[IllumiNaughtyByNature]

I didn't figure the A-bomb testing. Great point. You covered the tree ring calibration. but concerning the c14/c12 ratios I noticed that the quote I used was from the 70's. That is when Fairhill and Young were doing their research. How does that jive with DeVries?

45 journals! Jeez, C-man everytime you send me a link it takes me a year to get through them! :o) I think that is why I only get to discuss this with you about that often!

Also, are you AZ? i haven't check your homepage. If you are I have a question about an excavation down there a while back (50's or 60's) that has a "mysterious" theory about it. If I think of her name and that of the dig she was working on I'll send it.

If I don't get back to you tonight it's because Im over at the link you sent.

FReepgards,

K4

[Coyoteman]

I didn't figure the A-bomb testing. Great point. You covered the tree ring calibration. but concerning the c14/c12 ratios I noticed that the quote I used was from the 70's. That is when Fairhill and Young were doing their research. How does that jive with DeVries?,/i>

On the C14/C12 ratios, that appears to be natural. Fluctuations on the order of 1% appear when the tree-ring comparison is made.

This was found, if I recall, by de Vries by comparing historically known samples with radiocarbon dates. Once the tree-ring calibration was developed, the ages matched.

I am not sure of the method used by Fairhill and Young; I have not examined their paper. If they were just using the beginning and end points of their range, they might have been using ratios affected by nuclear bombs for the end points, giving an artificially inflated slope.

Check into it and let me know what you find.