John Deere

rlogan:

Please send me the email address you wish me to send it you and I will send you a draft of the article. If you wish the published article I believe the moderator presented a site you could purchase it from.

Joe

spin

This is the content of the post you cited:

spin: What's your source?

spin: What's your source?

spin: What's your source?

spin: What's your source?

I agree John Deere. Just answer the question and you'll get past this question regarding your integrity.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

If you actually believe that Eisenman and I 'FABRICATED' facts in the article you have a moral responsibliity to contact the journal Dead Sea Discoveries with your 'evidence'.

Let's see how your charges hold up in a peer reveiwed enviroment.

Joe

John Deere

Spin:

Just in case anyone is reading our present struggle who did not witness our prior one. Here are (once again) the sources.

M. Stuiver and G. W. Pearson, “High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC� in Calibration Issue, edited by M. Stuiver and R. S. Kra, Radiocarbon, vol. 28, no. 2B, 1986, pp. 805-838; G. Rodley, “An Assessment of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,� Radiocarbon, vol. 35, no. 2,,1993, pp. 335-338. For the 1998 corrections, see M. Stuiver, P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 Cal BP,� Radiocarbon, vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, pp. l041-83


Joe

John Deere

Spin:

I previously asked you to send me Greg's methodolgy in recasting his sigmas following the 1998 recalibration. And clearly a recasting had to have been done as the original posting of results occurred before the 1998 recalibration.

For some reason you did not send it. Will you please send it now?


Joe

spin

Why can't you answer a simple question?

As I wrote above:

Your repost hasn't changed anything and I linked directly to it anyway.

What you don't seem to understand was that the recalibration published in 1998 was actually announced in 1997. I wrote that information for you here, but it didn't seem to want to respond. Yet here you are again continuing the same confusion. Let me give you what Doudna wrote once again:

This announced data is what Doudna used for the article. Stuiver et al. published on the recalibration in 1998.

So, it seems we are left with the data set which gives the Pesher Habakkuk date ranges as I've already given from Doudna: "a brief spike at 160-149 BCE and a main range of 111 BCE - 2 CE". That's based on the 1997 announced recalibration.

Everybody please note: John Deere has avoided providing his raw C14 data and exact source for the dating of Pesher Habakkuk every time he has been asked. Every time. He has obfuscated. He has grandstanded. He has ducked and weaved (umm, woven). Do we need to guess that he'll continue to do the same? I don't doubt it, so I'll just assume he'll never come out with it and give up here.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

A little history.

In our previous go round the following exchange occurred.

You in no way provided any "context" to Doudna's data, but rather simply said:

"Doudna supplies a table based on Stuiver et al. information. The 2-sigma 1997 decadal calibrated date for pHab is

160-149, 111BCE - [49BCE] - 2CE."

You then stated:

"Of your list, the only one of use to me is:

For the 1998 corrections, see M. Stuiver, P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 Cal BP,� Radiocarbon, vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, pp. l041-83.

Now what do they say in this which specifically impacts on the carbondating of pHab?"


To which I replied:

"You have not revealed the 'error' that you claim exists in my analysis. Let us call this supposed error 'factor X'. Is 'factor X' an error in my calculation? Is it an error in copying? Is it an error in reasoning? Is 'factor X' a data set that I used was incorrect? Is it something else?

What exactly is 'factor X'? I am not going to try and guess what your ' factor X' is. I am not going to produce a correction for imagined errors in arithmetic or reasoning and then have you dance away and claim 'factor X' is something else. Something you keep hidden to yourself while you keep dancing.

I have given you both the article and its source material, it is now up to you to quit dancing and reveal 'factor X.

If you produce 'factor X' Spin, I will honestly work with you to discover the truth. Otherwise dance by yourself."


Well stated, if I do say so myself. Now let me repeat, Spin, I am not a mindreader. Your question is the heart of our exchange, so let me also repeat it again:

"Now what do they say in this which specifically impacts on the carbondating of pHab?"

For effect, allow me to repeat it again:

"Now what do they say in this which specifically impacts on the carbondating of pHab?"

One more time just for good measure:

"Now what do they say in this which specifically impacts on the carbondating of pHab?"

Well, gee, Spin the whole damn article impacts the carbondating of pHab, which if you had read it would know. But, as is obvious, you haven't so you are asking me to somehow paraphrase 40 plus pages of mathmatical analysis from Radiocarbon in a manner that will make sense of it all to you. And you are asking me to do this without revealing your 'factor X' that you 'feel' I need to correct.

To readers of this ludicrous exchange, I present the following question. Is Spin nuts?

However, simply reveal 'factor X' Spin and we will get past this troubling issue of your sanity.



Sorry, Spin no more loop.


Joe

rlogan

Joe -

The recalibration leading up to the 1998 publication you have cited was a couple of years old by then.

The 1998 Radiocarbon Issue Editorial Commenthere

States this 1996 citation as the genesis:

Kromer, B., Ambers, J., Baillie, M. G. L., Damon, P. E., Hesshaimer, V., Hofmann, J., Jöris, O., Levin, I., Manning, S. W., McCormac, F. G., van der Plicht, J., Spurk, M., Stuiver, M. and Weninger, B. 1996 Report: Summary of the workshop "Aspects of High-Precision Radiocarbon Calibration". Radiocarbon 38(3): 607-610.

...of what was agreed to at the 1997 Conference.


It is true that the final publication was in INTCAL98. But it is pretty clear to me that the calibration was at least one and maybe two years old by then. Might have been some minor changes between this 1996 workshop and 1997. I dunno.


spin has indicated, by citation, that Doudna was aware of the forthcoming publication at that time and utilized it.

John Deere

rlogan:

This is quite possible, but irrelevant.

I do not have Greg's data set or methodolgy, though I have asked Spin to provide them, so I can take no position on it as yet. The point in my article that Spin and I have been at issue regarding is not Greg's latter work but the original position taken by the group that conducted the C14 dating of the Scrolls. This was what my article focused upon.

In that regard, the recalibration that occurred prior to the testing moved the two sigma range for samples with the C14 characterists of pQhab 40 years foward in time. In other words, the results released in the Press Release did not reflect the prior recalinbration. This plus adjusting for the other errors in methodolgy we show the testing group committed, created a two sigma range for 1QHab well into the first century.

Why don't you read the article, I think you'll find it interesting and I would like to hear your opinion?


Joe

rlogan

Gosh, Joe - I've asked you for it and sent my email by PM as you requested.

Please check your PM's.