It was bad enough to only pick a single sample spot for the C-14 dating. But, if you’re going to pick a single spot, you should at least sample from the least contaminated section. Instead, it was sampled from one of the most contaminated sections on the shroud. When the TS was on public exhibitions …
Read more “C-14 sampled from one of the most contaminated sections”
In 1988 when they did the C-14 testing, AMS was a relatively new C-14 technique and had only been in use for a few years. “In 1982, AMS labs began processing archaeological samples for radiocarbon dating.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat … ectrometry It would be unwise to rely solely on a new technique and would’ve made more sense …
After the STURP results were published, the group officially fulfilled their purpose and disbanded. However, many of the original team members wanted to continue to study it, so they formed STURP II. Dr. John Jackson and Tom D’ Muhala present Cardinal Ballestrero with proposals for further scientific work on the Shroud. They have quietly formed …
The first procedural problem is what DrNoGods mentioned… DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:02 pm To me, a bigger concern might be the fact that so few TS samples were tested, and all from a single “patch” about 3″ x 1″ in size. The fact that three indpendent labs all obtained similar results is …
Before I get into the details of the procedural problems, I want to note not one particular group involved bears all the guilt, but all groups involved in the C-14 dating bears responsibility. Some even might have good reasons to introduce procedural violations. But for the most part, they should’ve known better. I would say …
So far, we have the evidence of the C-14 dating to demonstrate that it is a fake. It’s a necessary condition, but it’s not sufficient. You need to have additional evidence to prove it’s a fake. As I argued earlier, C-14 evidence by itself is not conclusive evidence of anything. If it’s a fake, all …
Read more “C-14 evidence by itself is not conclusive evidence”
When the C-14 results were announced, the media published the article titled, “Turin shroud shown to be a fake”, with the lead C-14 scientists in the photo. But, even though it’s claimed to be a fake, the main questions about the shroud were left unanswered, “who did it and how did the image on the …
The attitude the C-14 dating is conclusive evidence is not limited to Diogenes, but is actually quite prevalent. Even the C-14 scientists had this attitude… Hall, together with Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum and Oxford laboratory’s Dr Robert Hedges, on 13 October 1988, in front of a blackboard on which was written, “1260-1390!” …
DrNoGods wrote: ↑Mon Feb 06, 2023 3:02 pm There is a lot more to this story as well, as you’d expect. C-14 dating is no different from other sophisticated methods and requires properly working and calibrated equipment, properly trained operators, and critically … samples that are not contaminated and are prepared correctly. This is precisely …
brunumb wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 6:40 pm How did you establish provenance for the shroud? In other words you need to establish an unbroken link for the shroud back to the tomb and Jesus. Just saying it is possible is not the same thing. What happened to the shroud after it left the tomb? …