TrueLife - History: Fiction or Science #6

Episode Date: June 8, 2021

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Transcript:(Follow along with HD pictures of the fore-mentioned audio on my YouTube channel: https://youtu.be/nlqwSBbJkxo) One on One Video call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_USCheck out our YouTube:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Fearers through ruins maze lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for taking a few moments to spend time with me in Anatoly Famenko. Here we go. Number six. One of the numerous problems of this Scaligerian history, the problem of bronze manufacture before the discovery of tin. Many chemists and metallurgists have been reporting the following peculiar circumstance for quite a while, namely that no bronze could possibly be manufactured in the Scaligerian ancient bronze age. Professor Michel Gai'uwa, a prominent and versatile specialist in organic synthesis, as well as the chemistry of explosives and plastics. The author of an in-depth work titled The History of Chemistry writes the following, based on logical construction on scaligerian chronology, naturally. He writes the following. Copper had been known from the prehistoric times, not just in its free-stetric state.

but also as bronze, an alloy of copper and tin. During the prehistoric epoch, known as Bronze Age, bronze was used for the manufacture of various utensils, jewelry, weapons, etc. However, the issue of ancient tin metallurgy remains extremely nebulous. Great word, by the way. Metallic tin had not been known in the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, it must have been used for the manufacturer of bronze. All we can do is assume that a metal of higher fusability was manufactured as a result of

fusing copper with some minerals rich in tin content. Thus copper was discovered earlier than tin, whose metallurgy is a lot more complex. However, the fact that bronze was discovered earlier than tin does not clarify numerous other problems of ancient history. The picture is perfectly clear. As we can see, the fact that tin metallurgy is more complex than that of copper is common knowledge. Hence, bronze being a fusion of copper in tin, must have, must have, appeared after the discovery of the latter. Scaligerian history has it the other way around. Bronze is supposed to have been discovered before tin in the Bronze Age. This contradiction inherent in Scaligerian chronology, can be explained by the fact that the chronologists of that school were neither chemists nor metallurgists.

How are they to know that the compilation of a history textbook requires that the description of the discovery of tin should proceed that of the invention of bronze? However, the historians of the 17th and 18th century were driven by altogether different considerations. neither caring much for tin nor indeed for science itself. None of them would consider consulting with a chemist. As a result, ancient Greek heroes happily hack at each other with bronze swords that need tin for their manufacture, which had not yet been discovered in that epoch. Modern chemists are naturally confused by such historical issues and are earnestly questioning the reason for the existence, of such oddities in Scaligerian history of chemistry and metallurgy.

Our explanation is very simple. The Bronze Age falls within the epoch of the 14th through 16th century, when tin had already been discovered. After copper, of course, consider the allegedly ancient bronze idols from Luristan, currently in the Louvre's possession. Figures 1.56. Michelle Gai'uha cites them as examples of ancient bronze art. However, these artful bronze age figurines were most probably made in the 15th to 17th century.

The same applies to the ancient bronze girandal that has received the dating of 5th century BC, also from the Luz collection that we see in figures 1.57. It may as well be an item made in the 16th to the 18th century. The problems and deficiencies of dendrochronology and several other dating methods. Just for everybody listening, this particular chapter really gets into the way things are dated, be it dendrochronology or carbon dating, and it makes some awesome comparisons about artifacts that were found. as well as poking holes in the Scaligerian chronology by using these methods. It does get a little bit dry.

So if you want to skip ahead, the next number seven is going to be about parameter D, which I think is going to blow everyone's mind. But I just wanted to give some people a heads up because it does get a little bit dry right here. That being said, let's move forward. The consequent scale of dendrochronological datings does not extend further back in time than the 10th century AD. The dendro chronological method is one of the modern

dating methods claiming to be capable of dating historical artifacts independently. It is based on the assumption that the yearly growth of tree rings is uneven. Annual ring thickness rates are supposed to be roughly

similar for the trees of the same kind that grow in similar conditions. In order to make this method fit for actual dating, one has to construct a reference scale of annual ring thickness for trees of a particular kind for a historical period of sufficient length. Let us call this graph a dendrochronological scale. If such a scale is constructed, it might aid one in the attempt at dating archaeological findings containing wooden pieces. One has to determine the timber type. Saw off a sample

measure the thickness of rings, build a diagram, and try to find out whether it concurs with any part of the reference scale. One should also consider the question of what deviations of compared diagrams can be ignored safely. However, the European dendro chronological scales only reaches several centuries back in time, which does not allow for the dating of ancient constructions. Many European scientists have started to experiment with the dendrochronological method. However, obtaining results appeared a very complex task. The oldest trees in the European forests are only 300 to 400 years old. Deciduous trees have vaguely defined rings which are hard to study and most reluctant to tell the research or anything about the past.

