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.
You are making things up when you use phrases like “probably” and “the only institution that could authorize the release it was done" as if researchers who have been seeking these data for decades are idiots who don’t have a clue whom to ask for access to the data. You couldn’t be more wrong. That was well known who the administrators were and are and who was obstructing access. These researchers are NOT stupid, semimojo, like you seem to want people to think they are. They are scientists who expect other scientists to behave normally and sanely, and share raw data for the purposes of peer-review, not obfuscate, fudge, hem and haw for thirty years, making excuses, blocking access to legitimate researchers on the flimsiest reasons. Instead, they’ve claimed the matter was closed, settled science. They sounded like the Global Warming crowd, circling the wagons around their fudged and fraudulent data sets, unwilling to let "science deniers" get anywhere close to the raw data.
The Oxford University lab, and then the British Museum, have stonewalled ALL requests for access to the raw lab level data for almost thirty years. WHY? As I said because it’s because they knew the data could not support the conclusions they drew because it showed the data that simply would not pass the basic chi squared test, even within the subsamples.
What do you think a "legal" request is in the U.K.? It’s a request for data resulting from the British equivalent of a Freedom of Information lawsuit, forcing the custodian of the data in-suit to release the data they had no legal right to withhold from the public. Scientific data which is not protected by trade secret laws falls under such a category that is not excluded from release.
You demonstrate you do not grasp the thrust of the paper at all if you you think has ANYTHING to do at all with better technology available today. The dating done in 1988 has been agreed by all involved to have been accurate. THAT is not being questioned at all. It was the protocols that were compromised not the tests.
From the papers abstract:
"In 1988, three laboratories performed a radiocarbon analysis of the Turin Shroud. The results, which were centralized by the British Museum and published in Nature in 1989, provided ‘conclusive evidence’ of the medieval origin of the artefact. However, the raw data were never released by the institutions. In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered."
Barrie Schwartz, the principle light photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), said: Needless to say, the arrival of this paper has been long awaited by Shroud scholars around the world since it provides the first real look at what is essentially, brand new data (the first in almost 30 years). Unfortunately, the paper itself is currently behind a pay wall which might make it difficult for many to read it so I am quoting the last few sentences here:
"The statistical analyses (of the newly released raw data from the three testing labs—Swordmaker), supported by the foreign material found by the laboratories, show the necessity of a new radiocarbon dating to compute a new reliable interval. This new test requires, in an interdisciplinary research, a robust protocol. Without this re-analysis, it is not possible to affirm that the 1988 radiocarbon dating offers ‘conclusive evidence’ that the calendar age range is accurate and representative of the whole cloth."
Schwartz also says: I think an excellent assessment of the paper's importance was clearly stated in a private correspondence from Prof. Bruno Barberis recently:
"The results shown in the article published in Archaeometry represent an important step forward since it was finally possible to examine the raw data obtained from the three laboratories and better understand the anomalies and errors made in the dating operation."