Forbidden Archeology

[Carrion 0]

Has anyone read a book called "Forbidden Archeology"?, anyways this book was introduced to me by my brother and speask of strange and mysterious things that have occurred thru time but have been hidden from the public's view because of the imbalance in belief it may cause. If anyone has red this book or has mysterious things to tell plz post here.

 

For now here's an Excerpt from that book "A perfectly modeled footprint was found next to Dinosaur Fossil's, the strangest thing about the finding was that the carbon dating of the footprint was tested to be Million's of year's old. Have Time traveller's already visited the expanse of time.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I've never heard of the book but I just read about it at Amazon.com. I'd have to read a bit of it to get a feel for it but I am a little skeptical about your excerpt.

 

You can't carbon date a footprint unless the print was made in carbon based material. Non-carbon based artifacts are dated based on the carbon dating of carbon materials found at the same location (ie using wood from a fire to date potsherds) - so there is some room for error.

[Carrion 0]

Good point, I hope u can read it one day and discover why aswell. pretty hard to imagine time travellars going back to the prehistoric age when we havent even discovered a means of travelling through time, there's another exerpt i forgot to mention in here that may sound like made it up but after the last excerpt I put on here last nite it goes like this:

 

"Although the footprint found next to the Dinosaur fossil may have been created by either geographical influence in the area, another account tells us of a Trylodite imbeded with a shoe print of human shape that contained grooves from under the print on the Trylodite"

 

Im no skeptical but I like hearing weird thing's.

[MsJones 0]

Carbon dating is not accurate.

[Jeanway 0]

I believe carbon dating only works to a certain point, something like 6,000 years. But even though we can't explain something doesn't mean it's not true or because it doesn't fit into the mold we have created. I believe there are explainations for things, we just either reject them or we haven't come up with the right ones yet. I'll take a look at the book too. Thanks Carrion.

[xenexian 2]

I believe carbon dating only works to a certain point, something like 6,000 years.

 

Why would carbon dating work to only 6000 years? Personally, there are more things in heaven and earth that we have no clue about. If there is any destiny for humankind, IMO, it's that we need to try and know everything there is to know.

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

I believe carbon dating only works to a certain point, something like 6,000 years.

 

Why would carbon dating work to only 6000 years? Personally, there are more things in heaven and earth that we have no clue about. If there is any destiny for humankind, IMO, it's that we need to try and know everything there is to know.

285998[/snapback]

 

think about why carbon dating is inaccurate....

 

Have we ever carbon dated human tissue from a live human? No we haven't.

 

It is interesting to note that if everybody is counting on the dinosaurs to have died out over a hunder million years ago. Think about this for a second. Do we actually know how much carbon is actually contained in a dinosaur? For all we know, we may be overestimating the initial amount of carbon which exponentially changes the dating.

[Wishfire 2]

I believe carbon dating only works to a certain point, something like 6,000 years.

 

Why would carbon dating work to only 6000 years? Personally, there are more things in heaven and earth that we have no clue about. If there is any destiny for humankind, IMO, it's that we need to try and know everything there is to know.

285998[/snapback]

 

think about why carbon dating is inaccurate....

 

Have we ever carbon dated human tissue from a live human? No we haven't.

 

It is interesting to note that if everybody is counting on the dinosaurs to have died out over a hunder million years ago. Think about this for a second. Do we actually know how much carbon is actually contained in a dinosaur? For all we know, we may be overestimating the initial amount of carbon which exponentially changes the dating.

286193[/snapback]

 

I thought that carbon dating didn't have to do with how much carbon there is, but what stage of decay it's at. Carbon-dating is done by measure the radioactivity in the Carbon-14 left in a living organism. The more it's decayed, the less emmissions it puts out. It's accurate up to 50,000 years, and can provide a good estimate up to 100,000 years. Of course, carbon-dating also relies on the assumed fact that the rate of formation of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is relatively unchanged.

[Odie 0]

I thought that carbon dating didn't have to do with how much carbon there is, but what stage of decay it's at. Carbon-dating is done by measure the radioactivity in the Carbon-14 left in a living organism. The more it's decayed, the less emmissions it puts out. It's accurate up to 50,000 years, and can provide a good estimate up to 100,000 years. Of course, carbon-dating also relies on the assumed fact that the rate of formation of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is relatively unchanged.

286297[/snapback]

 

That is what I was taught about carbon dating. It is still the only way to measure age of anything. Until something news comes out it won't change.

[WEAREBORG4102 0]

I believe carbon dating only works to a certain point, something like 6,000 years.

 

Why would carbon dating work to only 6000 years? Personally, there are more things in heaven and earth that we have no clue about. If there is any destiny for humankind, IMO, it's that we need to try and know everything there is to know.

285998[/snapback]

 

think about why carbon dating is inaccurate....

 

Have we ever carbon dated human tissue from a live human? No we haven't.

 

It is interesting to note that if everybody is counting on the dinosaurs to have died out over a hunder million years ago. Think about this for a second. Do we actually know how much carbon is actually contained in a dinosaur? For all we know, we may be overestimating the initial amount of carbon which exponentially changes the dating.

286193[/snapback]

 

I thought that carbon dating didn't have to do with how much carbon there is, but what stage of decay it's at. Carbon-dating is done by measure the radioactivity in the Carbon-14 left in a living organism. The more it's decayed, the less emmissions it puts out. It's accurate up to 50,000 years, and can provide a good estimate up to 100,000 years. Of course, carbon-dating also relies on the assumed fact that the rate of formation of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere is relatively unchanged.

286297[/snapback]

 

they measure the decay by how much of the daugther element and the original carbon is in the object dated. However, much of this carbon could have been lost of the carbon is not equally distributed in the object being dated. This would mean a lower isotope means a less original isotope means more daughter element means older dating means inaccurate technique.

[Wishfire 2]

That's valid when talking about accelerator techniques for carbon dating.

 

Accelerator techniques for carbon dating have extended its range back to about 100,000 years, compared to less than half that for direct counting techniques. One can count atoms of different masses with a mass spectrometer, but that is problematic for carbon dating because of the low concentration of carbon-14 and the existence of nitrogen-14 and CH2 which have essentially the same mass.

 

Here's a link which might clear up a few questions.

 

Carbon Dating