(P.6) Fomenko’s Carbon Dating, Vol. 1, Ch. 1.16.4

The claims below were “(Written by Professor A. S. Mishchenko, Doctor of Physical and Mathematical Sciences from the Moscow State University Department of Mathematics and Mechanics, a prominent scientist of the V. A. Steklov Mathematics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, nominated State Premium of the Russian Federation Laureate in 1996, a specialist in topology and geometry, functional analysis, differential equations and their applications.)”[1, p.80]

Total: 22
Supported: 12
Contradicted: 0
Undetermined: 10

Total Determined: 12
Supported: 12
Contradicted: 0

As of right now, Fomenko’s grade on this part is 100% (12/12) which is an A+.

Fomenko’s overall grade is shown on the overview article: Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology.

Fomenko’s Citations

# [110] Butomo S. V. “Radiocarbon dating and construction of an absolute chronological scale of archaeological sites.” – Archeology and natural sciences. Moscow, Nauka, 1965, pp. 35-45.
^Originally published in Russian as “Радиоуглеродное датирование и построение абсолютной хронологической шкалы археологических памятников” – Археология и естественные науки.

I found it online but cannot use the translate feature to read it. https://www.archaeolog.ru/ru/el-bib/el-cat/el-series/mia/mia-129. They appear to have listed the page numbers incorrectly, as the link has Butomo’s article starting on page 28 and ending on page 33.

# [986] Aitkin M.J. “Physics and Archeology”. – M., IL, 1963. English edition: Aitken M. “Physics and Archeology”. – Interscience Publishers, New York, 1961.

# [1080] Harmon Craig. “The natural distribution of radiocarbon and the exchange time of carbon dioxides between atmosphere and sea”. – Tellus. 1957. Vol. 9, pp. 1-17.

The Examination

Claim 1:

“So, what does “the moment of the object’s departure from the exchange reservoir” actually mean? The first hypothesis of Libby’s is that this moment should coincide with the time of the object’s death.”[1, p.83]

Claim 1 is supported.[3, p.99]

Claim 2:

“However, despite the fact that the moment of death might differ from the moment that interests the historians (for instance, a piece of wood from a Pharaoh’s tomb may belong to a tree that had been cut down a lot earlier than the sepulchre had been built), it is obvious that identifying the moment of death with that of an object’s departure from the carbon exchange reservoir only seems correct initially.”[1, p.83]

Claim 2 is supported.[3, pp.99-100]

Claim 3:

“The matter is that carbon exchange does not stop with death.”

Claim 3 is supported.[3, p.90]

Here’s the quote from Aitken; “Besides these general effects, in dating any individual samples there are the possibilities of sample contamination and of continued acquisition of radiocarbon after death…”[3, p.90]

Claim 4:

“It just slows down and assumes a different form, and one has to bear this in mind.”

Claim 4 is undetermined. Is this what happens? I don’t remember seeing this explicitly mentioned anywhere.

Claim 5:

“At least three processes may alter the radiocarbon content in a body ([110], page 31):
1) Organic decomposition;
2) Isotopic exchange with foreign carbon;
3) The absorption of environmental carbon.”

Claim 5 is supported. I don’t know if their citation is correct but these processes are commonly listed.

Claim 6:

“According to M. J. Aitken,“The only possible kind of decomposition results from the production of carbon oxide or dioxide. However, this process isn’t relevant to us, since it only concerns the carbon lost by an object” ([986], page 149).”

Claim 6 is undetermined. I did not see the quote in the 1961 edition. Perhaps there was an added portion in the 1963 edition?

Claim 7:

“M. J. Aitken seems to imply that since the oxidation of carbon isotopes has the same speed, it does not affect the percentage of radiocarbon.”

Claim 7 is undetermined.

Claim 8:

“However, in a different place he proceeds to tell us the following:
“Although C14 is identical to C12 chemically, its greater atomic mass manifests as a result of natural processes. The exchange mechanism between the atmospheric carbon dioxide and the oceanic carbonates provides for a higher (by 1.2%) concentration of C14 in carbonates; on the other hand, the photosynthesis of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the plants of Earth leads to their possessing a somewhat lower (by 3.7% in average) concentration of C14.” ([986], page 159)”

Claim 8 is supported. The quotes are almost the same. I figure the changes occurred from translating them from English to Russian and back into English again.

