Biggest Carbon Dating Mistake
Biggest Carbon Dating Mistake
There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud
is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly
needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history
of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific
and historical information.
- Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (March 2008)
[T]he age-dating process [in 1988] failed to recognize one of the first rules
of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area
or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be
representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken
from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.
- Robert Villarreal, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist who headed a team of nine scientists at LANL who examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region. (August 2008)
It may well go down as the biggest radiocarbon dating mistake in history; not because there is anything wrong with the measurement process (there may not have been); not because there is anything inherently wrong with carbon 14 dating (there is not); not because of shoddy sample taking (which indeed was shoddy); not because of red flags that should have raised serious questions (there were quite a few); and not even because basic tenets of archaeological dating were ignored by good scientists as was the case.
No, the reason is because, now, two decades later, whenever carbon 14 dating is discussed in high school or college classrooms, students like the student from Alaska are likely to raise a hand and ask some probing questions: What about the Shroud of Turin? Was it dated correctly? If not, how could so many scientists from so many reputable radiocarbon dating laboratories screw up so badly?
PREVIOUS NEXT
Biggest Carbon Dating Mistake
Twenty-One Scientists
Inappropriate Question
Without carbon there would be no life as we know
The Abundance of Carbon
Other Possibilities
Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea and Bacteria
The Making of Carbon 14
Carbon 14 Has a Mind of Its Own
As soon as a plant dies it stops taking on carbon
Antoine Henri Becquerel
Marie Curie
Geiger and Libby
Carbon Dating: The Idea
Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
What Rogers Discovered
Mixed Reaction to the Carbon Dating
Conspiracy Theory Erupted
Cardinal Ballestrero
Dmitri Kouznetsov
William Meacham on Kouznet
And indeed shroud researchers, who for awhile
The Manchester Museum
Naked Mummies
Mummy 1770
The Manchester Museum Mummy Project
Garza-Valdes and the Mayan Jade Artifact
The Ibis Mummy
Conflicting Results
U.S. News & World Report
Garza-Valdes and the Scanning Electron Microscope
No Bioplastic
M. Sue Benford and Joe Marino
Rogers was Skeptical
Ray Rogers and Anna Arnoldi in 2002
Evidence of Dying
Several years earlier,
Lignin and Vanillin
Vanillin Analysis Significant
Rogers Exercises Caution
John L. Brown
Lloyd A. Currie
William Meacham
Ultraviolet and X-ray
Red Flags Ignored
Facts vs Explanations
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg a Holdout
Without a Trace: French Reweaving
Robert Villarreal from the Los Alamos National Laboratory
Chemistry Today Article
Tartar Relation
McCrone and the Vinland Map
Myths about the Vinland Map Persist
Trusting Carbon Dating
Inexplicable Results in Carbon Dating
William Meacham Summarizes