Carbon 14 dating of the shroud of turin two nascar drivers dating
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.For these and other reasons, I think it's very likely that what Benford reported about Rossman is incorrect, and I think it's likely that Rossman wasn't involved in the 1982 test.After I published my comments above in the original edition of this article, I discussed the subject with Joe Marino, Benford's husband, in a thread here.Attempts to clarify these matters ought to be made sooner rather than later.
Has Rossman similarly been misleading or made unlikely claims in a relevant context? I see no way to deny that Rossman has more credibility.We'll keep monitoring the moderation folder, so any of your posts that go into moderation shouldn't be there long. It has to be lengthy in order to address such a complicated subject in the depth I intend. was more accurate, and he would sometimes correct the 1000 A. figure, whereas other times he'd let it pass without comment. Sometimes, disputes over what actually happened will go on for years, generations, or even centuries.I can name some of the sources for my information below, but there are other sources I can't name for various reasons. In this case, there are some factors involved that help explain how poorly the story has been preserved.- Secondly, it's unlikely that he'd say that he didn't want to discuss the matter any further just after confessing.While people sometimes do things that had seemed unlikely, and the scenario Benford described might have occurred, we're being asked to accept a sequence of events that's improbable upfront.
Search for carbon 14 dating of the 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.