don of tallahassee > 04-02-2016, 04:32 AM
ReneZ > 04-02-2016, 09:36 AM
Diane > 06-02-2016, 10:42 AM
ReneZ > 06-02-2016, 11:54 AM
don of tallahassee > 06-02-2016, 06:05 PM
(06-02-2016, 11:54 AM)ReneZ Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Well, in the end everyone is free to make up their minds on what he / she wants to believe or not.Rene - I am so glad you and Diane both seem to agree that the best dating available according to scientific methods us for the VMS is between 1404 and 1438 (even though Diane thinks the content came from earlier).
Even if it involves the Beinecke Library and/or Sterling lab of Yale University twisting the Univ. of Arizona's arm on which samples to take, or either of these universities not following scientific standards.
(Actually, as I was present, I can report that the selection was made in dialogue between the two: the owner of the MS and the expert in radio-carbon dating).
david > 06-02-2016, 09:01 PM
Diane > 08-02-2016, 12:39 AM
don of tallahassee > 08-02-2016, 04:27 AM
(06-02-2016, 09:01 PM)david Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.I'm not aware of any realistic theories disputing the findings of the report.
Certainly people may complain about the way the samples were taken; and the non-publication of the analysis (due entirely, I understand, to copyright issues).
But I think everyone accepts the dates. Even the person you hint at above has reduced his arguments to suggesting the vellum is original (but kept blank in storage for many centuries) which is, of course, a different tangent to explore.
And, realistically, the only counter-theory I'll personally accept would be from someone knowledgeable in the field of carbon dating.
So I think the question is currently pretty much settled Don. For now....
ReneZ > 08-02-2016, 07:03 AM
Diane > 08-02-2016, 02:33 PM