Easter Island dating

[confusedseeker]

Hi guys, I'm new here and one of the things that threw me off was when Ra said that the Easter Island heads date back 60k years ago? How can that be? There is no way they would remain intact after that long. Also, carbon dating has now suggested that the heads are only about 1k years old. Could this have been a typo or mistake of some sort? Am I reading this wrong? When dates like this are so far off, it calls into question everything else going on.

[Eddie]

Hi guys, I'm new here and one of the things that threw me off was when Ra said that the Easter Island heads date back 60k years ago?  How can that be?  There is no way they would remain intact after that long.  Also, carbon dating has now suggested that the heads are only about 1k years old.  Could this have been a typo or mistake of some sort?  Am I reading this wrong?  When dates like this are so far off, it calls into question everything else going on.

I'm with Ra on this one.  The statues extend far below ground, but this burial happened in geologic time; they were not buried by the original makers.  Examination of the lichens growing on the surface also indicates advanced age.  The statues are not made of carbon, so carbon dating would be of little use in dating the statues themselves (and in any case is useful only back to about 35,000 years). 

[Dtris]

You can't carbon date rocks. Carbon dating measures the current amount of Carbon 14, which is a radioactive isotope with a fairly long half life, and compares that to a projected initial carbon 14 measurement.

Carbon 14 is present in organic material, inorganic material may have carbon 14 but it is basically impossible to know the starting amount. In any event a carbon date of a rock, if you could do so, would tell you when it was formed, not when it was carved. The rock, is obviously much older than 1k years, and even older than 60k years, possibly millions of years old.

Most rock formations are dated with measuring erosion from wind and rain. We have a fairly good idea of how different types of stone are eroded. Afaik this type of analysis has never been done on the easter island heads, and it is assumed they are less than 1k years old and made by the previous island inhabitants, the Rapa Nui. Never mind how a primitive island culture with low population could move 40 ton statues 20-40 ft tall up a mountain.

[Sacred Fool]

  
This is just a wild guess, but I would suppose that the "dating seen" on Easter Island would be very limited.  I mean, those guys are all in their heads, so how much fun could it be?
   

[flofrog]

That is just a wild guess, Sacred Fool  :@

[Patrick]

Dating on Easter Island

[confusedseeker]

Good stuff guys, I guess I just took Wikipedia's word for it...I should know better.

[Sacred Fool]

 
Golly, I guess I was wrong about the dating scene seen there.  Thanks for settling that, Patrick.
  

[Eddie]

Good stuff guys, I guess I just took Wikipedia's word for it...I should know better.

I'd suggest reading the books The Missing Lands, by Freddy Silva, and America Before, by Graham Hancock.  Both books are excellent and eminently readable, and both make convincing cases for the great antiquity of the Easter Island statues.

[confusedseeker]

Good stuff guys, I guess I just took Wikipedia's word for it...I should know better.

I'd suggest reading the books The Missing Lands, by Freddy Silva, and America Before, by Graham Hancock.  Both books are excellent and eminently readable, and both make convincing cases for the great antiquity of the Easter Island statues.

Thanks Eddie, I like Hancock a lot.

[Catalyst]

There seems to be some confusion as to how carbon-14 dating relates to the dating of the Easter Island statues. The technique is not applied directly to the stone, as others have correctly pointed out this would not be effective. Carbon-14 dating was used on samples of earth the were dug out if the ground and the organic (carbon containing) was analysed. They observed a significant drop in pollen at about 1000 years ago. The assumption is that this drop in pollen indicates deforestation and that was due to the timbers that would be required to quarry and transport the statues. There are valid questions about the accuracy of these dating methods, and I would not say they are definitive.

Carbon-14 dating is also used on charcoal/bones from excavated human settlements, the earliest of these range from 800-1200 AD, fairly inline with the deforestation timeline. Again, this only dates human settlement on the island, and not nessesarily the creation of the statues. The assumption is that the statues came along with the arrival ofthe Polynesians. This is supported by other anthropological evidence, with elements of Polynesian culture being featured in carvings on the statues.

In my opinion 60k years is too old for these statues. These statues are located in a windy, salty, and wet environment that is fairly condusive to erosion. I think if they have been there for that long the degredation would be more severe.

Either way I don't think it is very material if these statues are 60,000, 6000, or 600 years old (I think 600 is most likely). Ra has trouble with numbers sometimes. It has been a while since I have read the Ra Material (beginning a reread), but I do recall some instances of Ra having issues with the number of zeros in their numbers. I also recall that this was due to negative interference and/or the difficult of Ra communticating through Carla.

I had a quick search and found an exanple of this in session 63, where the number of wanderers is given as 600 million and is later revised to 60 million in the next session. This all follows a negative greetng in session 62.

I advise not to let these very rare "errors" make you question the validity of the whole text. The LOO is remarkably consistant, more consistant than any other spiritual text I have come across. If there is truth to be realised it is in this most solid and deep core, and not if the peripheral noise of a couple of extra zeros

[Ohr Ein Sof]

Hi guys, I'm new here and one of the things that threw me off was when Ra said that the Easter Island heads date back 60k years ago?  How can that be?  There is no way they would remain intact after that long.  Also, carbon dating has now suggested that the heads are only about 1k years old.  Could this have been a typo or mistake of some sort?  Am I reading this wrong?  When dates like this are so far off, it calls into question everything else going on.

I just have to say this as it is....RIGHT THERE!
Everytime I see this heading I think of Easter Island Dating as in their practices in finding a mate ! I thought, who cares who they dated or how? I am sorry I had to finally say that. Thanks for your understanding and hopefully love?

[confusedseeker]

Hi guys, I'm new here and one of the things that threw me off was when Ra said that the Easter Island heads date back 60k years ago?  How can that be?  There is no way they would remain intact after that long.  Also, carbon dating has now suggested that the heads are only about 1k years old.  Could this have been a typo or mistake of some sort?  Am I reading this wrong?  When dates like this are so far off, it calls into question everything else going on.

I just have to say this as it is....RIGHT THERE!
Everytime I see this heading I think of Easter Island Dating as in their practices in finding a mate ! I thought, who cares who they dated or how? I am sorry I had to finally say that. Thanks for your understanding and hopefully love?

yeah it's fine. I don't mind.