Radiocarbon dating of the shroud of turin nature wireless network status validating identity
Linick‘s) program in this fully computerised process), for “the agreement among the three laboratories for [control] samples 2, 3 and 4” to be “exceptionally good,” yet the “spread of the measurements for sample 1[the Shroud]” to be somewhat greater than would be expected (my emphasis).
He does provide a nice graph to help us see this*: Anyway, I like Feynman’s quote.
Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion.
Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud.The AMS system is clearly designed so that if there was a problem with the dating process at a laboratory, then its target (Shroud) and control sample dates would wrongly agree together, and disagree together with the correct Shroud and control samples dates of the other two laboratories.Otherwise AMS radiocarbon dating in general would be unreliable and this “mediaeval …even by experts in the field“: “On 27th February the 16 February 1989 issue of the British journal Nature (volume 337) finally reached the library in my lab.On pages 611-615 appeared the article titled ‘Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin’ by P E Damon et al. The article was rather opaquely written-difficult to comprehend in complete detail even by experts in the field …” Presumably this was deliberate so as to conceal the inexplicable fact that the Shroud sample dates between the three laboratories were widely different.