While Brew made the statement before Säve-Söderbergh's '69 presentation, such practice seemed to have been active at least to 1995 (after Taylor's '87 citation), based on the details of methodology stated in Bonani, et al. where half the data samples were not included in the study but rather were put in a "reserve" for no stated reason, a descrepancy between the retrospective date of the '84 Cayce Foundation study and the then-contemporaneous '95 samples was not adequately addressed by the authors, the discrepancy between the RCD data and historical data was not properly explained by the authors, no rationale was given for the method used to determine "outliers", and no explanation was given to assure that modern carbon was removed from the surface samples. When the RCD data didn't quite fit the historical data, the authors gravitated toward blaming the method without offering any consideration of whether the historic timeline might require adjustment.
It may have been an old practice, but it wasn't extinct by the time Taylor cited it.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 24-Mar-17 14:50 by Origyptian.