Basic HTML Version
March, 1970
MAY NOT BE M.AINTIJNED in detail"
(Richard E. Lingenfelter, "Production
of Carbon-14 by Cosmic Ray Neutrons,"
Reviews of Geophyiics,
Vol. 1, No. 1,
February, 1963, p. 51).
Almost three years later, scientist
Hans E. Suess commented on the
experiments of Lingenfelter by saying,
"lt seems probable that the present-day
inventory of natural
CJ4
DOES NOT
CORRESPOND to the equilibrium value,
but
is
increasing" (Hans E. Suess,
Jour-
11aL of Geophysical Research,
"Secular
Variations of the Cosmic-ray Produced
Carbon-14 in the Atmosphere and Their
lnterpretations," Vol.
70,
No. 23,
December 1, 1965, p. 5947).
Of course, scientists felt any dis–
crepancy could be explained without
jeopardizing the method. But all expla–
nations are sti ll UNPROVED hypotheses.
Depending on what base figures were
used, the production rate seemed to be
20 to 30 percent CRE.ATER than the dis–
integration rate - or perhaps even
larger.
Various "explanations" were put
forth to rectify this discrepancy. But
once again- there simply was NO W.AY
to be sure. Lack of equilibrium could be
a FACT! Jt could have meant that this
was the effect of sorne drastic change in
the radiocarbon inventory in prehistoric
times. Was the radiocarbon system
"turned off" in terms of its effects on
earth until just a short while ago? Had
other factors disturbed the crucial car–
bon-14-to-ordinary-carbon ratio? Are al!
the great stretches of years - from
50,000 B.P.[Before the Present) down–
ward - to be telescoped into a few
thousand years?
Evidence Overlooked?
The laboratories continued pouring
out thousands of dates. Meanwhile, the
average person was absolutely certain
that science - chemistry and physics -
had proved that relatively recent animal
and human fossils were anywhere from
8000 to 53,000 B.P. One date of
64,000 B.P. was even gotten.
According to the evidence, however,
these dates may have only been in the
range of 5500 years old or less.
Dr. Lingenfelter continued his stud–
ies on cosmic radiation and its relation–
ship to carbon-14 production. Despite
Ambonodor
Co//ege
Photo
A GIANT AMONG GIANTS-The
Genera l Sherman
tree,
a huge
northern California sequoia.
his positive findiogs published in 1963,
he recoosidered them and, in 1969,
said, "The uncertainties in ... the pro–
duction rate and the inventory are large
enougb to accommodate a wide range of
~
[ratio between production and
decay of carbon-14] including PER–
FECT EQUILlBRIUM" (personal
COffi–
munication) .
After a quarter of a century of
experimentation, scientists still could
not be sure if a BASIC ASSUMPTION of
the carbon-14 dating method was true!
They were not even certain of the pro–
duction rate of radíocarbon.
Then why have thousands of radio–
carbon dates been published
?
Why have
27
newspapers, magazines and books been
written as though radiocarbon dating
was certain?
W h ither Carbon-14 Dating?
With such obvious difficulties, scien–
tists now only had one alternative: sub–
mit carbon-14 dating to another new
dating method by tree rings for veri–
fication.
lt
was tacit admission that
attempts to verify basic assumptions of
the carbon-14 method were inconclusive
at best!
Geophysicists, like Richard Lingen–
felter, were now falling back on tree
ring dating to TEST the soundness of
radiocarbon dating. In his own words,
"Because of the uncertainties in the cal–
culation of both the production rate and
decay rate of
cu
we find that the BEST
DETERMlN.ATION of the ratio of these
two rates is obtained from the
cu
vari–
ations determined from dendrochro–
nology (tree rings]." (Richard E.
Lingenfelter and Reuven Ramaty,
Astro–
physical and Geophysical V ariatiom in
C'
4
Prod11clion,
Maryland: Goddard
Space Flight Center Publication, July,
1969, P. 29.)
How accurate is tree ring dating?
Tbe One-Ring/One-Year
Theory
Does one tree ring always represent
one year? Not oecessarily so. In fact,
the possibilities of "false rings" are
rather common knowledge in botanical
circles.
A botany text says, "The occurrence
of false growth rings may cause the age
of the tree to be overestimated. Such
rings are produced by a temporary slow–
ing of growth during the growing sea–
son." (Carl
L.
Wilson, et al,
Botany,
New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winstoo,
1966, p. 130).
Other facts causiog false rings would
be defoliation by insects, drought, and
variation in rainfall. (Wilfred W. Rob–
bins,
et
al,
Bolany,
New York: John
Wiley, 2nd edition, 1959, pp. 110, 111.)
But there was something more dis–
turbing.
Most people do not realize that NO
KNOWN LIVING TREES oJder than about
5000 years have been found. More
lengthy chronologies- the latest at just
over 7000 tree ring years- are built up