From: user6340@newsgrouper.org.invalid
JTEM posted:
> On 12/28/25 6:10 PM, Steven Douglas wrote:
>
> > Why don't you actually look at the study I provided,
> > and you'll see that the process was flawed due to
> > the piece of cloth that was cut from the Shroud.
>
> For the record: This is a discussion group. I discuss,
> often argue but with people. Not "Cites."
>
> If you feel a cite supports your position, copy & paste
> the specific words that do so. I honestly hate and have
> no intentions of reading through "A cite" and guessing
> at what your views are.
This is what I posted, in a response to you, in the
thread titled "Maybe AI isn't all bad?" ...
Title: "Statistical and Proactive Analysis of an
Inter-Laboratory Comparison: The Radiocarbon Dating
of the Shroud of Turin"
[quoting] "Clearly, the statistical analyses do not unveil
the correct age of the Shroud. Our review does not aim to
discuss the so-called 'authenticity' of the Shroud; we show
there are reasons to believe that the 1988 radiocarbon dating
does not match current accuracy requirements. Should this be
the case, it would be interesting to plan a strategy in order
to know the accurate age of the Shroud of Turin." [end quoting]
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7597180/
If you cared to learn something new, rather than just
continue to repeat your tired old arguments over and
over again, you'd click on that link and read what
they're talking about. But even if I copied and pasted
multiple paragraphs from that cite, I doubt you'd read
it -- because it contradicts the talking points you're
stuck on.
>
> The claim is that the fire changed the results.
No, that's your very own straw man argument. Why don't
you just see if you can learn something new.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
