5000-year-old wood challenges dating of GP

[cladking]

13 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

True but I was really hoping that someone, CK included, could provide verifiable evidence that for once showed he knew what the hell he was talking about. True to form it has STILL not happened. Imagine that. 

cormac

This was one of the first things I researched back in 2006.  In those days the search engines worked pretty well and I found several papers on paleoclimatology.  

They were not in agreement particularly concerning the onset of the dryer conditions at Giza around 2500 BC.  Generally they did agree that floods were still getting lower after a precipitous drop around 4500 BC and they averaged about 4' rain before the onset of dryer conditions in the eastern Sahara.  There is other data that can be used here as well but people don't seem to care what the pyramid builders actually said, did, and drew.  Suffice to say they all concern desert animals that can't exist on less than about 4" annually.  It was only later that I learned the pyramids are older than Egyptologists believe placing it well back into the wetter period.  They not only had rain at Giza during construction but water began flowing in the Ur Nile right by the pyramids at the very start of pyramid building season in late-June.  Of course the Nile Flood reached right into the Sphinx enclosure at this time also.  This whole region transformed from a desert to a lush oasis every year on the epagomenal days.  

I did a quick search today and found more ads than data.  

 

Edited December 18, 2020 by cladking

[cormac mac airt]

31 minutes ago, cladking said:

This was one of the first things I researched back in 2006.  In those days the search engines worked pretty well and I found several papers on paleoclimatology.  

They were not in agreement particularly concerning the onset of the dryer conditions at Giza around 2500 BC.  Generally they did agree that floods were still getting lower after a precipitous drop around 4500 BC and they averaged about 4' rain before the onset of dryer conditions in the eastern Sahara.  There is other data that can be used here as well but people don't seem to care what the pyramid builders actually said, did, and drew.  Suffice to say they all concern desert animals that can't exist on less than about 4" annually.  It was only later that I learned the pyramids are older than Egyptologists believe placing it well back into the wetter period.  They not only had rain at Giza during construction but water began flowing in the Ur Nile right by the pyramids at the very start of pyramid building season in late-June.  Of course the Nile Flood reached right into the Sphinx enclosure at this time also.  This whole region transformed from a desert to a lush oasis every year on the epagomenal days.  

I did a quick search today and found more ads than data.  

 

I’d call that hear-say and NOT verifiable evidence. Thanks for once again showing your incapable of supporting your own claims. Like I said, SSDD. 
 

cormac

[cladking]

34 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

I’d call that hear-say and NOT verifiable evidence. Thanks for once again showing your incapable of supporting your own claims. Like I said, SSDD. 
 

cormac

You can call it anything you want.  

I call it the results of research that I took the time to carry out and you didn't.  

The fact that I might be wrong or that I misunderstood or misremember the results are just as irrelevant as the fact each of the sources might have been wrong.  The road to knowledge isn't paved with "truth" but with facts.  

 

To each his own.  

[cormac mac airt]

58 minutes ago, cladking said:

You can call it anything you want.  

I call it the results of research that I took the time to carry out and you didn't.  

The fact that I might be wrong or that I misunderstood or misremember the results are just as irrelevant as the fact each of the sources might have been wrong.  The road to knowledge isn't paved with "truth" but with facts.  

 

To each his own.  

You wouldn’t know what the truth was if an anthropomorphic version of it introduced itself to you. You made the claim, put up or shut up because just your say so makes it an outright lie. 
 

cormac

[Hanslune]

2 hours ago, cladking said:

You can call it anything you want.  

I call it the results of research that I took the time to carry out and you didn't.  

The fact that I might be wrong or that I misunderstood or misremember the results are just as irrelevant as the fact each of the sources might have been wrong.  The road to knowledge isn't paved with "truth" but with facts.  

 

To each his own.  

We can call it lying too. Cladking you have a long, long, long history of telling fibs, being disingenuous, untruthful, making false statements, dissimulating, dissembling & duplicitous comments, deception, attempts to deceive, perfidious claims and mendacious behavior. When you speak we expect to hear biased misinformation.

As I have noted elsewhere ANYTHING you say is considered a lie unless you back it up with a real source. Your opinion is not a source.

 

 

[Hanslune]

5 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

He sees but he does not read....

cored and dated an old one!

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

The Great Pyramid was built over various structures as can be seen in the "well shaft" and the infrared and gravimetric scans.  It's the porosity along with the presence of these structures causing the infrared anomalies.  The air shafts in the queens chamber and the large step at the top of the grand gallery are likely testaments to it as well.  

No they don't Dr. Bui who did the gravimetric scans disagreed with your 'amateur interpretation' and that you mis-characterized the data and have done so for over a decade doesn't make you right.

Cladking always use to show a top down image of the gravimetric scan but has always refused, over and over again, to acknowledge the side views of the same data in the same study.

