Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CedarDave; SeekAndFind; Swordmaker

“Supposedly the small snippet selected for dating may have been from a repair that was done about that time.”


Not exactly. From what I recall (and, Swordmaker, please correct me if I’m wrong), the snippet included both part of the original cloth and strands of linen used by nuns in the 1500s or so for a “French weave” to sew up a portion of the cloth that was tearing. Carbon-dating ended up with results for a time period that was in between the time period of the original cloth and that of the Medieval stitching. And I recall reading that some smaller samples that had been taken had yielded widely diverging carbon dates, providing additional evidence that that section of the Shroud did not solely include the original cloth.


36 posted on 06/08/2011 6:49:46 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: AuH2ORepublican
And I recall reading that some smaller samples that had been taken had yielded widely diverging carbon dates, providing additional evidence that that section of the Shroud did not solely include the original cloth.

You are correct. The proportion of "new" material to "original" shroud material was consistent with the age the lab reported from the test... the more "new" material the younger the date they reported, consistently. The photomicrographs of the original sample showed that the reweaving took an angled join across the sample and the various samples had from a 40-60 percent old to new mix to a 60-40 percent old to new mix... and the dates went from 1260 AD to 1390 AD as you moved from one end of the sample to the other, with a 25-30 year degree of confidence for each sub sample... which expanded the range from 1230 to 1420.... 190 years of possible creation dates from ONE homogenous sample(!) with a degree of confidence of only 25-30 years? That meant that one end was outside of the degree of confidence of the other, WAY OUTSIDE! That is simply NOT POSSIBLE if the sample were truly homogenous. That was a big red flag the scientists ignored because is so conveniently validated what they really wanted to find.

40 posted on 06/08/2011 7:03:11 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft product "insult" free zone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

To: AuH2ORepublican

Thanks for the clarification.


65 posted on 06/08/2011 9:05:42 PM PDT by CedarDave (I agree with Obama's immigration comments in El Paso: We do need moats filled with alligators)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson