Re: For MATT and DIGGER: VAT4956 FRAUD, How interested are you?


"Digger" <p.dunn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:k7Ikj.32485$ov2.19880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lars,
you don't get it do you?

I'm not particularly interested in proving or disproving anything that you
are working on. All I want you to do is to take a technique I actually
know something about and use it correctly. That's all.

Hi Digger. If you are talking about the chart. Then you still don't
understand
if you think I'm misapplying it. But I thought of a simple way to explain
it to you.
Let's say that a single RC14 test indeed is nonspecific. The mid-range date
must
be considered with reference say 50 years each way. That's a given. But
what if you
tested the same sample MULTIPLE times? You'd get multiple, nonspecific
references.
That is accepted. Each reference individually having the same potential
value; after
all, how could you show a preference of one over the other. But this new
method,
tests the sample exhaustively so that there is a large accumulation of
results and those
results have been noted to RANDOMLY fall into a pattern. That pattern is a
cluster around what the scientists believe is the "true date." Now that
theory isn't
necessarily true, but they believe it is PROBABLY true.

So the chart just shows the results of the multiple results, where they
randomly point.
Generally, leading to this presumption is the observation that the highest
results were
right in the middle of an established range for that sample. Thus the
mid-range date
would theoretically be closest to the "true age" and thus the "true date."
Thus
the sheer volume reference is considered more "accurate" and "precise" than
the
100-year range reference.

Now, again, that's just an "enigmatic" presumption, but the RESULT of that
is shown
in the chart. So you can still challenge the date of 871 BCE as
"inconclusive" if you want,
but that IS what the chart is showing. It is basically calling c. 871 BCE
or 874-867BCE the
greatest "relative probability" for the "true date."

Now if you feel scientifically or historically comfortable to expand or
ignore this, fine. But that's
AFTER the fact. I'm not misrepresenting this reference. c.871 BCE is
simply considered a more
precise reference in regard to the "true date" than the individual dates in
the range, which under
other circumstances would be considered equally possible dates.

Now, the fact that YOU don't seem to grasp this, troubles me. Plus you
accuse me to misrepresenting
this. The pointing may be weak, scientifically, but it is pointing. That's
all I'm saying.

In the meantime, there is no way you can effectively challenge the theory of
this random preference
without historical help and confirmation. My timeline, which removes the
excessive years from
the Greek Period and restores the timeline based upon the VAT4956 dating and
the 709 BCE
dating for the Assyrian Period, right or wrong, coincidentally or correctly,
point to the very same
narrow dating. I don't need the RC14 to determine the precise year of this
event. I already know
it's 871 BCE. That's my call based upon my expertise, that can't be
challenged effectively by anyone
and that is not based upon Biblical dating either. But knowing that, I can
see this new method seems
to work quite well, at least in this case.

So you're two steps behind the science and the history. You're not in a
position to understand or
confirm 871 BCE historically, and you apparently don't trust this new method
of narrowing down an
RC14 reference by mid-point averaging. But both work! They both reflect
the same more accurate
truth.


As for this stuff about David and Solomon.... it is of no interest to me
and I have no desire to get invovled in a debate about them.

THANKS. That's the answer I wanted to hear. OF COURSE you don't. You are
running from
anything definitive. As long as there is a muddle and a mystery you're
free. Free to still believe
in what you want. Once the choices narrow down, it's not so much fun
anymore. Closing one's
eyes prolongs the mystery. I say fine, except you discredit the RC14
dating reference I give
pertaining to this matter on one hand, then pretend you're not interested in
it on the other. You know
what that is? Plausible deniality. You're postponing knowing or dealing
with the evidence until it is
forced upon you later on down the road. Then when it is, you can claim you
didn't notice sooner
because you were not interested in this topic. Fine.

I have many more important things to do with my time, (I'm sure you
wouldn't be particularly interested in debating the finer points of MY
specific interests with ME either!)

Of course. But not so busy you can't dismiss the 871 BCE RC14 reference
accuracy. You're
just here to dismiss me and nothing more. Convenient. But your leaving
this way also
suggests you have no clear rebuttal nor nothing else to offer, but that
agreeing with me
is out of the question so you're politely taking your leave. Losing an
argument to me would
only add to my credibility so you won't risk that. Fundamental debate
smarts. That's fine.

If it makes you feel any better though, I agree that there have been
plenty of archaeologists through time who have talked complete bollocks! I
do not claim that all archaeologists tell the truth. In fact I doubt that
there are too many who have been completely correct in every way in their
interpretations of evidence and there are plenty who have changed their
minds as new evidence has come to light. Now then. you could claim the
same for the bible and its followers??

Yes!! each side have their motives and biases. I certainly do. But
archaeologists
pretend they are pure "scientists" and have no biases. That's the problem.
They want
us to think their anti-Biblical view is also "practical", "realistic" and
most of all unbiased.

There are also plenty of renowned archaeologists I have worked with who I
disagree with vehemently but I respect their methods and techniques
because at least they normally apply them correctly.

Great. But I don't believe you have made it absolutely clear you oppose the
results
from the Groningen Bayesian model from the chart. It's one thing to say
that date is
not absolutely correct, which I'm not, and to claim the chart doesn't
present that date
as the result of the highest weighted averaging or mid-range point theory.

In the meantime, you don't weigh in AT ALL on Sachs and Hunger's
misrepresentation,
rather you understand it or not. The POTENTIAL misrepresentation and
slowness in
correcting it.

You're BUSY.

Thanks for your reply. Appreciated. I wanted to know how you'd handle
this, and
now I know.

Lars Wilson


.

Quantcast