Radiocarbon dating dinosaur remains

now what?

I think this has been gone over and over nd SCheitzer has reportd on the preservation by iron .

We still don't do C14 in samples that have been lacquered and hit with shellac etc.
Duhhh.

You guys are still trying to push this bullshit?

Not bullshit, more like an ironclad case. The people doing these studies have gone to extreme lengths to prevent any contamination.

bullshit , they don't even know what controls the C. Schweiter isn't even certain that's why they want another dig to make sure they clean clean clean the subject tissues "

"Iron clad" to a Creationist mean anything that will allow preconceived conclusions to come through. Why is it that the ash layers that surround the Fossil Formations have all been dated by several different methods and all agree that the matrix in which the T-rex was found is between 66 and 68 million years old (based on the first ash layer above and the first ash layer below the fossil beds.

"Iron clad" to a geologist is to make sure that everything of the sample and its matrix match . If a fossil is found in the bed and it dates at 20000 years (CArbon 14) and all other isotopic methods agree that the super and sub beds are Clearly CRETCEOUS, theres gotta be an error in the fossil date.

no brainer.

Also, in any other depoits that clearly date as 20000 BCE, we DONT see any T rexes or Triceratops or ANY DINOURS (we have your own film clip state that C14 does allow dating of samples wherein eve got historical dates.
WEVE got tree ring cross plots that go bk 15000 years. Weve got alpha track and Thermoluminescence AND magnetometric "Chron dating" for all over the earth. There re NO dinosaur fossils in rocks from ANY Period in the Neogene, only birds mammals and recent reptiles

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-evolution-human-origins/humans-walk-earth-dinosaurs-triceratops-horn-dated-33500-020159

A real bunch of paleontologists who really want to understand the dinos context, would have a series of isotope samples taken from the ash layers both BELOW AND ABOVE THE BEDS WHERE THE HORN WAS FOUND. I see they did not. Why not I ask? Is it because they don't want any anomalies to thir pre conceived notions and have they engaged in the (possible) "salting" of a specimen to guarantee that it shows some carbon 14. It only takes a few atoms of C14 to give these remarkable dates (they do have about 8 K variability bsed on all samples and that is almost a 25% error.(That's really baad dating technique and I wonder whether the U of Ga chrono labs ere even "In on the sample prep loop"
Remember the math for isotope chronometry is pretty much the same with exceptions of K/Ar and the various the decay constants which are unique to each isotope. So why not use the contextual sedimentology ( what are dates of the layers of the enclosing sediment ).Those dates at least , would bracket the possible oldest date ND THE YOUNGEST DATE the fossils could be. A good science team would try to "mine" as much information they could about the site.
They would also do remnant magnetism to determine hether the sites rocks were "NORMAL OR FLIPPED" magnetism during the time they dated the ash seiments.

It seems that OTIS KLINE JR, (The director of the Dawson County Creation Museum) wants to make sure he has all the hold cards and doesn't want too much science to be gathered here.

Hes just dealing with methodologies that reveal the error bar for C14.

As I said before, Dr Schweitzer is planning another expedition to Hell Creek to excavate a (possibly) new specimen with sot tissue and they want to employ all srts of new clean-up techniques so they can understand better what controls any structures in these "soft" tissues.
I have confidence that her group isn't a bunch of Keystone Kops like Otis and his boys may be.

Comon Otis, show us a sample or two om the dates of the sediments , Find an ash lyer and date it . Otherwise stop reporting with these "Geo Consultants" a known bunch of Creation Centered "geologists"