Carbon dating and shroud of turin

I intend to keep updating this thread as more information comes to light. The differences among these accounts weaken the accounts' credibility.

If you think anything should be added or changed, you can leave a comment here or send me an email. date for the other end led to a garbled memory of 1200 A. Whatever the case, it's easy to think of ways in which these numbers could get garbled over time. But just as we don't want to underestimate the differences, we also don't want to overestimate them.

If other people could correct or expand on what I've said here, I hope they'll do so. He did not know what margin of error there was on the dates, and thought it would be quite wide, as the test was only intended to give a rough idea of what an eventual C-14 date would look like. (This test in California was later confirmed to me by [Alan] Adler, who said that he was in fact the one who had arranged it, despite C-14 dating being specifically forbidden in STURP's agreement with the Turin Archdiocese.)" (William Meacham, The Rape Of The Turin Shroud [Lulu, 2005], 58) To give the reader some idea of how the accounts differ, it will sometimes be claimed that the second end of the thread dated to about 1200 A. For example, the people and facilities involved in the testing could be affiliated with more than one university. For the background to the claim that George Rossman was involved, see here.

There seems to be widespread agreement, among the accounts circulating, that this dating test on the Shroud took place in the early 1980s (my sense is that the large majority say 1982) in California, involving one thread from the Shroud near the area of the 1988 carbon dating, producing two dates differing by several centuries for each end of the thread, one date being close to the time of Jesus and one several centuries later. As William Meacham mentioned in an email to me, it's "Not unusual for someone to send a sample to a colleague at another university or facility to analyze, if the person with the sample doesn't have the equipment for the desired test." There's also the issue of how much the people who did the testing told the people who submitted the sample, as well as when they provided the information. I've seen the Rossman allegation repeated in a few books (Frederick Zugibe, The Crucifixion Of Jesus [New York, New York: M.

Though not naming a source diminishes the significance of a claim, I think some of the information involved is valuable enough to warrant reporting it without being able to name the source. For example, it was an unofficial test, done privately, apparently with only a small number of people involved, with ambiguous and confusing results, results that conflict with later testing, pertaining to a highly controversial issue.

I know who the sources are and judge them credible enough for their claims to be taken seriously. It's understandable that accounts of what happened would be somewhat garbled. We're not talking about an event that had no eyewitnesses or an event that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.

For example: "[John] Heller took me back to the train station that evening [in 1984], and as we sat waiting for my train back to New York City, he told me in strictest confidence about a secret C-14 run that had already been made on a thread from the Shroud. Given the unofficial nature of the test, there would have been a lot of potential for ambiguities, changes in plans, and the gradual learning of details over time, for example. figure originate as a rough approximation, a good rounded figure to cite? Evans and Company, 2005], approximate Kindle location 5093; Robert Wilcox, The Truth About The Shroud Of Turin [Washington, DC: Regnery, 2010], approximate Kindle location 1744; Mark Oxley, The Challenge Of The Shroud [England: Author House, 2010], approximate Kindle location 4274). Here are some of the reasons why: - I made a couple of attempts to get a copy of the tape in which Adler allegedly identifies Rossman.

Analogously, the researchers theorize further that neutron flux increments, in correspondence to seismic activity, should be a result of the same reactions.Many people could cover these topics better than I can. One account will associate the test with the University of California, whereas another will associate it with Caltech. There are some significant similarities among the accounts, but accompanied by some significant differences. There probably are some eyewitnesses and/or other individuals who could come forward with significant information on these matters. In an email to me, William Meacham said, "Heller told me the test was done by the Livermore lab, but he didn't mention any person's name.Other people are more knowledgeable of the background issues, are in a better position to get more information, and so forth. He also said that starch had been identified on the thread. We need to be careful in judging whether a difference is a contradiction and, if it is one, how significant that contradiction is. He did say however that there was nothing written down and it would be denied by the people who did the test." I've come across three names of scientists allegedly involved in carrying out the test, and I want to address each.Other researchers have since suggested that the shroud is much older and that the dating process was incorrect because of neutron radiation – a process which is the result of nuclear fusion or nuclear fission during which free neutrons are released from atoms – and its interaction with the nuclei of other atoms to form new carbon isotopes.However, no plausible physical reason has yet been proposed to explain the origin of this neutron radiation.

Please or register to post comments
If spammers comment on your content, only you can see and manage such comments Delete all

Carbon dating and shroud of turin introduction

Carbon dating and shroud of turin

Recent posts

24-Sep-2018 00:34
24-Sep-2018 07:05