Quality archaeological material proved extremely scarce against. all expectations. American dendrochronology is in better conditions, since it is based on Douglas fir, mountain pine, and yellow pine. However, this region is far away from the zone of ancient history. Furthermore, there is always a large number of ignored factors such as the weather conditions for the period in question,

soil quality, humidity level fluctuation for the area in question, its geography, and so on. All of them affect the growth rate of the rings significantly. It is most important that the creation of dendrological... Excuse me, it is more important that the creation of dendrochronological scales was based on the existing Scaligerian chronology. Thus, any alteration of the chronology of documents should automatically alter these scales whose independence is thus greatly compromised.

It appears that the dendrochronological scales for Europe and Asia only reach several centuries back from our age. We shall give a more detailed account on the contemporary state of such scales for Italy, the Balkans, Greece, and Turkey. Let us refer to a diagram of dendrochronological dating scales for those countries that reflect the state of affairs in this area as of spring 1994, figure 1.58. This diagram was kindly provided by Professor Y. M. Kavanaugh, Moscow.

He took part in a conference in 1994 where the American professor Peter Ian Koonholm made a report on the modern state of dendrochronology, presenting this rather noteworthy diagram that had been compiled in the Malcolm and Carolyn Weiner Laboratory for Aegean and Near Eastern Dendro Chronology, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. In figure 1.58, we can see fragments of dendro chronological scales for different kinds of timber, oak, box, cedar pine, juniper, and conifers in general. All of these scales have a very large, obvious gap around 1,000 AD. Thus, none of them can be continued without intervals further back in time than the 10th century. All of the earlier fragments of dendrochronological scales, as shown on the diagram, cannot be used for independent dating since their attachment to the time axis is wholly dependent on the Scaligerian chronology,

which had served as a basis for the dating of several individual ancient pieces of wood. A piece of wood found in a pharaoh's tomb, thus gets the dating of some distant millennium before Christ, due to historical considerations, based on the Scaligerian chronology, after that, other ancient pieces of wood are linked to the one that has already been dated. These attempts occasionally succeed, which results in the construction of a fragment of the dendro chronological scale around the first piece of wood. relative datings of ancient findings within this fragment may be correct however their absolute dating that is the placement of this fragment on the time axis is wrong the reason is that the first dating was based on the erroneous scaligerian chronology let us return to the basics of the dendro chronological methods in theory the dendro chronological scale

is supposed to grow beginning with the current period and extending into the past. This implies the collation of ring thickness scales of different specimens. What is the principle of this collation? A modern source gives an in-depth analysis of the problem. It turns out that the method used is a combination of mathematical statistical methods and visual subjective assessments. Hence, the boundary between dated and undated dendrochronological scales becomes very vague.

The book tells us rather frankly that if we can find a collation position whose diagrams concur with those of the traditional chronology to the best of our certainty and knowledge, the new specimen is considered dated. If we fail to discover such a collation position, the specimen remains, the specimen remains undated. Although even in this case, a dendrochronologist can point out one or more collation methods whose concurrence is good but not perfect, in his opinion. Needless to say, the dendrochronological society has to agree on what is to be considered perfect concurrence. Dendrochronology is thus affected by subjectivity and arbitrariness.

Different dendrological datings have different veracity. The veracity of a dendrochronological dating depends on the certainty of the collations on the dendrochronological scale. Dubious collations cast a shade of ambiguity over the entire scale. The recently published book by Christian Blas and Hans Ulrich, subjects the dendro chronological method to some very sharp criticisms that leave no stone unturned. 14.2. Sedimentary layer datings. The methods of radium uranium and radium actinium analysis. The Scaligerian chronology implicitly or explicitly affects the scale graduations of methods,

even the rough physical ones supposed to give the absolute age of objects. A. Olinkov tells us that, quote, over the 18 centuries that have passed since the time of Roman invasion, the weathering process have created a 3-millimeter erosion layer on the walls near the quarry's entrance, comparing the thickness of this 1800-year-old layer, according to Scaligerian chronology, to the 35-centimeter, erosion crust that covers the glacier-polished hills. Leads one to believe that the Ice Age left these latitudes about 216,000 years ago.

The proponents of this method have been well aware of the difficulty of obtaining a referential scale for something like erosion speed. It differs for various climates. The same type of rock erodes at varying speeds in the tropics and beyond the Arctic Circle. erosion speed also depends on the temperature, humidity, rainfall, and sunshine. This means that every biospheric zone requires the compilation of special scales and diagrams. Besides, one cannot be certain that the weather conditions have remained unaltered since the exposure of the layer that we're interested in. There were many attempts of deducing absolute age by the speed of sedimentary layer for,

formations. They didn't lead anywhere, which is perfectly understandable. Olinkov tells further that the research in this direction has been conducted by the scientists of many countries. However, the results failed to meet the expectations. It became apparent that similar types of rock erode at different rates even under similar conditions, and establishing a regular pattern of these processes is hardly possible at all. For instance, ancient documents, a reference to the Scaligerian chronology yet again, tell us that the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, the second, reigned about 3,000 years ago. The buildings that were constructed in his lifetime are now covered by a 3-meter layer of sand.

This means that about a meter of sand accumulated every millennium. At the same time, certain areas of Europe have a millenarium rate, of three centimeters of sediment. Whereas for the Firths in the south of the Ukraine, this is an annual rate. The development of other methods was tempted as well. The radium uranium and radium actinium methods are valid for the time interval of 300,000 years. They are convenient for the datings of geological formations when the required precision does not exceed 4 to 10,000 years.

However, this isn't precise enough for the ends of historical chronology and cannot contribute to it in any substantial manner at all. I think he's really painting a good picture of just how inaccurate the datings for the majority of our methods are. You know, it's irrelevant what number you get if you're using the wrong instrument, right? That's kind of like standing on a scale to check your height. I don't care what number comes up. It's the wrong type of instrument to validate your measurement. Are radioactive datings to be trusted? The radiocarbon datings of ancient medieval and modern specimens are scattered chaotically.

The most popular method claiming the capability of dating ancient artifacts independently is the radiocarbon method. However, the accumulation of radiocarbon datings has exposed the difficulty of the method's application. According to Alenkov, another problem had to be considered. The intensity of the atmospheric radiation is affected by many cosmic factors. The radioactive carbon isotope production rate should also vary And one needs to find a method that would take these variations into account Apart from that, over the period when highways and industrial plants have been introduced by the civilization A gigantic amount of carbon from the combustion of wood, coal, oil, turf, oil shales, and their products

emanated into the atmosphere. How does this atmospheric carbon affect the production of its radioactive isotopes. In order to get voracious datings, one has to introduce complex corrections into calculations that reflect the changes in the content of the atmosphere over the last millennium.

Okay, just on a quick side note, if we think about what he's saying here, about how the atmospheric carbon affect the production of radioactive isotopes, like, doesn't this also just bring into account the level of bullshit about the global warming. Like, it's so complex. It's so complicated.

And the calculus that needs to be done, especially when we've already learned how different parts of the planet can absorb different parts of sedimentary layers and or carbon isotopes. How could you possibly get an accurate measurement of how fast the planet is warming up in different parts of the world at different times. I think it just dovetails nicely with not just how these incredibly, this incredible falsification of history has happened

not only in Scaligerian times, but how these particular systems of measurement are being used to falsify the history today, the history of our planet's temperature. Like, it's something that's ongoing. What Anatoly Faminko is pointing out in this book about history is ongoing. And I think it really underscores the most important point of, you know, we get back to why. Why does it matter the falsification of history?

And that's the quote that you see in the video that I'm trying to drill in everybody's head is that, he who controls the past controls the future and he who controls the present controls the past let's jump back in how does the atmospheric carbon affect the production of its radioactive isotope in order to get voracious datings one has to introduce complex correlations into calculations

and reflect the changes in the content of the atmosphere over the last millennium the issue as well as a number of technical difficulties casts a shadow of doubt over the precision of many radiocarbon datings. W.F. Libby, the author of The Method, wasn't a historian and did not question the veracity of the Scaligerian datings, which had been used for the justification of his method according to his book. However, the archaeologist Vladimir Milosec has proved this method to give random errors of 1,000 to 2,000 years, while its independent dating of the ancient specimen faithfully follows the dating's offered by a consensual chronology.

Naturally, there can be no talk of proof here. Let us quote some rather meaningful details. As we have already noted, W.F. Libby had a priori been certain of the veracity of Scaligerian datings. Right there we see a pretty... Right there we see confirmation bias. He wrote that they had no contradictions with the historians in what concerned ancient Rome in Egypt. We did not conduct anything in the way of extensive research related to this epoch.

Since its chronology in general is known to the archaeologist a lot better than whatever our methods could estimate, So the archaeologists were doing us a favor, providing specimens, which are actually destroyed, being burned in the radiocarbon measurement process. This confusion of Libby's tells us a lot, since the deficiencies of Scaligerian chronology directly concerned the regions and epochs that he and his team did not research extensively enough. We can see that the Scaligeriate archaeologists were most reluctant about letting the radiocarbon method enter the certainty epochs of Scaligerian history for fear of embarrassing

discoveries. Archaeologists have naturally gotten no objections against applying this method to the undocumented prehistory since nothing capable of compromising consensual chronology can possibly be found there. In what concerns the several reference measurements that we conducted on ancient artifacts, The situation is as follows. The radiocarbon dating of the Egyptian collection of J.H. Breasted suddenly discovered the third object that we analyzed to have been contemporary, according to Libby. It was one of the findings considered to belong to the 5th Dynasty, 2563 to 2423 BC, or roughly 4 millennia before our time.

It has proved a heavy blow indeed. Why could it have been such a blow? The physicists appear to have restored the voracious dating of the Egyptian specimen, proving the old one to have been wrong. What's the problem with that? The problem is, of course, the simple fact that any such dating would prove a menace to the Scaligerian chronology. Carrying on in that vein would lead Libby to compromising the entire history. of ancient Egypt. The specimen that Libby had been careless enough to have claimed as modern had to be called

a forgery and disposed of, which is only natural since the archaeologists could not have possibly let the heretical thought of the 16th through 17th century. Considering the method's precision, origin of the ancient Egyptian finding enter their minds. quote, the evidence that they use for proving the veracity of their method is rather insubstantial, and all the indications being indirect, the calculations imprecise, and the interpretation ambiguous, the main argument being that radiocarbon datings of the specimens whose age is known for certain use for reference. Every time referential measurements are mentioned, everybody quotes the results of the first reference, datings that were obtained for a very limited number of specimens.

Libby recognizes the absence of substantial referential statistics. Together with the millinerium dating deviations mentioned above, we may thus question the very validity of the method as used for dating specimens belonging to the period that were interested in, covering the two millineria preceding our century. This discussion does not concern the applicability of the method for geological purposes, however, where millinerium deviations are considered insubstantial. W.F. Libby writes that there was no deficiency in materials belonging to the epoch preceding ours by 3,700 years for checking the precision and the dependability of the method. However, there is nothing here to compare radiocarbon datings to, since there are no data. written documents dating from those epochs.

Libby also informs us that his historian acquaintances are perfectly certain of the veracity of the datings referring to the last 3,750 years. However, their certainty does not spread as far as the events that precede this era. In other words, the radiocarbon method has been used most extensively for the period of time that does not allow the verification of the results by any other independent method, which makes life a lot easier for the historians. The example that we quote below is most typical. Quote, the radiocarbon datings of the three inscription-bearing plaques found in Romania

have put archaeologists in a quandary. The ashes that they were found in prove them to be sick. thousand years old at the very least. Could the discovery of literacy have happened in a rural community in Europe and not in the urban and highly developed Sumerian civilization? Such an awful lot of space for the flight of exalted fancy. The scientists considered this probability to be very low. There have been many theories put forward for the explanation of the discovery that apparently refuted the reigning opinion on the origins of written language. Some of the archaeologists, without doubting the scientific principles of the radiocarbon

method, have suggested the method to be error-prone due to the effects of factors that haven't been studied as of yet. Could it be that the errors of the method are rather insubstantial and allow for approximate dating of the specimens belonging to the last two or three millennia? The state of affairs appear to be a graver one. The errors of radio carbon dating are too great and too chaotic. They can't amount to several millennia in what concerns contemporary and medieval objects. In 1984, the Technology and Science magazine had published the results of the radiocarbon method related discussions from the two symposiums in Edinburgh and Stockholm. Hundreds of analysis examples were quoted with dating errors ranging from 600 to 1800 years.

In Stockholm, the scientist lamented the fact that the radiocarbon method appears to produce the greatest distortions when applied to the history of ancient Egypt in the epoch preceding hours by 4,000 years. There are other examples, some of them pertaining to the history of Balkan civilizations. specialists have reached solidarity in their opinion that the radiocarbon method remains ambiguous due to the impossibility of proper calibration, which renders it unacceptable since it gives no calendar datings. 15.1. A criticism of the application of the radiocarbon method to historical specimens. According to L.S. Klein, the radiocarbon datings have confused the archaeologists, greatly. Some of them were

characteristically overzealous to follow the advice of the physicists. These archaeologists hasten to reconstruct chronological schemes, which implies they aren't constructed firmly enough. The first archaeologists to

have opposed the radiocarbon method was Vladimir Milosec who attacked the practical usage of radiocarbon datings and criticize the very theoretical foundation of the physical method sharply and bitterly. The comparison of individual measurements of modern specimens

with their average value allowed Milosec to support his skepticism with a series of brilliant paradoxes. The shell of a living American mollusk has the radioactivity index of 13.8 as compared to the average value of 15.3, which makes it 1,200 years old. A live North African wild rose flower with the radioactivity of 14.7 has been dead for 360 years. According to the physicists, as for the Australian eucalyptus with the radioactivity of 16.31, it isn't likely to exist anywhere in the next 600 years. A shell from Florida with the value of 17.4 shall only appear in 1,080 years.

