Shroud of jesus carbon dating

An earthquake in Jerusalem in AD 33 may have caused an atomic reaction which created the Turin Shroud and skewed radiocarbon dating.
Table of contents

• Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
• Turin Shroud may date from time of Jesus - Telegraph
• Turin Shroud: the latest evidence will challenge the sceptics
• How did the Turin Shroud get its image?

He is a somewhat physically imposing which may make some people nervous; he never hesitates to speak his mind no matter whose feet he steps on and that makes some people uncomfortable ; and as archaeologist he has in fact been involved in carbon dating ancient artifacts which is an unfair advantage: Despite all that I suggest a reading of his comments on the restoration project are well worthwhile and relate directly to this discussion. The best chance for non-intrusive carbon dating may have been lost.

The dating problem of both modern and ancient linen cloths is linked with the use of mild or strong detergents. Re ancient linen cloths, good natural detergents such as natron natural soda , potash, soapwort Saponaria officianlis were used. Anyway, in that case, he perhaps was not aware that all modern artefacts date as well to the 17th century as they do to the 21st. The accuracy of any C date depends on the slope of the calibration graph, which, averaged out over the last three or four hundred years, is more or less flat. If he had, there would be no mention in the review.

Ian Wilson is a serious scholar and I had occasion to interview him for a full-page report in a leading daily. If it was a joke he would not even mention it in the review.

Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin

Any progress with your Templar studies? It was 50 years old, but carbon dating said it was years old. Now despite the possible presence of detergent, the TS was radiocarbon dated CE. This is a miracle! Well, my apologies gentlemen. I had no intention of misrepresenting Dr Wolfli. Perhaps the modern fluctuations in C simply were not known in The fact remains, though, that all modern material can be dated to years ago, regardless of contamination, so that there was no need for him to be concerned. I met privately with Dr. As a C expert he was appalled at the fiasco and said the most useful sample would be a single thread running the length of the Shroud just off image.

Institute of Physics Publishing, , If the Tablet article cited by Charles Freeman is claiming that the earlier carbon dating occurred in , then Sox apparently contradicted himself. Does anybody know if he added any further details to his account anywhere else? The way Gove describes it, based on his phone conversation with Sox, makes the test sound like the one arranged by John Heller and Alan Adler and conducted in California.

The fourth paragraph in the Tablet article could be read as dating the test to , but it seems ambiguous to me. If Sox did refer to a or test when speaking to Gove, but then referred to a test in his article, he contradicted himself. I will dig out this weekend the original article. Regarding the Vatican agreeing with theories, it claims no competence in scientific matters but has simply encouraged scientists to continue their research.

Patrick, Actually the case is not closed. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero was forced into a situation for which he was not prepared, probably getting the wrong advice from Professor Luigi Gonella. The Church is willing to go through a rerun of the radiocarbon dating but faces the same problems it saw in It would never hold the expositions if it believed that there is proof that the Shroud is a forgery.

Gonella gest a bum rap.

The carbon dating was manipulated by the head of the pontifical academy who was advising JohnPaul II. The final decisions were made in a letter from the Vatican to the Archbishop of Turin who was given no discretion.

Turin and the Vatican felt burned, even betrayed. Gonella informed him about changes in protocol that were going to be made.

The ground had shifted. As he later noted: This was in sharp contrast to seven labs testing samples taken from several different strategically selected areas Even more disappointing from my point of view was the absence of anything binding on the labs to coordinate publication. Father Rinaldi was shattered. Hi John This is very good information, however it is a bit different from what I was given to understand by an authority in Rome. Professor Luigi Gonella did not seem to be pro-authenticity, but was Professor Carlos Chagas responsible for the decision?

I did watch a minute TV report the day he died, where he said that he did not believe that the Shroud was authentic. How could Professor Chagas trample on the protocols he himself prepared? This matter needs further explanation. Who was dictating the terms in the game and what kind of game was it? You venture into the corridors of Vatican intrigue at your own risk. Also, that he was anti-authenticity is from my sources well known.

