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.
But you're saying you have evidence to argue that the carbon dating is contaminated. How? By what? What is the accurate date? What do you mean by contamination causes the results to be older or younger? You don't give a flat out opinion...You go on to talk about Egypt and Elongated skulls, you very clearly start off with:
The ruins of Machu Picchu are covered in jungle growth in this 1911 photograph taken when Yale archaeologist Hiram Bingham first came to the site a century ago this week.
Today the buildings at Machu Picchu are free of the vines and jungle growth that covered them when Bingham first arrived in 1911.
Bingham returned to Machu Picchu in 1912 with a team to begin excavation of the site, and then briefly visited again in 1915 (pictured). During his 1915 trip, Bingham wrote in his journal that he was shocked at how fast the jungle had grown to recover the excavated buildings.
Machu Picchu's ruins are seen neatly excavated in 1997.
Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.
Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by game over man
But you're saying you have evidence to argue that the carbon dating is contaminated. How? By what? What is the accurate date? What do you mean by contamination causes the results to be older or younger? You don't give a flat out opinion...You go on to talk about Egypt and Elongated skulls, you very clearly start off with:
well for one thing, anyone who lit a torch or made a camp fire since the place was destroyed or threw down trash, is contamination.
no one knew back then about C-14 dating.
1000yrs of people running around there would leave alot of crap.
Considering the amount of effort that Slayer has put into this thread, It would really behoove you to cite your sources on the date you provide. 'Some guy on the net' just won't cut it.
Originally posted by Red Cloak
The site has been carbon dated to an age of about 17,680 years. Don't believe any of this nonsense misinformation that gives these much more recent dates. It's just more complete BS to keep the sheeple from asking too many questions.
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.
Originally posted by multichild
In one way, the actual date of these places doesn't matter.
The fact is we dont know who done them, why they done them and what they mean, so with that I would hazzard a guess that they are very, very old as they dont fit into any modern way of thinking, and certainly even bypasses the time of what is written in the bible etc.
Its a completely different way of life and so could be a different type of human being.
Originally posted by multichild
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Cheers, that shut me up didnt it lol.
Thanks for that, looks like some very interesting stuff.
Originally posted by fooks
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
Please...archaeologists are not stupid. First off, they work off of the maxim "One Date is No Date". Secondly, the material is to be dated must come from a sealed context. They are familiar with the concept of contamination.
what is a "sealed context"?
and then how the heck would they know if it was original to the site?
Originally posted by AlienCarnage
Who built it and when it was built is a very interesting question. I do have other questions to add, who destroyed the site, why did they destroy it, what weapons were used in its destruction it, and was it destroyed over time or all at once?