The Halls of Amenti Have Been Discovered Under the Giza Plateau

[Maxmars]

I have a serious question for those of you involved here...

I ask because I don't understand a sentiment which I am hearing...
"This" [thread/topic] "is dead."

Yet the conversation is ongoing and the dialogue is very interesting to me.

My question:  In what context should I understand that the thread or topic is dead?

Just asking for a friend.

[rickymouse]

I have a serious question for those of you involved here...

I ask because I don't understand a sentiment which I am hearing...
"This" [thread/topic] "is dead."

Yet the conversation is ongoing and the dialogue is very interesting to me.

My question:  In what context should I understand that the thread or topic is dead?

Just asking for a friend.

If the thread/topic is dead, is that why your writing is red? 

[Maxmars]

If the thread/topic is dead, is that why your writing is red? 

The subtlety is now lost!!!  

[quintessentone]

I have a serious question for those of you involved here...

I ask because I don't understand a sentiment which I am hearing...
"This" [thread/topic] "is dead."

Yet the conversation is ongoing and the dialogue is very interesting to me.

My question:  In what context should I understand that the thread or topic is dead?

Just asking for a friend.

LOL the subject is archaeology Maxmars, so it will never be dead as long as there remains doubt of the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, for one.

"Accuracy and Limitations

While carbon dating is a powerful tool, its accuracy is not absolute. Several factors can influence the results:

1. Calibration Issues: Radiocarbon dating relies on calibration curves that assume a consistent level of \(\^{14}C\) in the atmosphere. Recent research has shown that variations in the radiocarbon cycle can lead to discrepancies in dating, particularly in specific regions and time periods. 
   
   
   
2. Environmental Factors: Factors such as contamination, the preservation of the sample, and the surrounding environment can affect the accuracy of the measurements. For instance, samples that have been exposed to different carbon sources may yield misleading results. 
   
   
   
3. Age Limitations: Carbon dating is ineffective for dating materials older than about 50,000 years, as the remaining \(\^{14}C\) becomes too minimal to measure accurately. This limitation makes it unsuitable for dating most fossils, which are often millions of years old."
   

ETA:

We haven't even skimmed the surface of the drama involved with this subject, nor the big egos and uncivil debates involved which could keep this thread going on until the end of DI days.

[Harte]

I personally knew a guy who has a business doing carbon dating.  When talking to him at the motel bar after his presentation at night, he mentioned that carbon dating ancient things can lead to questionable  results, because often the places were utilized by new groups of people long after the structures were built.  He said it was hard sometimes to get estimates with carbon dating and the work to try to figure out things more accurately was time consuming.  Some structures through history were remodeled or revamped many times...and carbon dating only identifies carbon based things, mostly organic stuff.  It is easy to date things like bone and adjustments have to be made by the historic changes in the environment in that area.  Also consensus of the time...the beliefs of the people who hire him need to be considered.  He mentioned that often many time frames were present in his testing so he has to choose which is the best timeframe.  Sometimes his estimates can say say three thousand to thirty thousand years ago.

We talked a little about some OOP fossils of dinosaurs, some he tested were maybe ten thousand years old, but he said those results were skewed by the environment...I guess there are reasons that carbon dating does not work well in some places.  I think he mentioned those dino bones were somewhere in Montana  on some mountain area out west here in America...could have been Wyoming or somewhere out that way

That was an interesting conversation I had with him.

That's the reason for COMPREHENSIVE testing.
Keep in mind - NO site can be dated solely on one single radiocarbon test.
One date is no date.
C14 dating is only one of the several avenues pursued for dating the Old Kingdom constructions.
Take a look at the results of one of the C14 assays I mentioned. Note the ranges found and the number of different structures tested.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index..../3874/3299

Harte

[quintessentone]

There are so many different factors to take into consideration with dating ancient archeological sites.

"At Giza, south of the Sphinx, we are excavating remains of facilities for storage and production of fish, meat, bread, and copper that date to the middle and end of Dynasty 4, when the pyramids of Khafre and Menkaure were under construction. Three of the eight dates from samples taken here are almost direct hits on Menkaure's historical dates, 2532- 2504 B.C. The other five, however, range from 350 to 100 years older. Our radiocarbon dates from the site suggest that, like those from the pyramids, the dates on charcoal from the settlement scatter widely in time with many dates older than the historical estimate. The pyramid builders were likely recycling their own settlement debris."

