images Large

images Large


“Radiometric dating?” snorted Ray. “It’s useless in dating
the past!”

“What do you mean… useless?” I asked.

“Look,” said Ray. “I’ll give you an example. Human remains
found deep in the delta deposit near New Orleans, Louisiana,
were dated at 57,000 years – but when wood from the gunwhale
of a Kentucky flatboat was found deeper, the 57,000 years
shrank to 200 or less.

“You’re kidding!” I exclaimed.

“No, that was true. And do you know, C-14 dating of Egyptian
pharaohs’ tombs have registered mummies 500 years ‘older’
than their sarcophagi! And grains older than the containers
in which they were found.”

A field archaeologist must not take anything for granted.
This was something I had to check out.

During many years of living in Australia, I made several visits
to the island state of Tasmania. I know of a farmer near the
town of Burnie who was removing some fence posts on his
property. These had been set in the ground less than 100 years

He discovered that the in-ground portion of each post had
actually opalised.

The farmer mischievously sent samples of the petrified wood
to two Australian institutions, asking them to date the wood.
The institutions were La Trobe University in Melbourne and
the National University in Canberra.

The two labs dated the two specimens at two vastly different
ages – one insisting that the wood was 100,000 years old. When
the farmer protested that this was definitely not so, he was
assured that this HAD to be the age of the wood!

These kind of things began to get me worried. What was going
on here? Can you see? Something is wrong – drastically wrong.
This kind of evidence should be enough to discredit the

download Large

download Large


I won’t bore you with how dating systems are worked out. But
I can tell you these. Most ages obtained by one method
DISAGREE with the ages obtained by other methods. For example,
most radiometric “ages” don’t match fossil “ages”.

But what about carbon dating? You ask. Carbon dating is used
to determine how long ago something died.

A series of measurements of samples of known age, extending
back about 3,800 years, has shown fairly good agreement. But
something dramatic occurred on earth about 4,300 years ago
to upset this. And beyond that time, dating figures run wild.






images Large

images Large

This may shock you, but a cover-up is in full swing. The
carbon-14 technique, during its development, uncovered some
startling, publicly undisclosed, evidence of an earth far
younger than you and I have been told.

There is a group of men will a philosophical mindset that
needs to bolster the evolution theory at all costs. And this
includes deceiving you and me, covering up evidence, and even
dumping a boat load of evidence in the Carribean Sea!

They are playing you and me for suckers. And many of us have
been swallowing it.

Just get this, will you? The same piece of basalt rock from
Nigeria gave ages (by different methods) from 2 to 750 million
years. (Nature Physical Science, vol.232, pp.60-61)

In eight separate tests, scientists dated samples of rock –
and arrived at ages of 160 million to 3 billion years.  These
specimens, from Kaupelehu, Hualalai Volcano, Hawaii, were later
found to have formed in a lava flow only 168 years earlier,
in 1801. (Science, vol.162, p.265. Journal of Geophysical
Research, vol.73, p.4601. American Journal of Science, vol.262,

Rock samples from twelve volcanoes in Russia and ten samples
from other parts of the world (all known to be less than 200
years old), gave ages by the uranium-thorium-to lead method
varying from millions to billions of years.

Suppose you were admitted to hospital. And after tests were made,
the doctors each gave you a different, contradictory diagnosis…
would you trust them to operate on you?

You’ve got to be kidding.

Now I’m worried.  These dating tests… have we been too trusting?

Think about it. If rocks of KNOWN ages yield such unrealistic
dates, why should we accept so gullibly the ages yielded by rocks
of UNKNOWN age?

What bothers me is this. We have otherwise cautious scientists
gulping down these datings about as avidly as the most gullible

Something is wrong here – drastically wrong – with our dating
systems.  If a construction engineer came up with contradictory
calculations like that, he would be dismissed from the construction

Henry Faul, writing in Nuclear Geology, says:

“MOST of the ages obtained by the lead: thorium method DISAGREE
with the ages of the same minerals computed by other lead methods.”
(Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, p. 295)

TRUST us, they say. Our DATING is fine. The naivity of that claim
is so breathtaking, I need a glass of water.

And if you introduce a catastrophe (such as a global Deluge),
then the present state of the earth’s crust has not resulted from
long aeons of uniformity, but largely by natural processes acting
on a mega scale during the Deluge.

The truth is, every dating method we operate today is invalid
as a scientific test for the past. So when you’re told a
certain date has been proved, you’re hearing someone who
either doesn’t understand the scientific test, or who
(hopefully not) is deliberately lying to you.

Discordant dates (and that’s most of the tests) are not

How do you feel when you discover you’ve been cheated? Here
is information that is known to a few at the top – but not
told to us.

Is this because these dear, lovable elite persons have an

And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. In my best selling
book “Dead Men’s Secrets” you have more than a thousand
forgotten wonders of past human knowledge.

Here’s where to go:

With kindest regards
Jonathan Gray

International explorer, archaeologist and author Jonathan
Gray has traveled the world to gather data on ancient
mysteries. He has penetrated some largely unexplored
areas, including parts of the Amazon headwaters. The
author has also led expeditions to the bottom of the
sea and to remote mountain and desert regions of the
world. He lectures internationally.