Radio carbon dating mistakes
This article is within the scope of Wiki Project Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia.If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Anarchy is Order (talk) , 24 August 2008 (UTC) Hello, I'm undertaking the revision and proofreading of the article (a feat many seem to undertake and then abandon...) - please contact me or write here for any question/suggestions etc.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).This article is within the scope of Wiki Project Catholicism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Catholicism related articles on Wikipedia.If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.(See one source.) I did the calculation in 1999, and got a result of 1.8, or 180%, much closer to Mc Crone's result than that cited by Jull.I suggest the article be updated to reflect these conflicting claims.
But the fact is that the original radiocarbon dating was made on a patched piece of the shroud and this has been proven beyond doubt and the 16th century cotton that was rewoven in that repair gave a false reading in the carbon dating.
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?
As a result, when this was conclusively proven, new carbon dating was authorized which confirmed that the date of the shroud is from the time of Jesus' death.
Those responsible for this article should have already come back and corrected it since the new results of the latest carbon dating were announced world-wide in March of 2013.