Here is the quote from the 1961 English edition:
“Although carbon-14 is identical to carbon-12 in its chemical behaviour, its higher atomic weight does manifest itself in nature. The mechanism of the exchange reaction between atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean carbonate, favours a slightly higher (by 1.2 per cent) carbon-14 concentration in the ocean carbonate; conversely the photosynthesis of atmospheric carbon dioxide into terrestrial plant-life results in a slightly lower (by 3.7 per cent on the average) carbon-14 concentration in the latter.”[3, p.106]

Claim 9:

“Craig Harmon offers the following table of carbon and radiocarbon propagation for the various parts of the exchange reservoir ([1080] and [986], page 143).”

Claim 9 is supported.[3, p.95], [4, p.3]

Claim 10:

“Therefore, biosphere and humus are the lowest in radiocarbon content, whereas inorganic substances and sea water are the highest.”

Claim 10 is supported.[3, p.95], [4, p.3]

Claim 11:

“The book [110] tells us nothing of the difference between the carbon isotope oxidation speed differences in decomposition processes, but the information cited above gives reason to believe them to be quite visible.”

Claim 11 is undetermined.

Claim 12:

“In any case, the carbon oxidation process is the reverse process to that of its photosynthesis from atmospheric gas, hence the isotope C14 should oxidize faster (or with greater probability) than the isotope C12. Thus, decomposing (or decomposed) specimens should have a lower content of radiocarbon C14, which should make the specimens appear a lot older than they really are.”

Claim 12 is undetermined.

Claim 13:

“This is one of the mechanisms that leads to the gathering of extra age by the specimens that distorts the true picture.”

Claim 13 is undetermined.

Claim 14:

“We have witnessed actual examples of such artificial ageing above, which distorts radiocarbon datings often throwing them considerably off the mark.”

Claim 14 is supported.

Claim 15:

“Counting other possibilities of carbon exchange between the specimens and the exchange reservoir is altogether next to impossible.”

Claim 15 is undetermined.

Claim 16:

“It is supposed that “wood and organic matter appear to be the most inert in what concerns carbonization, whereas a large quantity of bones and shell carbonates show frequent changes in isotope content” ([110], page 31).”

Claim 16 is supported. I have not read Butomo (1965) yet but Aitken mentioned this on page 100.[3, p.100]

Claim 17:

Since measuring the actual carbon is de-facto an impossibility, it gets ignored, by and large.”

Claim 17 is undetermined.

Claim 18:

“Standard methods and procedures of radiocarbon measurements are at best concerned with the ways of possible cleansing of the specimen from foreign radiocarbon and reasons of specimen contamination.”

Claim 18 is undetermined. It’s true that cleansing the specimen and identifying reasons for contamination are important, but I don’t know if it’s appropriate to say that these things are “at best” what C-14 measurements are. Comment and tell me what you think.

Claim 19:

“S. V. Boutomo finds it sufficient to merely state that “charred organic matter and wood in a good condition (?! – A. F.) are dependable enough in most cases” ([110], page 31).”

Claim 19 is undetermined.

Claim 20:

“M. J. Aitken adds that “in order to work with any specimen at all, one has to clean it thoroughly from foreign roots and other fibres, and treat it with acid in order to solve all sedimentary carbonates.”

Claim 20 is supported.[3, p.100]

Claim 21:

“The removal of humus is achieved by washing the specimen in a base solution” ([986], page 149).”

Claim 21 is supported.[3, p.100]

Claim 22:

“Note that the important question of whether this chemical cleansing might affect the specimen’s radiocarbon content had not been raised back in the day – and we’re talking about the time when it was claimed that the radiocarbon method “gives solid proof to historical chronology”.”

Claim 22 is supported. I have not seen this question raised in any of the literature I’ve reviewed. This claim would be easily shown to be contradicted by a contradicting example or two.

Advertisements
Advertisements

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-071-092.pdf. Accessed 11 Aug. 2021.

[2] – http://chronologia.org/lit_nx.html. Accessed 11 Aug. 2021.

[3] – Aitken, M. Physics and Archaeology. 1st ed., Interscience Publishers, 1961. Accessed 11 Aug. 2021.

[4] – CRAIG, H. (1957). The Natural Distribution of Radiocarbon and the Exchange Time of Carbon Dioxide Between Atmosphere and Sea. Tellus, 9(1), 1–17. doi:10.1111/j.2153-3490.1957.tb01848.x. Accessed 11 Aug. 2021.

Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: