Statistical analysis of tree rings

I read Woody's report on his field work. He says he did not see any old samples to match when doing his work (he states this in a footnote). I think Woody was too hasty in the AIG article to say that the old matches are just as valid as the more recent.
I notice a lot of ring width in the data set at "0". It appears to me that these are rings circumstantially inferred by the researchers and do not actually represent physical evidence of a ring.
What tests if any have been done to directly confirm that double rings have not grown in brislecones in the last century? I saw a photo of at least one example of two extra rings appearing around the radius of a tree between two rings. It was like one highway split into two.O.K. Where is the link to a simple table of C14 data mathced with tree samples. For that matter where is it in the published literature?

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

I'm not interested in disucssing statistical analysys until it can be proven that the creationist community has access to the data source on the 14C dates for the Ferguson Chronology, among other things. Also, if cannot be established where rings were subjectively added by researchers, then there is no point in talking about statistics. Real science requires original data.
As it is a huge majority of the "matches" involve rings of "0" width. So if you put enough "0"'s into the ring width list at the right places, then you can created whatever signal you want to match with whatever. My current hypothesis is that the "0"'s were fraudlently placed. So provide the data and the answers first.The problems revealed by the back of the envelope tests are proving valid as I cut apart the crn file. For one thing when you whiten the file to get rid of the noise, pretty much all of the signal disappears also!Also there is no consistency with the expected percentage of mean growth in the master file and the matched trees.Column 1: whitened signal 40% threshold, "88888" means signal=true
Column 2: Master Chronolgoy, expected % of mean width
Column 3: an example tree supposed to match, actual % of mean width
Column 4: actual ring width in 100th mm.

0	133%	114%					42
0	92%	88%					22
8888888	22%	0%					0
0	98%	106%					28
0	71%	112%					21
0	94%	116%					29
0	105%	97%					27
0	111%	99%					29
8888888	31%	12%					1
0	82%	90%					19
0	76%	111%					22

Notice that the whitened signal in column 1 only matches a "0" and a "1". For the rest of the data, it is totaly random, dancing a normal distribution around the mean.
So it is imperative that the meaning of the "0" in the data set be established. Is it an INFERED ring by the researcher, or does it represent physical evidence of say a meansurement .004 mm rounded off to 0? Until then tree ring matching is no better than Bible Code ESL sequences. Given enough white noise, you can find a signal in anything!Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

Chronology file name   : CA535.CRN
Measurement file name  : CA535A.RWL
Date checked           : 27MAR94
Technician's name      : HENRI D. GRISSINO-MAYER
Supervisor's name      : HENRI D. GRISSINO-MAYER
Beginning year         : -6000
Ending year            : 1989

The file is for BCP on the long white mountain chronology. The dates run from -6000 B.C. to 1980 in the second column, but they are not in order of date. The data in the correlation stats file and the crn file correspond to the data and descriptors in the rwl file you gave me.
The other file I already read.I did some stats on the "0"s which are about 5-7%. I've seen 5% reported as the number of "inferred rings". So there is a correspondence here. I couldn't guess where "inferred rings" were unless they are the "0"s.I eliminated growth changes by computing a moving average to determine the mean for a given range of years. 24 years before 24 years after, for a total of 49 years around the single growth ring to be compared to the mean.
The CRN file is given in % of mean expected exactly for the reason that actual width will vary due to the factors you cited.
What concerns me is the "0" values. Given as they are, it is clear to me that the correlation stats will look good. If one were to go through the rwl file and delete all the "0"'s and run it through the software packages, I'm guessing it will turn into white noise.
So I really need to know about the zero values and how they got into the file. A lot of them line up over multiple trees. What you've got to do is take the rwl data and copy out one tree. Then transpose the data in ms-excel to columns for each decade on that tree. Then you have to cut/paste all the decades together into one continous column for that tree. A similar procedure is necessary for the crn file. I then concentrated on trees 2000-3000 B.C. after sorting the correlation stats file. By the way, the years in that file are coded you have to subract 8000 from the numbers to get B.C./A.D. and watch out for the 0 year. I learned this by reading one of Ferguson's papers.
I know my stats are not as rigourous as the software, but I know that most people will not take the hands on approach. I am doing so, because I know that the original investgators took a hands on approach.
But I am really disappointed with Woody's lack of attention to the inferred year problem. What he said is likely correct for the good stats given the rwl file. Problem is that "0" in that file likely does not represent an actual ring value that just rounds off to zero. I need to know. If it does, then the mystery only deepens. If it does not, then I am a long way to pinning down the problem.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

I already ran calibration programs years ago on my computer. What I need is the specific data set for the BCP White mountain, decade measurements 14C. There are 500 of them. Either a linked file or a specific journal article containing the list will do.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

quote:

---

, however many of the data sets arise from unpublished research contributed to the International Tree Ring Data Bank

---

There you have it. It's alleged cold fusion all over again.
The artificial "0"'s in the file are the signal -- put there by the subjective judgment of Ferguson and company.
Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

Jon, you just see what you want to see, and nothing else. Ferguson's been dead a long time. He never published his primary data. The data you see is the evolution of his data put out by his students, who were compelled to publish some of it.
You could have guessed that I would have known that. It's no different than saying Moses wrote the Torah though he had help from his fellow Levites.
Your automatic disrespect of creationists argues loudly for the vile falseness of your own position. Your pickiness on a point not relevant to the proof of your position says your grasping at straws just to win by bullying. No honest person will buy that as an argument.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology