Responding to Lasting Damage’s comment “still, it will be interesting to see how* he supports his claim that all the leaves in the Suigetsu study had multiple dates thousands of years apart and how the lab managed to fudge the dates so precisely that they correlated with numerous other features, many of which hadn’t even been studied yet. *if he does.” afdave replies “Wait, LD, my precise scientific friend … Did I claim that? Or did I suggest it as a not-very-likely possibility?“
Is afdave being honest? No, because regarding the leaves in the Suigetsu study afdave originally said “Well … I haven’t ruled out “manipulation” of 200 data points, though I think it’s unlikely. I do think it is possible the lab tekkies could have taken these 200 leaves (they were mostly leaves weighing roughly 1000 mg each), tested a 2 mg bit of leaf #1, seen that it was way too far from the “expected age” and scrapped it, got another 2mg bit of the same leaf, and so on until they got a date which was in the ballpark of the “expected age” and proceeded in this manner through all 200 samples. I mean really … what safeguards are in place to prevent this from occurring? After all, the labs want to know what age they are shooting for. We’ve established that already. And we know they scrap results that are “off” and chalk it up to “contamination” … so why is this scenario not a possibility?” As Lasting Damage points out “This doesn’t look very ‘not likely’ to me!”
Failed to be honest today.
Dishonest tactic: invoking the great global atheist scientist conspiracy
