tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post255205740886284337..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Chronology of the Turin Shroud: Thirteenth centuryStephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-288233725456840322017-12-07T17:10:05.961+08:002017-12-07T17:10:05.961+08:00I deleted this comment below because I considered ...I deleted this comment below because I considered it to be too `lightweight' (and therefore "substandard") for me to waste my very scarce time (see my <a href="https://goo.gl/7KDFVg" rel="nofollow">04 Feb17</a> why) to respond to it. <br /><br />But then I realised that that is <i>precisely the point</i>! It <i>is</i> too `lightweight' a response <i>by Prof. Ramsey</i>, so I am responding to it this way. (Blogger does not allow the posting of deleted comments).<br /><br />>Anonymous <br />><br />>>the "further research" which was "certainly needed" has not happened<br />><br />>No. Further research were made and confirmed the original results.<br />><br />>" It is important that we continue to test the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests as we are already doing." Christopher Ramsey<br /><br />Ramsey gives no details. If the <i>three</i> laboratories ("we") <i>had</i> "test[ed] the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests" after 2008 it would have been published in a scientific journal, but to my knowledge (and I have been blogging here about the Shroud since 2007) there have been no such results published. <br /><br />And Prof. Ramsey would have updated his <a href="https://goo.gl/1CfNP7" rel="nofollow">2008 web page</a> with the details of the test and a link to it, but doesn't.<br /><br />Besides, even if the three (or even one of the three) laboratories <i>had</i> "test[ed] the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests" after 2008, it would not have addressed the fact, admitted by Ramsey, that, "There is <i>a lot of other evidence</i> that ... <i>the Shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow</i>," which is what makes the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud a "rogue" date:<br /><br />"Contamination, reweaving or fraud: three potential sources of error, any one of which could have caused the incorrect carbon dating of the Shroud. But can we legitimately reject the carbon-dating result without determining exactly what went wrong? Of course we can. <i>Archaeologists routinely dismiss 'rogue' radiocarbon dates out of hand</i>. The success of a carbon-dating result should never be declared unilaterally; <i>it is always measured against other evidence</i>. The 1988 test may therefore be declared null and void, even though, without further direct study of the Shroud, it is unlikely we will ever be able to say definitively what went wrong." (de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.171).<br /><br />Except that I claim that we <i>can</i> say what went wrong: <a href="http://goo.gl/t1YRqH" rel="nofollow">The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking!</a><br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.com