This has all been pretty much documented particularly by Gove. The three labs that were allowed by the Vatican were to be chosen by Turin.

Gove paid a price becasue his lab was not one of the three. I think that Gonella may have had a hand in that. Cardinal Ballestrero made it quite clear that his hands had been tied by the Vatican. It clearly was not what he wanted. Making Gove pay for his arrogance was a small bit of recompense. Thanks for the link, John.

I know what can sometimes go on in Rome. Human nature is complex, but US ambassador Frank Shakespeare did not loose his faith! After all, the problem is there in other places too. Now what surprises me is that Ian Wilson — of all people! Curiously, Daniel Raffard de Brienne was hesitant to attack Gonella when I queried him, but that was because he found him to be very friendly. I am not sure anyone or thing was behind Chagas except arrogance and touch of anti Americanism. The man is dead. On the other hand, the carbon dating of the Shroud was the beginning of billion dollar enterprise because the labs wanted a test case to show what they can do.

STURP was on its own. Money flows to power and power flows to money.

• creative headline for dating site;
• Carbon Date the Shroud Again? | Shroud of Turin Blog.
• Navigation menu.

You also bandied around suggestions that my research was heading towards a dead end through failure to factor in a supernatural event understandably omitting to state how that could be tested, apart from an appreciative word for Paolo and his laser beams. If you want to see progress — real progress — with no dead ends in sight, not yet at any rate, I suggest you check out the latest posting on my site.

Referencing your effort, obviously, only the top fibrils of the linen were scorched colored , since you repeated the process on the back of the cloth?

The use of convoluted prose is a feature common to the Holy See and this is not just incidental as you wrongly imply. You should immediately inform the Radiocarbon experts who dated the old cloth about this. Lab archaeology is one thing. BOTH are needed in determination of reliable dates. In , lab archaeology ONLY prevailed at the expense of a multidisciplinary approach. Mordant is known to be used for intensifying stains e. Now it is well known gelatine is a breakdown product of collagen.

It has nothing to do with a supernatural event. By replacing my myrrhic? How many postings on your own site? Or are we supposed to access your canon here how do we do that Dan? My latest model evolves as we speak. Nuff said for now methinks. The immediate problem is not a dead end thanks, JoeM but deciding upon which of numerous directions to proceed. I also need a break 2 months of non-stop experimentation. Have they not heard of Geber and his extensive writings, including a recipe for generating what we would now call nitric acid fumes beware: BTW how come you can totally rule out the possibility for the linen cloth to be genuine?

Are you just aware the removal of such contaminants is either impossible or almost impossible? Were you a REAL scientist and not an agenda-driven scientist alike Hall et al from sad memory , your motto should be: This is getting somewhat tedious Max. Last June, I was toying with the idea that quicklime, more specifically its heat of reaction with water — might have been used to produce a thermal image.

The grounds were tenuous to say the least. Quicklime forms an alkali with water calcium hydroxide which was incidental in my model. But I never implicated either limestone nor ammonia, and in any case dropped the quicklime idea in short order, finding experimentally there was insufficient heat to raise a template to scorching temperature.

You on the other hand do not experiment, so consequently your ideas do not evolve. You continue to incant the same 1st century tomb scenario month after month, year after year, and continually scan my new thinking for evidence of plagiarism. I am flattered that you dropped all your previous ideas and should want to finally take into account my fumigation theory as the most likely while recycling it to meet your anti-authenticist agenda.

What you fail to take on board is it took me nearly 30 years to really think my fumigation theory does hold water. There I was thinking the art of delivering an honest-to-goodness diatribe was dead, and you immediately go and excel yourself. As for me, I have to be content with finding more mundane ways of filling my day, like turning out more images using my, sorry, your new nitric acid fumigation technique.