Since in the past, radioactivity wasn't distributed any more evenly than it is now, similar fluctuations and errors may afflict ancient objects as well. A prime example is the result of the radiocarbon dating of a medieval altar fragment from Heidenberg, which demonstrates that the wood used for the a pair of this altar hadn't existed at the time. In the Iranian Weld Cavern, the lowest layers were dated to 6,054 BC, give or take, 415 years,

and 6,59, give or take, 500 years. Before Christ, Wallace, the layer on top was dated to 8,610 BC, give or take, 610 years. The upper layer is thus 2,556 years old. older than the lower, which is clearly an impossibility. There is a vast number of similar examples. Thus, the radiocarbon dating method can only be used for the approximate datings of objects whose age amounts to dozens of millennia, when the error rate is comparable with the actual specimen age reaching one, two, or more thousand years.

Live mollusks have been dated with the radiocarbon method. and proved to be 2300 years old, as a result which is perfectly preposterous. The radiocarbon dating deviation amounts to 2,300 years here. A few more examples of relatively recent radiocarbon datings made around 1970, 1971. Number one, according to Nature magazine, dated 7 March, 1970, reports the results of analyzing the C-14 content of organic material, contained in the mortar of an English castle, which is known to have been built 738 years ago. The radiocarbon dating gave the age of 7,370 years as a result, being 6,500 years off the mark. The radiocarbon dating deviation amounts to six millennia and a half.

One wonders whether there was any point in quoting decades with such precision. Number two, the radiocarbon analysis. of seals that have just been shot defined their age of 1,300 years, i.e. dating mistake of 1,300 years. Seals mummified 30 years ago have been dated as 4,600 years old, with a dating error of 4,570 years. Quote from the Antarctic Journal of the United States. The above examples demonstrate that radiocarbon dating can make the specimen thousands of years older than they really are. As we have seen, there are examples of the opposite. When the specimen is dated as belonging to the distant future,

one should not wonder about radiocarbon analysis, making medieval objects fabulously old. Let us return to Ellis Klein's review. He writes that Molossack suggests to cease the tendacious, critical, editing of the radiocarbon datings, which is constantly done by the physicist and calls upon their patrons, the archaeologist, to do away with the critical censorship that acts as the publication of the complete result. he appeals to both physicists and archaeologists to publish all of the results of their research without filtering out the dates that strike them as improbable. He also tries to convince the archaeologist to stop the practice of familiarizing the physicists with the age of the finding and not giving them figures until they publish theirs. Otherwise, after such editing, which reflects the private viewpoints of the research themselves, the dating is bound to be subjective, so the study of the concurrence between historical and radiocarbon datings becomes impossible.

Thus, in Groningen, where the archaeologist Becker has been a supporter of the short chronology, radiocarbon datings are usually recent, whereas in Schleswig and Heidelberg, where Shwebidicin and others have been proponents of the longer version of chronology, since datings are usually a lot more ancient. We think that no commentary to the above is required. We may be told that the radiocarbon method may have attained a higher level of precision over the last couple of years. This may be true concerning the theory and the actual measurements. The question is, however, whether these improved methods are used in modern archaeology practice. And if so, what results are obtained in this manner? Do the new radiocarbon datings concur with Scaligerian chronology? Let us quote a relatively fresh sample.

15.2 The Dating of the Shroud of Turin For those of you listening, we've got some really good pictures in the video I hope you're, if you're listening to this on the podcast, I would urge you to take a look at the YouTube channel to see some of the pictures here. They're pretty profound.

The reports of the radiocarbon dating of one of the most famous Christian holy objects, the Shrout of Turin, figures 1.59. 1.6 and 1.61, caused a great resonance in 1988. According to the traditional version, this piece of cloth bears the image of the body of crucified Christ and dates from the first century AD, which is supposed to make it about 2,000 years old. However, radio carven datings have given a different dating, roughly 11th to the 13th century,

AD. Hmm. Sounds like the middle ages to me. The radiocarbon analysis has been conducted in three laboratories in Oxford, Arizona, and the Swiss Technological Institute in Zurich. A scientific work specifically dedicated to the radiocarbon dating of the shroud of Turin claims, the linen fabric that the shroud is made of to be produced between 1050 and 1350 AD. The author, the author of their site the results of the shroud's radiocarbon analysis performed in the laboratory of the Oxford University. The

laboratories of Arizona and Zurich have given more recent datings 1304 and 1274, respectively. These results have proved shocking for many. In September 1988, a report appeared telling

of the analysis and the fact that it gave a certain dating of the shroud's fabric, which turned out a thousand years more recent than the alleged date of Christ's death, even if the shroud is dated as a 11th century artifact. The author ceases the discussion of the dating after this, and begins to ponder the veracity of Christ's image as seen on the shroud. One arrives at the following conclusions. One, either the shroud of Turin is a forgery, or two, the radiocarbon datings can contain errors of several centuries, or even millennia,

