Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.


“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.


Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.

New data widens the margin of error in carbon dating

The uncertainty of science: New data suggests that the accuracy of carbon-14 dating, used mostly in archaeology and research covering the last few thousand years, has a wider margin of error than previously thought.

By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details.

To me, it seems somewhat arrogant for any scientist to assume this dating could be more accurate than this, especially going back several thousand years and especially considering the number of factors described in the article that they have account for and make assumptions about.

Nonetheless, documenting this margin of error means that the arrogant scientists of the future will have to include it in their research, rather than making believe it doesn’t exist.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Your support is even more essential to me because I keep this site free from advertisements and do not participate in corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.

You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:


Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


  • Phill O

    Bob, your disdain for the arrogance of scientist is; well, how should I say this: Well Founded!!!!

    First, the current method assumes that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to be the same as today. Some may quote analysis to CO2 levels back then, but we get into more assumptions, some may not be valid.

    Secondly, it is well established that the variance for counting statistics is equal to the square root of the counts. Considering the low level radiation being counted and the half life of C14 of 5730 years, the random errors keep piling up. At best 2 significant figure can be had, but more conservative thinking gives one!

    Third, there is the experimental error involved in getting the C14 into solution (a scintillation cocktail).

    If anything, C14 dating can get one significant figure of accuracy.

    What is really scary about this, is the lack of basic understanding of the propagation of error by many “NEW” scientists.

    Yuo yourself are very wary of everything! Too bad the new recruits are not so discerning!

    But this is just my humble opinion: a retired analytical chemist.

  • mike shupp

    Actually, when I was taking anthropology courses a few years ago — well, a few decades ago — at Cal State Northridge, it was common knowledge that C14 dates were likely accurate to only 3 or 4 percent, and that the older the dates were the less certain they were. This doesn’t strike me as arrogance.

    What I suspect here is that somebody made a test. comparing different C14 datings of samples fairly certain to be the same age, demonstrating that this potential error was in fact one which occurred. And that explaining all this to a reporter afterwards wasn’t perfectly successful.

  • Phill O

    3-4% I do not agree! The problem is that there are way to many scientists producing numbers who do not have the expertise of a well trained analyst. If one gets 50% accuracy, that might be closer to the truth.

    I have been involved in many inter-laboratory analysis (Round Robin) and know the real discrepancies in numbers produced even by trained analysts.

Readers: the rules for commenting!


No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.


However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.


Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *