Carbon dating and shroud of turin

(Phys.org) —An earthquake in Old Jerusalem might be behind the famous image of the Shroud of Turin, says a group of researchers led by Alberto Carpinteri of the Politecnico di Torino in Italy in an article published in Springer's journal Meccanica.

They believe that neutron radiation caused by an earthquake could have induced the image of a crucified man – which many people believe to be that of Jesus – onto the length of linen cloth, and caused carbon-14 dating done on it in 1988 to be wrong.

I don't claim to have even come close to resolving all of the difficulties.

But I think I can clarify some points, with a lot still unsettled. The fact that the garbled numbers we have seem so easily explainable is significant.

Though not naming a source diminishes the significance of a claim, I think some of the information involved is valuable enough to warrant reporting it without being able to name the source. For example, it was an unofficial test, done privately, apparently with only a small number of people involved, with ambiguous and confusing results, results that conflict with later testing, pertaining to a highly controversial issue.

I know who the sources are and judge them credible enough for their claims to be taken seriously. It's understandable that accounts of what happened would be somewhat garbled. We're not talking about an event that had no eyewitnesses or an event that happened hundreds or thousands of years ago.

I intend to keep updating this thread as more information comes to light. The differences among these accounts weaken the accounts' credibility.

If you think anything should be added or changed, you can leave a comment here or send me an email. date for the other end led to a garbled memory of 1200 A. Whatever the case, it's easy to think of ways in which these numbers could get garbled over time. But just as we don't want to underestimate the differences, we also don't want to overestimate them.Attempts to clarify these matters ought to be made sooner rather than later.I want this thread to take some steps in that direction.For an illustration of how ambiguous the differences in the accounts can be, see Thomas Case's 1994 interview with Heller and Adler (The Shroud Of Turin And The C-14 Dating Fiasco [Cincinnati, Ohio: White Horse Press, 1998], 32-3, 74-5). It seems, then, that Adler identified the individual as Jerry Wasserman.Two times, Case asks questions based on the assumption that the two ends of the thread dated to 200 A. As we'll see below, there's somebody who comes much closer to meeting Adler's description than Rossman does, so there's no need to speculate that Rossman was being called Jerry, that Adler mispronounced Rossman's last name, etc.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.

Tags: , ,