
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join