A reader writes:
The best thing about Timothy Jull’s article in Radiocarbon is that without it we would not have the benefits of Mark Oxley’s comprehensive response. Mark’s criticism is one of the best recent papers to appear on Barrie’s web site.
Are we sure that Jull’s article in Radiocarbon is peer-reviewed? Jull is the editor, is he not? Does he pick the peers? Does he review and respond to the peers as the author of his paper or as the editor of the journal? How can Jull’s paper be acceptable to his scientist peers given that it is little more than a fallacious absence-of-evidence apologia?
We all owe Mark our thanks for such an illuminating presentation. We owe Timothy our thanks for reinvigorating the discussions that lead to only one conclusion, the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud was botched.
Mark’s paper, “EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF: A RESPONSE TO PROF TIMOTHY JULL” is a must read.