Carbon dating flaw

15-Apr-2020 09:53 by 3 Comments

Carbon dating flaw - Free pantyhose dateing sites

The Mexicologist, Professor George Kubler of Yale, stressed that certain traditions contained in Mesoamerican heritage were referred by me to events of the pre-Christian era.Kubler insisted that this heritage could not date from the 8th to 4th pre-Christian centuries, but rather was generated in the 4th to 8th century of the Christian era.

carbon dating flaw-88

With initial large margin of error and anything that did not square with expectation, judged as “contaminated,” the method appeared to work and was hailed as completely reliablejust as the atomic clock is reliableand this nobody doubted.But in December, 1956, the National Geographical Society m conjunction with the Smithsonian Institution made it known that excavations at La Venta proved by radiocarbon that the classical period of the Meso-American civilizations (Olmec, Toltec, Maya, etc.) needs to be pushed back by a full thousand years and ascribed not to the 4th to 8th centuries of the Christian era but to the 8th to 4th centuries before that era.With these three confirmations (time the Ice Age ended, time petroleum was deposited, time of the classical period of the Meso-American civilizations), my Worlds in Collision received very substantial confirmations.As years passed and more tests were made (soon by laboratories counted in scores), a rather consistent deviation between radiocarbon age and historical age started to receive the attention of researchers.The radiocarbon dates diverge from the historical dates by several hundred years (often 500 to 700), and, interestingly, in the Egyptian samples more so than in samples from most other ancient civilizations.In 1950 in the American Journal of Science (the present publisher of Radiocarbon) a review was published by its editor, Yale geologist Longwell, with a rejection of my entire theory on the basis that oil is never found in Recent formations, being itself many millions of years old. One of the early radiocarbon datings of petroleum and petroleum-bearing formation on and off-shore in the Gulf area was by P. A third confirmation also concerned one of the important conclusions of Worlds in Collision.

A similar criticism appeared in the article by astronomer Edmondson, who cited the Indiana University geologist, J. To the above-mentioned article by Longwell a Mexicologist also contributed.Speaking of my research as far as it affects the radiocarbon dating method, I would like to separate the finds concerning natural events (Worlds in Collision, Earth in Upheaval) from finds concerning the true chronology of Egypt and of the ancient World in general (Ages in Chaos).Libby’s discoveries, published in 1952, gave immediate support and even vindication to three independent conclusions of my research into natural events of the past.Bursts of cosmic rays and of electrical discharges on an interplanetary scale would make organic-life surviving the catastrophes much richer in radiocarbon and therefore, when carbon dated, that organic matter would appear much closer to our time than actually true.But if the invasion of the terrestrial atmosphere by “dead” (non-radioactive) carbon from volcanic eruptions, from meteoric dust, from burning oil and coal and centuries-old forests, predominated the picture, then the changed balance of radioactive and of radio-inert carbon would make everything in the decades following the event appear much older.But as the method was refined, it started to show rather regular anomalies.