"It may have been premature to dismiss the old wood problem in our 1984 study. Do our radiocarbon dates reflect the Old Kingdom deforestation of Egypt? Did the pyramid builders devour whatever wood they could harvest or scavenge to roast tons of gypsum for mortar, to forge copper chisels, and to bake tens of thousands of loaves to feed the mass of assembled laborers. The giant stone pyramids in the early Old Kingdom may mark a major consumption of Egypt's wood cover, and therein lies the reason for the wide scatter, increased antiquity, and history-unfriendly radiocarbon dating results from the Old Kingdom, especially from the time of Djoser to Menkaure. In other words, it is the old-wood effect that haunts our dates and creates a kind of shadow chronology to the historical dating of the pyramids. It is the shadow cast by a thousand fires burning old wood."

Dating the Pyramids - Archaeology Magazine Archive

[rickymouse]

The subtlety is now lost!!!  

I had to look up that word.  Never knew it existed.   Next time I read the word I'll probably have to look it up again to make sure I get it right.  

[Hanslune]

If you have followed the disclosure movement at all, you would know what’s coming. And that coming is going to shatter your world view. You see, what comes along with disclosure, is a a foundation of what happens to us when we die. Furthermore, it also shatters all the absolute BS timelines of our history.

"disclosure" has been coming for what 75 years? - Let me when it happens please

[Hanslune]

I don't believe they are lying. I believe in how they derived the date through observation of the Sphinx, which is part of the Giza complex.

"Modern Egyptology largely agrees that the Sphinx was built around 2500 BC during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre, whose face it is thought to bear a likeness. However, dissenting opinions to this commonly accepted time frame exist.
 In fact, Egyptologist Selim Hassan admitted that the evidence for the theory of the Sphinx being built for Khafre during his reign was circumstantial at best. After all, no inscriptions on the statue exist tying its construction with anyone.
 
Early Egyptologists believed that the Sphinx stele (stone slab with hieroglyphs) shows that the monument became buried in the desert before the time of Khafre. More modern theories say that the Sphinx appears constructed more in the style of Pharaoh Khufu, who was Khafre's father.
 
Khafre's Causeway, in particular, appears to have been built with an existing structure in mind and that could have only been the Sphinx. Another more fringe theory is that the water erosion on the Sphinx suggests construction during a time when heavy rain was common in Egypt, thus putting its construction somewhere between 4000 and 3000 BC."

The Great Sphinx Of Giza

The fringe refuse to accept the 1984 and 1995 C-14  result which is what i was referring too, those 497 samples date GP and other Old kingdom structures. The date for the Sphinx as you noted is not known. It was probably a Yardang and might have carved earlier - but then there is no way to date that. What isn't known is what the rain fall levels were x years ago or how at w temperature with y amount of rain Mokattam limestone will erode at z amount. It could be older but it might not be.

[quintessentone]

The fringe refuse to accept the 1984 and 1995 C-14  result which is what i was referring too, those 497 samples date GP and other Old kingdom structures. The date for the Sphinx as you noted is not known. It was probably a Yardang and might have carved earlier - but then there is no way to date that. What isn't known is what the rain fall levels were x years ago or how at w temperature with y amount of rain Mokattam limestone will erode at z amount. It could be older but it might not be.

And the debate rages on.

"The Great Sphinx of Giza is generally dated to around 2500 BCE, during the reign of Pharaoh Khafre. However, some geologists propose that the Sphinx could be older, dating back to 7000 to 5000 BCE, based on water erosion patterns that suggest prolonged rainfall during that period. Proponents of this theory, including Robert Schoch, argue that the erosion is indicative of a wetter climate, which would have been more common during the African Humid Period around 10,500 BCE. Critics, however, point out that the erosion patterns are consistent with wind and sand erosion, and there is no archaeological evidence to support the idea of an earlier civilization capable of constructing the Sphinx. 

Wikipedia+3"