A reader from San Francisco writes:
Henceforth the Enea Report should be known as Di Lazzaro’s Gambit. For when Tom Chivers of The Telegraph claimed that Professor Ramsey of Oxford said “the radiocarbon dating results putting it at 1260 – 1390AD were reliable, and that the suggestions of contamination or medieval repair were unlikely,” Dr. Di Lazzaro’s responded brilliantly:
I have no experience of radiocarbon dating. As a consequence, I have to accept the opinion of Prof Ramsey. However, I note we have a problem: there is an object dated 1260AD that has a microscopic complexity such that it cannot be made by a forger in 1260AD. Does Prof Ramsey have any idea how to solve this contradiction? Can we collaborate to find a solution? Is it possible to organise a team of experts that reconsider both dating and microscopic characteristics of this extraordinary image?
Does Professor Ramsey say yes or no to collaboration? Does he explain why he thinks medieval repair was unlikely? Must he then explain away chemistry uncovered by Raymond Rogers, devastating statistical anomalies and violations of basic science protocols by Oxford and the other labs? Does he capture white’s pawn or expose the king’s bishop, in other words does he admit there is a contradiction or deny it. Does he accept or decline Di Lazzaro’s suggestion of collaboration or not.