Shroud c14 dating arizona
Amended Slow Jog (talk) , 20 April 2009 (UTC) Harry Gove calculated that 71% of the sample must be non original to bias the data. I also don't think that Jull, a staunch critic of Kouznetzov, implied that this was the case, although I don't have access rights to view the article.Possibly misinterpreted by original author of this section?Wdford (talk) , (UTC) The scientists involved were both careful and neutral.
(By the way, whether the calculation is "simple" or not depends on your math skills.) Slow Jog (talk) , 16 April 2009 (UTC). I think the "2% carbon" claim should be removed altogether as it's completely false.
The criticism of the carbon dating being taken from a patched part of the shroud and Giulio Fanti's 2013 research are both documented in the section titled "The sample was part of a later repair".
I agree that if Fanti's research was regarded as "conclusive" by the scientific community then it should be more prominent - is that the case?
JTansut (talk) , 11 January 2011 (UTC) I have not looked into this issue, so can not comment, but if you want to be sure, leave a message for user: Thucyd who knows a lot about the topic and discuss it. But I can tell you that currently there is a huge discussion between all scientists around a peer-reviewed article published by Timothy Jull in december in Radiocarbon, his own journal (University of Arizona).
History2007 (talk) , 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hello JTansut and History. Jull claimed that he kept in secrecy in 1988 a unknown sample and that he cannot confirm Rogers' findings (Thermochimica Acta, 2005).
Search for shroud c14 dating arizona:
If you want to trim it go ahead, but please do not push it back the other way too far.