three, or the Shrout of Turin is original, but dated to the 11th through 13th century AD. If this be the case, it is natural to ask about the century that Christ's lifetime pertains to. Could it really have been the 12th? We discussed the radiocarbon dating of the shroud in our book entitled King of the Slurgeon. Slavs, the second half of the 12th century turns out to be the most likely dating. So as I just want to pause for a minute, we have just covered a lot of problems with radiocarbon dating. So to use radiocarbon dating to prove Christ lived in the Middle Ages seems to be a little inconsistent. I think the author is going to try to clear that up here in the next

few paragraphs, but I did want to point that out as I'm reading it and trying to comprehend it myself. As we demonstrate in our book entitled Kings of the Slavs, the radiocarbon dating of the shroud, the middle of the 12th century, concurs with other independent

datings of Christ's lifetime. In particular, he must have been born in 1152 and crucified in Zargrad in 1185. We must note right away that our attitude towards the results of radiocarbon dating is highly critical. We shall discuss the reasons at length below. However, the situation with the dating of the

shroud is somewhat different. The specimens of its fabric were dated by a number of different laboratories, which makes the results of the research somewhat, somewhat more plausible. The radiocarbon dating of the shroud of Turin to the 11th through 13th century AD made the historians rather worried and provoked a series of attempts to refute the results. A. Aguriev, the Aitartas correspondent, had made a report from New York in 1998 that can be found printed in the Goudac newspaper dated 4th April 1998. This report stated that the radiocarbon dating of the shroud contradicts the biblical tradition.

However, according to... the scientists of the University of Texas, their Italian colleagues should not have used the radiocarbon analysis system. The shroud could allegedly have fallen prey to fungus in the 11th through 13th century. This may have affected the radiocarbon dating. However, the scientists have no opportunity of conducting further research since the Catholic Church refused to provide any more specimens and even insisted on the return of all of the ones that were at scientists' disposal. Since the results of the radiocarbon dating of the shroud gave results that contradicted the scaligerian dating of the life of Jesus Christ, the radiocarbon method had to be exposed

to public attention. The protection of the scalligerian dating of Christ's life had been provided by the publication of new facts important enough to considerably aggravate the dubity of the the radiocarbon method in what concerns its applicability to historical chronology already great enough. Let us quote some of the critical materials belonging to the proponents of the Scaligerian chronology. The publication belongs to Reverend Gleb, Kalita, a prominent geologist, professor, and doctor of sciences. There are several other factors, either local or planetary, that affect the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, an organic matter, thus complicating and limiting the use of the radiocarbon

method in chronology. Natural or artificial radiation, neutrons released in nuclear and thermonuclear reactions as well as cosmic rays turned in 14 into C-14. The atmosphere content of C-14 had doubled in the period between 1956 and August 1963, a drastic increase in C-14 content began after the thermonuclear explosion in 1962. The local effect of volcanic gases on C-14 content had been described by L.D. Solerzitsky and VV. Chertestov.

In a number of cases, radiocrinological age calculations give results that are clearly absurd and contradict the entirety of accumulated geological and paleontogical data. In such cases, absolute chronological figures are to be ignored as blatantly erroneous. The discrepancies between geochronological definitions using different isotope methods may reach a factor of 10x. In 1989, the British Science and Technological Council analyzed the precision of the radiocarbon method. See the eighth issue of the New Scientist magazine for 1989.

38 laboratories from all across the world were involved in the research. All of them received specimens of wood, turf, and carbonite salts whose age had been known to the organizers of the experiment and not to actual analysts. Only seven laboratories out of 38 reported satisfactory results. Others proved wrong by factors of 2x, 3x, and higher. The comparison of the data received by different researchers that used various analysis methods has shown that the cause of the dating errors were not limited to the imprecision of a specimen's radioactivity estimation as it had been assumed. Apparently, the technology of preparing specimens for analysis had also served as an entropy agent. The diagnostic erratia are caused by the calification of specimens as well as other methods of preliminary chemical processing.

Everything points at the necessity of using the radiocarbon dating method with the utmost caution. In 1997, the German author's Christian Blas and Hans Ulrich have named a book titled suggestively enough C-14 crash. They have collected a great body of modern material demonstrating rather convincingly the fact that the radiocarbon method in its current form cannot serve as a valid basis for absolute datings of historical artifacts. More on the subject can be seen in the bulletin, 1491, that contains the following critical publications

of 1991 to 1995 that interest us. Number one, Christian Blas and Hans Ulrich Dürer, Septelberg von C-14 method and und dendro chronology Hans Ulrich, 1995, Magic Dates, Secret Procedures Number three, Herbert Iling Dindro Chronology As we can see,

radiocarbon dating might prove more or less effective in analyzing objects whose age is measured by tens and hundreds of millennia. The errors of tens and thousands of millennia. thousands of years naturally inherent in the methods are of minor importance here, although this is far from obvious. However, the mechanical use of the method for the dating of objects no older than 2,000 years, which is the historical epoch that interests us most in what concerns the reconstruction of the true history of documented civilization appears perfectly impossible without being preceded by extensive and detailed statistical research,

and calibrations employing specimens of known ages. As far as we know, no such research has ever taken place, so there are no referential statistics. There is also no knowledge of whether improving the method precision is a possibility at all. Other physical dating methods do exist. Unfortunately, the spectrum of their applicability is considerably more limited than that of the radiocarbon method.

and their precision is also insufficient for the historical epochs relevant to our ends. For instance, in the early 20th century, some scientists proposed to define the ages of buildings by the shrinkage of their foundations or the deformation of columns. However, no steps have been made in this direction due to the impossibility of calibrating this method and estimating the real shrinkage and deformation speed. Two more methods have been suggested for dating ceramics, the archaeomagnetic method, and the thermoluminescent method. However, they have had calibration issues of their own.

The archaeologist datings offered by these methods for the Eastern Europe, for instance, are limited to the Middle Ages. Let us return to the shroud of Turin for a second, in order to put forth the following hypothesis concerning the nature of the alleged human figure that one sees on the shroud's fabric. One shouldn't exclude the possibility that an embalmed body had really been wrapped

in this linen at some point. Let us recollect that the ancient Egyptians had the practice of wrapping a body up in several tight layers of cloth, saturated with various elixirs. This may have resulted in, in a carbon copy of a body on the fabric of the cloth, which was later removed for some reason and stored with great care. See our book entitled King of the Slavs for more details.

Modern radiocarbon analysis of Egyptian artifacts demonstrates serious contradictions. We shall once again consider the alleged reliability of the radiocarbon method used for supporting the traditional version of the ancient history, particularly Egyptian. As reflected in a fundamental and detailed article published by the Manchester Museum in England, 1979, as part of the project named The Mummies of Manchester Museum. That sounds like a great B movie. This most remarkable material was recommended to us by Professor A. Krasvich from the Alberta, University Department of Mathematics, Edmonton, Canada.

The topic of the article is a dating that had amazed and confused the authors of the article. The radiocarbon dating of the mummy, number 1770, from the Manchester Museum collection, attributed the mummy's bones to 1,000 BC, whereas the cloth that the mummy has been wrapped in received the dating of 380 AD. The discrepancy between the datings of the mummy and the cloth equals some 1,400 years. Although the dates should be equal. The cloth may be somewhat older than the mummy if an old cloth had been used by the embalmers,

but it couldn't possibly have belonged to a later age. According to the authors of the article, the gap of nearly a millennium and a half cannot be explained by the possible errors of radiocarbon dating. The way it is usually done today. that is why they had to come up with the rather amusing explanation that the old mummy was exhumed after 1500 years and rewrapped in a new cloth and then restored to its rightful place as though it had remained unperturbed all the while. We think this to be perfectly preposterous. Our take is that we encounter yet another precision of the actual method of radiocarbon dating, which is apparently affected by effects of a an undefined nature leading to great discrepancies in datings of 1500 years.

For instance, see the examples of the greatly misdated modern specimens cited above with the fluctuation amplitude reaching up to two millennia. The authors of the article also confessed to the fact that at the very dawn of the radiocarbon method, ancient Egyptian specimens were used for its calibrations. with their dates taken from historical textbooks. Here's a verbatim quote. The use of the method commenced in 1948 in Chicago University and was initiated by Professor W.F. Libby,

the Egyptian chronology played a great role in the nascence of the method. Since Egyptian specimens such as wood and charcoal among others have been used as standards for the known historical dating, thus the radiocarbon scale used nowadays had initially been made largely dependent on the scaligerian chronology of the ancient egypt and therefore needs to be revised critical analysis of the hypothesis on which the radiocarbon method is based let us sum up with information that we have just considered we have learned that the real activity of ancient specimens may alter from the average value for the following reasons. Number one, a temporal change in timber activity.

2% deviation range. Number two, cosmic ray intensity changes. Theoretical estimation, 20% deviation range. Number three, short-term changes in solar activity, additional 2%. Number four, an increase in the mixing

rate of the oceanic water minus 2%. Number five, variations in radio carbon concentration depending on the geographical location and the tree species, 8.5% deviation. Number six, variations in radiocarbon content resulting from decomposition processes. Number seven, variations in radio carbon content resulting from a specimen's chemical processing. Number eight, the variations in the exchange reservoir,

radio carbon carbon content resulting from the washing out of carbonite rock formations. Number nine, variations in radiocarbon content caused by the large quantities of carbonites produced by volcanic eruptions. This reason can provide for significant distortions of radiocarbon datings for the areas close to volcanoes such as Italy with its Vesuvius and Edna. One should also bear in mind the dating deviations resulting from the temporal gap between the cutting of a tree, for instance, and the use of the wood for the object or building researched. Finally, one has to consider the imprecision of the currently used C-14 half-life value. That has been corrected by almost 10% as of late, and the errors of experimental measurements of a specimen's radioactivity.

We do not cover these areas presently, since having learned of all the factors mentioned, we deem it nonsensical to attempt the precise measurement of a value whose theoretical uncontrolled error rate may equal 10%. If we are to make modest assumptions, the most optimistic calculations given a radiocarbon dating uncontrolled error range of 1,200 years of arbitrarily added or subtracted age. This makes the placidity of the following conclusions made by B.A. Colkin and Y.A. Sure, most peculiar indeed.

Summing up the brief overview of the Centurial C-14 variation research, one has to point out that apart from its mere failing to undermine the trust that we have in radiocarbon chronology, this research has made its precision even higher. specialist in radiocarbon datings is of more realistic opinions. Due to the considerable fluctuations of C-14 specific activity rate, the radiocarbon datings of relatively young specimens under 2,000 years of age cannot be used as fundamental referential data for the absolute chronological scale. However, from the point of view of the classical age, studies including those of the ancient history of Egypt, these relatively young specimens are of the greatest interest. Thus, certain specialists in the field of radiocarbon dating confess openly, albeit in special scientific literature, that the use of the radiocarbon method in its current state for the

specimen whose age is 2,000 years or less appears a most dubious endeavor. We could have finished our overview of the radiocarbon dating method here if it hadn't been for the criticisms of the method coming from archaeologists and certain oddities in the behavior of the radiocarbon method specialists themselves. We have quoted some of the examples above. The first thing to attain one's attention is the absolute trust and the authors and the infallibility of historical datings, as one sees from such passages as the ages of specimens younger than 5,000 years concur well. Such statements appear very odd indeed,

considering what we have just learned. Libby wrote that further research has been undertaken involving specimens of known ages. The results span a historical period of 5,000 years. Thus, the general reliability of the radiocarbon method is well proven. As we have already demonstrated, the popular myth of the concurrence, between the Scaligerian chronology and the radiocarbon dating is based on flimsy

foundations and proves immaterial at closer study. The myth's popularity is clearly of an unnatural origin. Let us remind the reader of something that Libby himself was mentioned in this respect. One of the exceptions was discovered when we have worked on the materials of a large collection collected by James H. Breast in Egypt, together with the specialist of the well-known Chicago Institute for Oriental Studies. The third object suddenly turned out

to have proved modern after analyzing. The finding belonged to a collection ascribed to the time of the fifth dynasty. It had really been a heavy blow. As we have already mentioned, this object was claimed a forgery. The fact that Libby mentions

this strange occurrence makes one wonder how many of those he remained taciturn about. As we have already demonstrated, the calibration of the radiocarbon method has been largely based on the scaligerian chronology. It would be expedient to check whether the radiocarbon method can actually be made independent from written sources. So there you have it, guys.

What is your take on the fallibility of methods? methods used to date things. It really shines a light on how imprecise our measurement of time can be. I may have mentioned this before, but I'm really trying to get a feel for, is this just people being people? Is this just human nature of us trying our best to measure things that we really don't understand or don't have the ability to. Is this a pure egoism saying, well, I, you know, I am Joseph Scalander.

These are the dates. Or could it potentially be tied to funding? Maybe some of these archaeologists can't get funding unless they get funded through, you know, say the Vatican or people that, whose best interest it is to have the dates line up in a perfect way. or is it just pure manipulation? It's probably an amalgamation of all those things, right? If you look at the way things are run today,

you're probably not going to get funding for a project without there being some sort of special interests involved in it. I also think that there is a lot writing on universal history. Again, he who controls the future controls, the past. He who controls the present, controls the past. Super stoked you guys are taking some moments to hang out with me. If you have any suggestions on the reading or on the commentary, please put them in the comments below. Thank you so much for spending time with me. I'm really enjoying this. This section was

a lot about invalidating radiocarbon dates. I think it also brings up some interesting points about how we measure everything else, be it global warming or be it poverty. or, you know, think about the instruments we use to measure history and then think about the instruments we use to measure social welfare in your community, in the world, and going forward. And I think you'll find a lot of similarities in how inaccurate it is. Going forward, the next section is going to be really interesting. it's going to be about parameter D, which is what really got me involved,

or which really led me to the Anatoli Famenko was this idea of biblical astronomy. And it's going to start getting really good. Thank you for spending time with me for so much. I love you guys. And I'm so thankful that there's other people out there that are interested in this kind of stuff. I really think that if you're listening to this, then you are probably someone who is a critical thinker and is probably a lot of fun to be around. I love you guys. Thank you a lot.