Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision?

Have you Really Taken ALL the Factors into Account? · New Tables · Why Should one Use my Tables? · And what are the lineups between archaeology and Bible, in my tables? · Bases of C14 · An example of using previous · Difference with Carbon 14 from Other Radioactive Methods · Tables I-II and II-III and III-IV, Towards a Revision? · The Revision of I-II, II-III, III-IV May be Unnecessary, BUT Illustrates What I Did When Doing the First Version of New Tables · Convergence of Uneven pmC? · [Calculation on paper commented on] · Other Revision of I-II ? · Where I Agree with Uniformitarian Dating Experts

I have already noted, my table I begins too early in the carbon "chronology" ....

I = the Flood, and it seems that the carbon date of this event was not 40 000 BP, but 39 000 BP.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : So Far Confirming my Theories
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/09/so-far-confirming-my-theories.html

33:11 Unlike Toba, this was carbon dated.

39 000 BP - like my carbon date for the Flood.

Except it's 1000 years off.

39 000 BP - 2000 AD = 37 000 BC
37 000 BC - 2957 BC = 34043 extra carbon years.

According to an Earth Science from Australia provided Carbon 14 Calculator, 34 043 years = 1.628 pmC.

I had put my level at 1.4 pmC.

In and of itself, that would concern table I-II only.

But, there seems to be at least a slight revision on Göbekli Tepe's beginning, which is node II, and a further one on node III, end of Göbekli Tepe, which affects both table II-III and table III-IV.

TEPE TELEGRAMS : The Site
https://www.dainst.blog/the-tepe-telegrams/the-research-project/

This immense ruin hill was formed of the debris of monumental constructions dating back to the mid-10th and late-9th/early-8th millenium cal. BC. Göbekli Tepe (i.e. the time between 9500/9250-8000/7750 cal. BC) was first noted as an archaeological site during a combined survey by the Universities of Chicago and Istanbul in the 1960s (Benedict 1980 – external link) due to its remarkable amount of flint flakes, chips, and tools, but the architecture the mound was hiding remained unrecognized until its re-discovery in 1994 by Klaus Schmidt, Murat Akman and Michael Morsch. Excavations started the following year and are still ongoing.

Note, 9500 and 8000 would seem to be the "raw" dates with Cambridge halflife.

So, new values for the first three nodes, according to this:

I) 2957 BC

1.628 pmC => 34 000 extra years => 34 000 + 2957 = 36 957 BC = c. 39 000 BP

II) 2607 BC

43.438 pmC => 6900 extra years => 6900 + 2607 = 9507 BC

III) 2556 BC

51.76 pmC => 5450 extra years => 5450 + 2556 = 8006 BC

This may get incorporated./HGL

PS: the update on Göbekli Tepe spanning more carbon years for the 51 (or 40 ou of 51) real years could be the answer about what happened to atmospheric radiocarbon was affected by the Younger Dryas impact./HGL