Are the 1430s the most likely date range for the Zodiac drawings?

[Mark Knowles]

You have brought your model forward twice, precisely to 'prove' the point that the 95% probability upper limit is at 1444.

You keep using the term "your model" as if I cooked up a special model for the purpose. What alternative model do you suggest?

You did this also in this thread, where you are trying to argue that a date after 1430 is in fact more likely.
Except that the same model says that this probability is 16% (after 1431). This is not logical and you are not being critical, at least of your own views.

I am not basing my argument about the 1430s being more likely solely nor primarily on this model. What I tried to do, is by taking Koen's data demonstrate that it is unreasonable to exclude the 1430s and that this kind of analysis had not been done prior to the pre-1430 dating.

(One should note that I am not excluding 1430 as you seem keen to.)

Also, in this post, it is the third time that you challenge readers to argue why your model is not good, or to come up with a better one. So you stand behind it. You should accept the 16% after 1431.

I have not argued against that figure, though I will happily provide more context to my argument. Firstly you are referring to within 1 standard deviation from the mean, something like a 68% confidence interval. Do you apply the same standard to the carbon dating?

The 16% probability after 1431 is not matched by Koen's data, which has only 3 (out of 35) points above 1431.

There are 5 above and including 1430.