Compare those two images above to the one Cladking uses

http://hdbui.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

[Nobu]

Most of these points you guys discuss are not my areas of expertise. Wood, happens to be. Cedar is extremely resilient to almost everything nature can throw its way. 2 inches of rainfall per year is not much different than 10 inches when it comes to support beam life. If the beam was used out of doors  completely open to the elements it would likely only last a century to two centuries. If it was completely covered from the elements then it could have been used for many many centuries with this little amount of moisture.
 

I have three inch thick white oak in my shop as I type this that was used as the outer side of homes in Vienna. It snows in Austria and is not a dry country. This wood has bullets in it from Napoleons army in 1810 (I believe that is when he invaded Vienna). It is still extremely robust. I’ll take photos of it tomorrow if someone demands proof.

All this being said to say that wood being found at a site doesn’t date the site imo. Wood is really exceptional material.

 

just my two cents. I’m here for you guys with info regarding wood and molecular biology.

 

 

[Swede]

4 hours ago, cladking said:

You can call it anything you want.  

I call it the results of research that I took the time to carry out and you didn't.  

The fact that I might be wrong or that I misunderstood or misremember the results are just as irrelevant as the fact each of the sources might have been wrong.  The road to knowledge isn't paved with "truth" but with facts.

To each his own.  

Does your prefrontal cortex ever communicate with your fingers?

More failed Clad pretzel "logic".

Edit: Spacing.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Swede

[cormac mac airt]

Just now, Swede said:

Does your prefrontal cortex ever communicate with your fingers?

More failed  Clad pretzel "logic".

.

So good it deserved more than one. Thanks Swede. 
 

cormac

[Hanslune]

45 minutes ago, Swede said:

Does your prefrontal cortex ever communicate with your fingers?

More failed Clad pretzel "logic".

Edit: Spacing.

YES,  but I prefer the term, 'Goofy'.

Edited December 19, 2020 by Hanslune

[Harte]

On 12/17/2020 at 4:48 PM, Stokke said:

No one is stating the obvious?

This is the final nail in the "the pyramids were built thousands of years before the OK" coffin.

Nah.

They'll wiggle out of that.

They always do.

Harte

[cladking]

1 hour ago, Nobu said:

Most of these points you guys discuss are not my areas of expertise. Wood, happens to be. Cedar is extremely resilient to almost everything nature can throw its way. 2 inches of rainfall per year is not much different than 10 inches when it comes to support beam life. If the beam was used out of doors  completely open to the elements it would likely only last a century to two centuries. If it was completely covered from the elements then it could have been used for many many centuries with this little amount of moisture.
 

I have three inch thick white oak in my shop as I type this that was used as the outer side of homes in Vienna. It snows in Austria and is not a dry country. This wood has bullets in it from Napoleons army in 1810 (I believe that is when he invaded Vienna). It is still extremely robust. I’ll take photos of it tomorrow if someone demands proof.

All this being said to say that wood being found at a site doesn’t date the site imo. Wood is really exceptional material.

 

just my two cents. I’m here for you guys with info regarding wood and molecular biology.

 

 

Quote

What was the climate like when the pyramids were built? If it’s the same as today there would be no issue with a support beam being 200-700 years old and still in use if it was a hard wood. We still use white oak beams from Europe that are currently 300-350 years old. They are in incredible condition today. Moisture is the wood killer. I am not an Egyptologist but I suspect that the climate was dryer in Egypt during the building of the GPs than the last 500 years in Europe.

I think a few people here are missing the point.  It really doesn't matter one bit to the dating of the relic or to how long it would last sealed into the queens air shaft whether it never rained or it was a tropical rain forest.  

I made an off hand comment based on previous research to answer a simple question and they went off on a tangent.  

The simple fact is that all the wood in Egypt is not "old wood" as they would have us believe,  It is a virtual certainty that the Great Pyramid (et al) are older than Egyptologists believe,  

[Oniomancer]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

cored and dated an old one!

They state they cored some that were as old as 425 and 440 among others. The paper is dated 1991 so presumably the 632 yo specimen on Monumentaltrees.com's rather detailed and I assume authoritative list was sampled at some point since then. There could be older ones that haven't been tested yet but we still don't know the source of the much older claims.

Either way, I'll trust both sources over a gardening site.

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, cladking said:

I think a few people here are missing the point. 

jmccr8

[Hanslune]

6 hours ago, cladking said:

I made an off hand comment based on previous research to answer a simple question and they went off on a tangent.  

The simple fact is that all the wood in Egypt is not "old wood" as they would have us believe,  It is a virtual certainty that the Great Pyramid (et al) are older than Egyptologists believe,  

No Cladking the reason you lied is because that is what you do in almost every thread you've been in during the last 15 years. You make up stuff then pretend to be offended when you get call on it.

