Nostr Web Client

Carbon dating has never produced accurate results for samples of provably known age. There is no reason to believe it can actually date materials of supposedly much higher unknown age. It is a good example of purely theoretical make believe that plagues most modern sciences.

I mean, sounds good in theory, but can you honestly imagine groups of 30-60 guys dragging huge stones weighing multiple stones at a pretty high angle for long distances? Seems highly unrealistic to me, to say the least. As for the theory of the French guy from the video if I understood it correctly - dragging those extremely heavy stones along narrow ramps with 90 degree angles seems also highly impossible. All of those explanations are purely theoretical and on a closer look have nothing in common with reality. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeHistory/comments/twzhng/comment/i3jrynd

Also, consider Colossi of Memnon, two gigantic strictures weighing 700 tons each supposedly moved 680km over land. These things simply do not have a proper realistic explanation in the realm of official history.

H 2y ago

Like I said in my previous post, the level of accuracy is important. You can say "It was off by a decade or two" is inaccurate, but it doesn't need to be more accurate than that when we are using it to match up with the historical kings lists and other records the Egyptians kept themselves.

> Using reddit as a source

Even so:

"Even if we assume they only carried the stones from the Nile to the pyramids, that's STILL 8.18 kilometers at least."

Did you watch the video? They quarried the stone beside the pyramid.

Colossi of Memnon was built over 1000 years after the largest pyramid. Once again, do you believe they could not have made further engineering progress in that time? I looked at the wikipedia article because I am not familiar with it and it echoes your claim. However looking at the first reference:

DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4118.1219

It matches the location of the stone but also says that it was almost certainly transported on the nile. It goes into great details on it requiring half as much manpower but I will leave it to you to look into that further unless you have a better source.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

The thing is that in cases where the actual age of the tested material was known, carbon dating was off by tens of thousands of years or even millions in some cases. People have literally sent their own teeth for testing to different laboratories and got completely different results telling them their own teeth are many thousand years old. And if carbon dating is so extremely bad at dating recent materials, in no way it can be seriously trusted when testing very old material of an unknown age.

They supposedly did query some of the stones nearby, but some of it still was transported by river as official history puts it. The mystery of construction is still a mystery only explained by unrealistic theories that to me look highly questionable to say the least.

I believe they could have made all the progress in the world. Moreover, I am inclined to think that people back then had technologies way more advanced than anything we have currently. The problem is with official history that depicts them as basically cavemen only with pickaxes and ropes who dragged all those gigantic perfectly cut boulders by hand.

You are free to believe any theories thrown your way, however unrealistic they might sound. But I just can’t make myself believe them, it does not add up in my honest opinion.

H 2y ago

Carbon-14 has a half life of ~5730 years. This is why carbon dating is only used in circumstances where the estimated age is less than 20000 years as I had mentioned previously. The older the item is, the less accurate the measurement becomes but still reasonable up to 20000 years. Long before you get to 1m years there is no carbon-14 left to measure so you cannot get a million year mismatch.

You also shouldn't be dating animals because we consume carbon from our environment in different quantities depending on what we eat so measuring teeth in this fashion will not get an accurate result. Another example is mussels that were carbon dated to be thousands of years old because what they ate had very little carbon in them. Carbon dating is simply not useful for dating animals.

For older things other forms of dating are used such as uranium-lead dating but this is not required for anything built in the time of civilisation (last ~12000 years).

We have lost knowledge due to dark ages. For example we only recently discovered why Roman marine concrete is so strong and durable. I believe in the ingenuity of our forebears.

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

Right, I grouped different dating techniques into a single point. All of them never consistently correctly dated materials of the known age, and in case of radiometric dating it was off by tens of millions of years. Talking about carbon dating, it still is based on a number of very questionable assumptions and any results not matching the official history are always simply discarded. Anyways, it was not the main point I was making.

Regarding the dark ages and lost knowledge, I agree with you. In that sense the official historic narrative does not explain a lot of different observations.

H 2y ago

Any examples of failed carbon dating attempts on objects (particularly Egyptian artifacts) that I could look into?

The Guy That Looked Into It 2y ago

I don’t have any examples including Egyptian artifacts on hands, but here are examples of fossils found in Alaska. https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0862/report.pdf As you can see samples SL-454 and SL-455 show show a large discrepancy even though both come from the same source. Same as with samples 299, M-37 and L-137X. Here is a more general video about problems with carbon dating and questionable assumptions made when using this method. https://youtu.be/lg5aDoYUyBk