The arguments of champion politicians 
It’s worse than that - AFAIK there is only one WAXS tested object for which the WAXS date is not a C14 date used for WAXS calibration. So they are saying that the C14 dates of the samples match the C14 dates of the samples.
The exception is the shroud - where the dates don’t match.
2 Likes
I think he meant that the chain of custody from the 13th century onwards was known.
Though that’s not true either.
This is true. The differences are so large that measurement error cannot account for the differences given the medieval hypothesis. So far we have not nailed down the explanation. This is where the case sits at this point.
Since we can trust the carbon date, the WAXS method, as it so often can be made to match its results, is reliable. So now that we have established the reliability of “WAXS dating”, when ever the two methods give conflicting results, we drop all of that trust we had for the carbon date (forgetting all about how our trust in WAXS was completely predicated on that), and assert that the carbon date’s the one that must be wrong.
Problem solved. Easy! 
No answer, naturally.
1 Like
Hi Roy
The chain of custody is in the historical record.
Where was the shroud at the beginning of the 14th century, in e.g. 1325?
A fellow sea lion
That is how I understood him.
What I perceived as a lie was his statement that the WAXS “study” presented any problem for the medieval dating of the relic. There has been more than enough information presented already that should have disavowed him of that notion.
As I have already admitted, I failed once again to consider that he might actually be stupid enough not to understand this.
Hi Faizal
The problem here is not subtile. The breakdown in polymers is way beyond what you would expect from the medieval hypothesis given a chain of custody that is at relatively low temperatures.
For the breakdown to be what it is and an age of 700 years you would need it to be held at extremely high temperatures.
End of the dating abstract.
To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth.
You have no evidence to support that claim. The WAXS paper is, at best, so seriously flawed that no serious journal would consider publishing it. At worst, it is deliberately fraudulent.
Continuing with my current working hypothesis that you are merely honestly confused and not also knowingly committing fraud, I will offer an analogy that might help you better understand Falk’s objections (which, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding) are not identical to Farey’s, nor what you presented the to be.
Suppose, with his next paper, Fantis decides to try yet another dating method. This one involves casting chicken bones into a circle and interpreting the pattern to determine the age of an artifact.
He uses the same linen samples as in the 2019 paper to calibrate his results. e.g. he takes the sample from a mummy from Thebes and notes that it has been carbon dated to between 1000-720 BC. He then casts the chicken bones and declares that the pattern is consistent with a dating of 1000-720 BC. He continues the same process with the other samples. Each time he already knows the age of the sample and each time he reads the chicken bones as giving the same date as the C-14 dating.
Having decided that his new method is just as accurate as C-14 dating, he now decides to use it on the Shroud of Turin. To his shock and amazement, he finds this time it does not confirm the published C-14 dating. Instead, he reads the chicken bones as saying that the shroud dates to the first century CE, near the time of the death of Jesus. He concludes that the C-14 dating was wrong for this sample, and the shroud could have been the burial cloth of Jesus.
Do you think his conclusion is justified? Please explain how you determined your answer.
1 Like