Shroud c14 dating arizona
They said, for example, that the results might have been distorted by the presence of fungal biofilms on the cloth, or by damage caused by a fire in the 16th century, or that the region sampled was not representative of the whole.It sounds like special pleading, but some assert that other tests on the fabric, as well as historical analysis, suggest it was made at an earlier date. The raw data used for the 1989 paper were stored at the British Museum in London, but have been made available to independent researcher Tristan Casabianca and his coworkers through a Freedom of Information request.Besides, quite aside from dating, it would be good to know more about the chemistry of the image to try to figure out how it was made.As it stands, reticence looks more like fear of what further studies might reveal.In 2017, in response to a legal request, all raw data kept by the British Museum were made accessible. TORRISI Department of Economics and Business, University of Catania, Corso Italia 55, 95129 Catania CT, Italy Fair Use Quote: A telling tidbit from page 6 of 9: The same rationale applies to the intra-laboratory differences.A statistical analysis of the Nature article and the raw data strongly suggests that homogeneity is lacking in the data and that the procedure should be reconsidered. We also computed the Ward and Wilson test for the raw radiocarbon dates of Arizona, and in both cases (raw 1 and raw 2), the null hypothesis was rejected.
There was, for example, the ‘memory of water’ paper that year, followed by the ‘cold fusion’ fracas a year later.
Using Ox Cal for Arizona Raw 2, the overall agreement index (34.6%) is below the threshold (with 12.8% for A3 and 43.0% for A6), whereas for Arizona Raw 1 the overall agreement index is lower (21.4%).
Based on these results, a relevant problem emerges in the consistency between the Arizona raw radiocarbon dates and the published results from the other laboratories.
Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong – but apparently it was not definitive either. The answer seems obvious: it’s high time for a fresh round of studies using state-of-the-art techniques.
Given the secrecy and reticence that has generally surrounded scientific investigation of this object, it’s no surprise that rumours abound of how the findings have been untrustworthy.