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

[ReneZ]

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.

Koen has already agreed ages ago that post-1430 should not be excluded, so there seems little point in continuing on that.


I think that we are talking here about your suggestion that post-1430 is in fact the more likely case. That is the title of this thread and your opening post.

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



[...]

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?

It sounds as if one should only talk about the 95% confidence interval, as in the carbon dating. Is that just because the 68% confidence figure is inconvenient for your point?

First of all, the C-14 paper gives results for both confidence intervals.

Secondly, by chance, your computed mean and your computed sigma add up as 1416 + 15 = 1431, so without doing any math at all, we know that the probability beyond 1431 is 16%. Just convenient.

Anyway, I am happy to summarise my view now. It seems that you will are unwilling to seriously consider good arguments, and stick to nitpicking and looking at exceptions. You remain unwilling to accept that post-1430 is less likely as the date for the MS. Considerably less likely at that.
From the carbon dating I consider a post-1430 date to have a probability of less than 18%.

This completes my contrinutions to this thread. Otherwise I'd just be repeating myself.