Except that this “data” is inferior to the point that many on this forum would dispute that it counts as data at all.
(Parenthetically, I would call it ‘data not evidence’. It is data to the extent that it is reported results of experiments – it is not evidence as it has not been demonstrated that these experiments yield reliable results, and therefore is not relevant to determining the shroud’s age. It is therefore “data” only to the same extent as me rolling dice several times and recording the results is data.)
As I said before:
Therefore the reasonable conclusion remains that Carbon dating is right and WAXS, Vanillin, et cetera ad nauseam are all wrong.
This would appear to have a number of issues:
Egocentric bias – people have a natural bias to over-value their own ideas and projects. This is why third party validation is the gold-standard.
Motivated reasoning – all those involved would appear to be ‘Authenticists’ – and therefore have a strong bias towards dating methods that yield a result that indicates that the shround could be authentic.
Add to this that the publisher, MDPI, has a reputation for weak editorial standards – “… critics suggesting it sacrifices editorial and academic rigor in favor of operational speed and business interests.” This means that it is likely to be inadequate in correcting the authors’ bias.
This means that such publications do not constitute evidence of the method’s reliability.
Hi Ron
The method is based on the breakdown of polymerisation of linen fibers being predictable over time. This is this the initial paper of one of the methods used to test the age on linen. The graphs in figure 3 show how linen of different known ages (modern to 3250 Bc) show a distinct profile.
And, of course, you being the shameless liar that you are, will simply pretend you have never seen the following discussion of why that paper is, in the words of the author, “clearly nonsensical.”
… we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants.[1]
And, as I have noted repeatedly above, the carbon-testing was performed under far more rigorous and carefully documented procedures than any of the authenticist ‘tests’ were.
… often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented …
