whenever a sample that is being analyzed for some constituent is arguably devoid of that constituent, it is quite easy to introduce that constituent during handling and processing. Thats why we do :surrogate recoveries". field blanks", method blanks:, and lab blanks: for all samples. The machinery that does the analyzing (there are several used in the chain of analyses for isotopes) is also clibrated at the very low end of its sensitivity by introducing known concentrations of the )lets say radioisotope) and using this"Calibration response curve" as a means to fit the unknown sample into the capability of the MS machinery used.
Introducing just one or two atoms of C14 can give us all kinds of wacky results. Seeing that all these samples seem to hover around 30 to 40 thousand years gives me reason to believe that this is some fundamental systematic error that is introduced into the sample chain. I feel that its some basis of stupid error not some nefarious plot. The lab nor the Creationists seem to unerstand each other so they just report the data (BUT ONLY IN THEIR NON PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE). Im sure that were a REAL scientific journal considering this for publication they would ask the authors and labs to justify such goofy data (ESPECIALLY since the underlying and overlying ash bed laminae in the HELL CREEK FORMATION all show that this formation site is between 66 and 68 million years old. WEVE KNOWN THAT FOR YERS
NO CREATIONIST HAS EVEN ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THAT DISCREPANCY, they just run with their data an assume that theyre even right.
That aint science gunga, but I knew you only believe **** that supports a worldview. .