Suggestion: shorter posts.
I'll just respond to your claim that Woodmorappe has been misreprented by Henke at
Hiding the Numbers to Defame Radiometric Dating:
Why would Woodmorappe go out of his way to take a 2 mya discordance out of context when he already cited a 200 mya discordance in the same subsection?
But Woodmorappe didn't say it was a 2 mya discordance, did he (neither did Henke - he said 1%, and simple math yields a difference (including +/- error ranges provided in the excerpt) ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 million years)? No, he said:
[text=black]The same unit was most likely the one dated by Evernden et al. (1964) at 66.4 Ma [Ma ]. These ages are most likely too old, owing to the inclusion of detrital grains in the mineral separates.[/text]
And he presents this without giving the amount of discordance shortly after describing a 250 mya discordance precisely to give the impression that the magnitude of error is large, when it's only around 1%. Seems like Henke has fairly accurately characterized Woodmorappe's misrepresentation.
The name of the subsection might have been detection of open-system behavior, but as your quote of the discussion of the 250 mya discordance reveals, Woodmorappe is not limiting himself to that topic in this subsection. Here's your quote of Woodmorappe again for your convenience:
Woodmorappe writes:
Apart from everything else that has been discussed in this section of the paper, the fallacy of the claims advanced by Leveson and Seidemann is proven by the many cases of dates which are recognized as reliable, only to be later discarded in favor of some other presumably-reliable dates which contradict the first set of erstwhile-reliable dates. Many such examples are given in this paper. Let me give another: Some U-Pb zircon dates from the Adirondack Mountain region of New York (McLelland et al 1997, p.A-466), based on bulk-zircon dating, yielded values up to 1416 million years old. These had been accepted as reliable — that is, until single-grain dates yielded results some 250 million years younger. All of a sudden, the earlier ostensibly-reliable dates had to be rejected.
Thanks for providing this quote, because it makes it clear that Woodmorappe is trying to communicate precisely the misrepresentation he's accused of by Henke, subsection title notwithstanding.
An observation: this discussion will advance little if we spend all our time on cross-accusations of impropriety. Though you say you'll ride this one out, I think it would be more productive to focus on a case for which the paper in question is available on the Internet. To do otherwise is to debate in the presence of too much incomplete and questionable information.
--Percy
™ Version 4.2