Any scientific institution which will not share the raw data to other researchers is trying to hide what they fear will be revealed in the raw data. Having to sue to gain access to scientific data is absurd. That is in the article. When those data show the announced conclusion does not follow from those data, that constitutes the fraud.
These 1988 C14 testers started their fraud when they broke their own protocols by taking the sample from the one area on the Shroud that all of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project scientists had agreed should be avoided for such testing due to it being different from the main body of the Shroud chemically, physically, and photographically. In addition, the protocol called for SIX samples to be taken from six different locations and sent to SIX different C14 labs, instead at the very last hour, they decided that one sample would be taken from that worst possible location, and then cut into five pieces, four of which would be sent to THREE labs for testing.
The protocol further required the samples to be sent to the testing labs along with two other control samples of similarly aged linen cloth. To avoid the labs knowing which samples were which, the samples were supposed to be reduced to mere clippings of small segments of threads. Instead, the 1cm x 1cm Shroud samples were sent intact, as were the control samples. However, it was well known that the weave pattern of the Shroud was a three-over-one twill. The two known age control samples were both one-over-one linen, and obvious as hell they were not the Shroud sample. It was left to each lab to anonymize the samples and controls, breaking double blinds study requirements. The labs knew which samples they were testing. More scientific fraud.
Sub-sample A, the sub-sample closest to the edge, and Sub-sample E, the one furthest from the edge and closest to the center of the Shroud, went the same C14 Lab, the University of Arizona, When they got their samples, they cut them into smaller samples with the cuts going along the longer threads, thus across the edge on each so the interwoven new and old were contained in each of their newer smaller samples. They then tested each of these smaller samples and got different dates on each. This should have raised their eyebrows. Instead, they averaged the results for the entire sub-sample. They did the same for sub-sample E, and averaged that. It was THIS raw data that Casabianca’s Study nailed down as proof falsifying the whole 1988 C14 testing. There were RED FLAGS at every step that should have told each lab they were working with a non-homogenous sample. . . Yet they plowed ahead, instead of calling a halt due to bad data.
Garbage In, Garbage Out. Hiding their raw data shows they knew. That’s a cover up. They did it because they felt justified in tweaking the noses of “true believers” and what they considered “pseudo scientists.”
That’s scientific FRAUD.
I read the L’Homme Nouveau article she’s basing this slander on. It wasn’t the researchers who didn’t release the data, it was the laboratories that did the analysis. When a “legal” request was made to probably the only institution that could authorize the release it was done. No lawsuit.
When those data show the announced conclusion does not follow from those data, that constitutes the fraud.
But that isn’t what Casabianca’s analysis claimed. The conclusions follow from the data but his point was carbon 14 dating technology has advanced so the 1988 results may be flawed.
Faulty data isn’t fraud.
That’s scientific FRAUD.
You make a case that I can’t and have no interest in refuting - I don’t have a dog in this fight.
What I do know is Myrah Adams claims Casabianca’s analysis proves fraud when it doesn’t even allege it.
You should do a piece on this for Townhall. Unlike hers yours would be worth reading.