OSL

uniface · Jul 15, 2009

This topic got kicked around back before I got here. Rather than dig the old posts back up, it makes better sense to start over with

http://www.wbreckinridge.com/HorstArtical1.html

Takes some time to read and comprehend, but (IMHO) well worth the effort.

A couple of lighter articles on the topic Bill's written are (IMHO) worthwhile as well. They're easily found via links.

Miami-valley-artifacts · Jul 16, 2009

I still have yet to see any conclusive evidence that this system works. When questioned about the system you get only scientific terms that seem to be just rambled out from the instruction manual of the machine and which I doubt that the user or for that matter anybody besides a physicist understands. Or a graph that shows lines that mean essentially nothing. Show us the proof, explain it in terms everybody understands. If it is so conclusive on telling the age of artifacts/fossils then why don't universities/ archaeologist/ geologist or any other ologist use it? I will not blindly follow these people!!!

uniface · Jul 16, 2009

Nobody expects you to -- I certainly don't.

The principle of it makes sense as physics -- to me.

Once you have an objectively verifiable way to start revising history, everybody's your enemy. Find traces of tobacco and cocaine in "ancient Egyptian" mummies and the hornet swarms attack. Demonstrate (like Fomenko et al.) did that the horoscopes painted on "ancient Egyptian" temples yield Only Possible Celestial dates from 1100 - 1400 AD and the History Channel will refuse to sell you advertising time for your books. It just goes on and on.

The victors write the history. And know that whoever controls the past controls the future.

I don't want to get into full-bore rant level on this. But the reactions he gets don't surprise me at all. I've seen them before in other contexts and understand where they're often coming from.

Miami-valley-artifacts · Jul 16, 2009

No rant what-so-ever coming from me. I just want to see the proof. Yes, new technology often comes under fire until proven otherwise, but I am just not going to believe what is coming out without a little better evidence and further testing. I have seen magazine articles talking about his technology basically saying if you don't fully buy into this technology/method then you are a crook! If this technology turns out to be the next greatest thing then I'll be the first one in line paying $50/$100 to get a reading on my artifacts. Until then I will be a skeptic. By the way my neighbor is a Geologist (with Dr. in front of his name) he feels the same way as myself. All I'm asking for is more evidence and testing. A front page story on Time would also help. Scott