mstower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hermione Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > mstower Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > > Funny how he doesn’t mention his having
> suggested himself
> > > that the pyramids at Giza “may be 19,000 years
> old”.
> >
> > That's strange.
> >
> > The date is specifically mentioned in Scott
> > Creighton, "Ancient Tales & Shifting Poles:
> What
> > really happened at the end of the Ice Age?"
> > (Atlantis Rising 121, Jan/Feb 2017
> [www.google.co.uk])
>
> What we must understand is that since then he has
> “refined” his estimate:
>
> http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1278401/pg2#pid25641177
>
> “. . . my interpretation and refinement of the
> data presented to us by the Giza Stellar Time Line
> (the Lehner-Goedicke Line), is under constant
> review and subject to refinement . . .”
>
> His refinement is subject to refinement. I hope
> that’s clear. Note also that speculative and
> tendentious interpretations are now “data”.
>
> “My latest ca. 10,000 BCE date is, of course,
> still more than double the age of the cedar wood
> from the Queen's Chamber shaft and perhaps three
> times the age of the average age given from the
> earlier studies in the 1980s and 90s. These
> earlier C14 studies didn't affect my view that the
> Old Kingdom pyramids are far older than those
> early C14 studies suggested and this latest
> finding does not alter my view on that. . . .”
>
> He has a view on it. First I’ve noticed. My
> impression was that he’s vacillated wildly on this
> question.
>
> So, he’s refined his refinement to the tune of
> dropping 7,000 years from it, which is not enough
> not to leave the problem of the date of the wood,
> so the rest follows the Hancock paradigm of
> special pleading, sorry, principled doubts, about
> ¹⁴C dating in
> general, which of course were much in evidence
> when he thought that Görlitz and Erdmann had a
> ¹⁴C date for one
> of the aper names.
>
> We even get the tired old ploy of a dig at Hawass,
> doubtless intended to fill us with nostalgia for
> the days when he was still in charge.
>
> M.
>
> Edited 2020-12-09 to move a sentence to where it
> should have been in the first place.

19,000 provided him a 'position' apart from the fringe crowd but now with his taking up 10,000 he is right in among all the others....yawn.

I suspect he''ll figure that out and make a 'discovery and change to some other date 36,000 is popular these days.