Joe, kudos for putting together such a comprehensive, well argued paper, “Further Empirical Data Indicating Repairs in the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin.“
Over these past 23 years, I’ve had to come to a humbling realization – I’m not equipped to fully evaluate intricate papers like yours. Your paper is certainly impressive, and I can’t deny that. I read every word of it. I’m interested in seeing how your paper is accepted beyond the Shroud-enthusiast world. That takes time. While I’m hopeful you will succeed in getting your message across, I’ll reserve judgment for a wider consensus among the C-14 science community.
I’ve said it before and it should be repeated: What gives my skepticism pause, particularly as to the age of the cloth, are hints from history such as the Pray Manuscript and the Hymn of the Pearl. But your new paper does help.
Your arguments about the problem of alternate facts is spot on. It is a problem. If I had to guess I’d say that 70% of the Shroud-aware world will agree with you and the “other 70%” will believe like Kellyanne Conway. And the great unwashed masses will ask what are you talking about? One day recently, I asked several people at church if they thought the Shroud was authentic. One mentioned the C-14 as a reason not to believe the Shroud is real, One thought, with a lot of hemming and hawing, that it might be real. A half-dozen or so said — in so many words — “The very idea is preposterous.” That may be the bigger challenge.
Joe, in so many words, you clearly say the C14 issue is not preposterous. Again kudos.
One more thing: your thoughts on peer review vs the academia.edu archive. I’ll post about that in the next two or three days.
Thanks for sharing your new paper.