Lets look at what you said about

Quote

The simple fact is that all the wood in Egypt is not "old wood" as they would have us believe, 

No one has said it was why are you making a false statement on this? That term was used for one piece from the 1984 dating series - you are again making stuff up

 

Quote

It is a virtual certainty that the Great Pyramid (et al) are older than Egyptologists believe,  

LOL, really and what is that 'virtual certainty' based on Cladking? Your decidedly bizarre opinion? I would note that one reason the fringe never took up your geyser funicular, no AE religion or ancient science or even believed you are the only person on earth who can correctly translate AE - a language you cannot read  - ideas is because you went with the orthodox dating of the pyramids.

Have you now done another flip? Or is your tired old 'tactic' of saying goofy things?

OR are you huffing and puffing about it being perhaps 200 years older? So if we go with a construction date of say 2600 BCE that would mean the error is 4%..........picky aren't we,

Edited December 19, 2020 by Hanslune

[Hanslune]

5 hours ago, Oniomancer said:

They state they cored some that were as old as 425 and 440 among others. The paper is dated 1991 so presumably the 632 yo specimen on Monumentaltrees.com's rather detailed and I assume authoritative list was sampled at some point since then. There could be older ones that haven't been tested yet but we still don't know the source of the much older claims.

Either way, I'll trust both sources over a gardening site.

I was being humorous.

[Wepwawet]

I've always thought that when dates are given they should have a caveat of + or - up to a hundred years depending on the time period we are looking at, so this wood in G1 is not really a big deal, IMO, except to show that G1 is not thousands of years older than thought by anybody except pyramidiots.

I recommend reading at least the introduction to Ancient Egyptian Chronology edited by Hornung, Krauss and Warburton, and, specific to the 4th and 5th Dynasties, the chapter by Miroslav Verner starting page 124 dealing with cattle counts. There is no specific answer to questions of dating AE history, but it does put it all into perspective by showing how difficult it all is, and how mischief can be made of what the Egyptians said about their own chronology. By my own very rough estimate, a case could be made to have the 4th dynasty in about 8,000 BC, or older. Oh, that's 10,000 years ago from now, hm.....

Ancient Egyptian Chronology

Edited December 19, 2020 by Wepwawet

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

I've always thought that when dates are given they should have a caveat of + or - up to a hundred years depending on the time period we are looking at, so this wood in G1 is not really a big deal, IMO, except to show that G1 is not thousands of years older than thought by anybody except pyramidiots.

I recommend reading at least the introduction to Ancient Egyptian Chronology edited by Hornung, Krauss and Warburton, and, specific to the 4th and 5th Dynasties, the chapter by Miroslav Verner starting page 124 dealing with cattle counts. There is no specific answer to questions of dating AE history, but it does put it all into perspective by showing how difficult it all is, and how mischief can be made of what the Egyptians said about their own chronology. By my own very rough estimate, a case could be made to have the 4th dynasty in about 8,000 BC, or older. Oh, that's 10,000 years ago from now, hm.....

Ancient Egyptian Chronology

Complicated isn't it! The introduction is extensive.

[Hanslune]

14 hours ago, Harte said:

Nah.

They'll wiggle out of that.

They always do.

Harte

Of course facts don't matter - the idea must be preserved the 'possibility' must be kept.

[Hanslune]

On hall of Ma'at a fine fellow put up this link: about radiocarbon calibration

https://www.pnas.org/content/117/15/8410

Abstract

Quote

Calendar-dated tree-ring sequences offer an unparalleled resource for high-resolution paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Where such records exist for a few limited geographic regions over the last 8,000 to 12,000 years, they have proved invaluable for creating precise and accurate timelines for past human and environmental interactions. To expand such records across new geographic territory or extend data for certain regions further backward in time, new applications must be developed to secure “floating” (not yet absolutely dated) tree-ring sequences, which cannot be assigned single-calendar year dates by standard dendrochronological techniques. This study develops two approaches to this problem for a critical floating tree-ring chronology from the East Mediterranean Bronze–Iron Age. The chronology is more closely fixed in time using annually resolved patterns of ¹⁴C, modulated by cosmic radiation, between 1700 and 1480 BC. This placement is then tested using an anticorrelation between calendar-dated tree-ring growth responses to climatically effective volcanism in North American bristlecone pine and the Mediterranean trees. Examination of the newly dated Mediterranean tree-ring sequence between 1630 and 1500 BC using X-ray fluorescence revealed an unusual calcium anomaly around 1560 BC. While requiring further replication and analysis, this anomaly merits exploration as a potential marker for the eruption of Thera.

 

[Hanslune]

On 12/18/2020 at 10:39 AM, cladking said:

The Great Pyramid was built over various structures as can be seen in the "well shaft" and the infrared and gravimetric scans.  It's the porosity along with the presence of these structures causing the infrared anomalies.  The air shafts in the queens chamber and the large step at the top of the grand gallery are likely testaments to it as well.  

I just  remembered that the AE when they incorporated an existing hill into the great pyramid parts of that hill can still be seen in the structure. So if they 'built over an existing structure' why can we still see that incorporated hill?

In the NE corner too your favorite part you think is hallow and has a statue of a large statue inside....

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00319586/document

 

Edited December 20, 2020 by Hanslune

[Tom1200]

2 hours ago, Hanslune said:

Don't show Claddy THAT picture!  It's obvious that the dark grey is bedrock and the lighter grey is... something else.  Probably distant hills.  Therefore Cheops is actually floating 5m off the ground.

Wait a week and he'll have a new theory about how the pyramids were built elsewhere (probably Atlantis) and floated into position on a cushion of air.  In fact the hieroglyphs for hovercraft  were found in the sacred "How we found the pyramids in Atlantis in a rotten state, brought them here and smartened them up; they looked about ten thousand years old" texts of D'vi-D'ke (now sadly lost).

On a more cerebral note - I had thought the sciences of carbon-dating and dendrochronology to be much more precise, so I've clearly got a lot to learn.  That paper at pnas.org/ is good bedtime reading for insomniacs.  I especially liked the highly technical 'wiggle matching' - must do more of that myself.

Regarding my original question does the age of the Dixon Relic challenge the date of construction of the pyramids? I think the conclusive answer is NO.  Cedars can live for centuries.  The heartwood is oldest and absolutely dead, so it's natural that wood taken from different parts of the same tree might give significantly different ages.  Even if we found tonnes of timbers all of the same advanced age this might just indicate the AE preferred to use the oldest, hardest parts of the trunk.  But one tiny fragment alone proves nothing.

This is regrettable because I (like, I imagine, many readers of this site) harbour the hope that there might be amazing things out there still awaiting discovery.  Ancient wisdom, missing pharaohs, magical treasures, that sort of stuff.  But we have follow the archaeology and science, not the myths and dreams.  I didn't intend for this thread to turn into a Claddy-bashing session but hey - that's the way it goes.

[Hanslune]

4 hours ago, Tom1200 said:

Don't show Claddy THAT picture!  It's obvious that the dark grey is bedrock and the lighter grey is... something else.  Probably distant hills.  Therefore Cheops is actually floating 5m off the ground.

Wait a week and he'll have a new theory about how the pyramids were built elsewhere (probably Atlantis) and floated into position on a cushion of air.  In fact the hieroglyphs for hovercraft  were found in the sacred "How we found the pyramids in Atlantis in a rotten state, brought them here and smartened them up; they looked about ten thousand years old" texts of D'vi-D'ke (now sadly lost).

On a more cerebral note - I had thought the sciences of carbon-dating and dendrochronology to be much more precise, so I've clearly got a lot to learn.  That paper at pnas.org/ is good bedtime reading for insomniacs.  I especially liked the highly technical 'wiggle matching' - must do more of that myself.

Regarding my original question does the age of the Dixon Relic challenge the date of construction of the pyramids? I think the conclusive answer is NO.  Cedars can live for centuries.  The heartwood is oldest and absolutely dead, so it's natural that wood taken from different parts of the same tree might give significantly different ages.  Even if we found tonnes of timbers all of the same advanced age this might just indicate the AE preferred to use the oldest, hardest parts of the trunk.  But one tiny fragment alone proves nothing.

This is regrettable because I (like, I imagine, many readers of this site) harbour the hope that there might be amazing things out there still awaiting discovery.  Ancient wisdom, missing pharaohs, magical treasures, that sort of stuff.  But we have follow the archaeology and science, not the myths and dreams.  I didn't intend for this thread to turn into a Claddy-bashing session but hey - that's the way it goes.

Delightful, I remember from my C-14 dates the cardinal rule, one sample wasn't a date just an annoyance. You always wanted to get a large range of dates from a layer/structure or whatever to come out with an average and back in my day the calibration of wood dates was just starting. What C-14 tells you are relative dates x may be older than y and so forth it also - avoiding contamination - good for letting you know that something is thousands of years old and tens of thousands.

If one doesn't confront Cladking immediately you get threads hundreds of pages long with him repeating the same claims over and over again while he  also refuses to provide any evidence beyond his opinion.

Ancient wisdom, missing pharaohs, magical treasures, that sort of stuff. 

There will be more documents out there especially in Mesopotamia, probably hundreds of thousands of them, perhaps even more papyri and inscriptions in Egypt too - alas, probably no magic. My long sought for 'grail' is evidence for a Gobekli Tepe, Catalhuyuck or Nevali Cori style site dated to the Eemian.

 

[Harte]

Eemian meemian mimean momean

Hanlune's grail is sure a holy 'un.

Less Quixote, more Napolean

Eemian meemian mimean momean