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.

 

Dixon Relics found in North-East Scotland

page: 2
32
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2020 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Scott Creighton

I like that there were three objects found in the Great Pyramid. And in the Queen’s Chamber. Three objects: a hook, a ball of twine, and a hunk of cedar.

Of course, these “Dixon artifacts” will not be speculated about in public.

Here is my thoughts.

You have a chamber with a small door. You take your “fishing rod” consisting of a hunk of wood, twine, and proper sized hooks, feed them down the shaft, grab the “handle” on the stone blocking the shaft, and move it to the side.

Something so dumb and stupid will confuse anyone who only sees the surface of things. They would expect “magic wands” and stuff, when all you do is recite the “prayer” and fish the door open. Then, after the ceremony, do what you were taught as a priest of the mysteries and fish the door closed. Again while praying.

Like any fisherman!’



(Seriously, those are my thoughts on the use said objects
. Cool find in the Asia Collection!!)



posted on Dec, 17 2020 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Hanslune

But it means its adleast as old as the carbon dated wood.

No it doesn't. It just means it was there at some point after the wood was dated to. The wood didn't grow there. It was most likely old wood when it was placed there.



posted on Dec, 19 2020 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune

Hello Hans,


So how does it fit in with your earlier idea of the Pyramids being 19,000 years old?


SC: Evidently it doesn't. But just like C14 dating, my interpretation and refinement of the data presented to us by the Giza Stellar Time Line (the Lehner-Goedicke Line), is under constant review and subject to refinement (as I learn more and understand more of how it works, or at least, how I believe it works). You will find, for example, in my forthcoming book, The Great Pyramid Void Enigma (Bear & Co., 2021), I have pushed my 19,000 BCE dating of these monuments down to just over 10,000 BCE. The reasons for this are explained in the book but mainly arise out of a reinterpretation of the Giza Stellar Time Line data.

My latest ca. 10,000 BCE date is, of course, still more than double the age of the cedar wood from the Queen's Chamber shaft and perhaps three times the age of the average age given from the earlier studies in the 1980s and 90s. These earlier C14 studies didn't affect my view that the Old Kingdom pyramids are far older than those early C14 studies suggested and this latest finding does not alter my view on that. I think it might have been you who once said:


Radiocarbon dating is certainly not our most precise tool, and fortunately, we have others to supplement it.


And, as you know, Zahi Hawass has probably sent more ancient Egyptian artefacts to more C14 labs than anyone on the planet. He obviously didn't get the results he was hoping for or expected when he said:


Not even in five thousand years could carbon dating help archeology. We can use other kinds of methods like geoarcheology, which is very important, or DNA, or laser scanning, but carbon dating is useless. This science will never develop. In archeology, we consider carbon dating results imaginary.


I certainly agree with the sentiment expressed in both quotes above. And for a number of reasons. With this latest C14 date of the Dixon Relic what we find is that the mean C14 calibrated date takes the Great Pyramid ever so slowly farther away from the supposed time of Khufu and slightly deeper into the past. Indeed, the long-awaited calibration curve to C14 dates, IntCal20, has just recently been published in the August edition of Radiocarbon and it suggests that there may be many dates that will have to be adjusted backwards or forwards in time. That is all well and good and should be done as needed. However, I fully expect, as we learn more about the atmospheric condition and dynamics of our planet (past and present but especially its past) such reports will be carried out in another 20-30 years time, producing yet another calibration curve to further readjust the C14 dates of artefacts. And then again in another 20-30 years after that and on and on it will go. As we learn more and more we will keep on refining and adjusting those C14 dates and I suspect in time we will find, as Graham Hancock keeps telling us, "Stuff just keeps getting older." Put another way - the old wood just keeps getting older.

My scepticism of the C14 dating method arises from three key areas which I will briefly outline here.

1) Rate of Production of C14

In the early days of C14 dating it was assumed that the rate of production of C14 in the Earth's atmosphere was constant. We now know that this is not the case and have calibrated this using ice-core data, deep sea cores and tree-ring data. Scientists, however, typically interpret all of this data with a uniformist mind set, giving scant consideration that our planet does, from time to time, go through major catastrophic convulsions; events that punctuate the Earth's gradual processes and which, imo, can result in a false interpretation and reading of data.

2) Rate of Decay

In the past the rate of decay of radioactive isotopes was believed to be an immutable constant and, as such, could provide us with a thoroughly reliable half-life for that particular isotope. However, scientists have recently discovered that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes can actually vary thereby impacting on the half-life of the element. This finding, imo, has profound implications for the use of any dating method relying on a steady decay rate of radioactive isotopes. What other factors might we learn of in future that may also be found to impact on the decay rates of these isotopes? And was there anything in our planet's past that may have exacerbated this situation?

3) Contamination

We all know about this. And even with pre-treatment it can still be a problem. How many times over the years has someone insisted that the painted marks in the Great Pyramid cannot be tested because of all the modern contamination in those small chambers? Well, likewise, large parts in the chain of custody of the cedar wood from the Queen's Chamber shaft is completely unknown and unknowable - how many hands did it pass through since 1872? What did it come into contact with in its journey from Egypt to Scotland? Ash is one of the biggest enemies of accurate C14 dating (in as far as any such accuracy can actually be determined) and we find the wood was kept in a cigar box of all things. You would need only a microscopic amount of modern ash to radically reduce the C14 age of this artefact.

There is much more I could add here but I'll leave it at that for the moment. I fully expect, however, that in time, the gap will close between the date I present from the Giza Stellar Time Line and the C14 date for those monuments (when we finally get a C14 date that everyone can agree is reliable and not likely to be readjusted by future studies).

SC

edit on 19/12/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2020 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Howdy Scott

Yeah what's 9,000 years between friends. Glad to see you can change your mind. Going for a more 'mainstream' fringe date might bring you more believers.

So your earlier calculations were wrong but your new one will be OK? Great.

Yes Hawass was never pleased with the accuracy of C-14 dating dealing with trying to determine the dates of dynasties.

Fortunately his influence has had no effect on the consensus that C-14 dating is a valuable tool. Hawass was wrong about so many thing (I believe you would agree with that) and we can add that to the list.

I would note that if the C-14 dates supported your ideas you'd be all for them - now wouldn't you?

Errors of the magnitude you are trying convince people of are simply not supported by the science or the 1984 and 1995 series - nor the newly found fragments.

Here is a wild and crazy idea. Instead of attacking the evidence that we have which is against your idea why not concentrate on the massive amount of evidence you have for 19,000~10,000 date - might be easier.

Good luck

www.pnas.org...

PS you don't seem to take your 'hosting' duties here very seriously. Where exactly do you post these days?

PSS like your new symbol instead of your previous youthful image from before - it looks very much like a US Army Aggressor symbol from the 1950's

www.alternatewars.com...

www.alternatewars.com...



edit on 19/12/20 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2020 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Hanslune


Glad to see you can change your mind.


When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?

Fact is (and it IS a fact), with the Dixon cedar wood the mean C14 calibrated date from all Giza samples is moving backwards away from the time of Khufu. As I said previously, scientists have only recently discovered that the decay rate of radioactive isotopes is not the immutable constant it was once believed to be. If the decay rate slows then, given the present dating methodology and calibration curve, you will end up with an old piece of wood appearing much younger. Give it another 50 years or so when scientists understand more about how the half-life of radioactive isotopes are impacted by factors not yet taken account of and you will see those calibration curves going ever farther back in time. It's a near certainty.


I would note that if the C-14 dates supported your ideas you'd be all for them - now wouldn't you?


The Giza Stellar Time Line produces the key dates 2388-3068 BCE. I'm not all over them.

SC

edit on 20/12/2020 by Scott Creighton because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
32
<< 1   >>

log in

join