Thomas Stielau comments on Carbon Dating News in 2008. This is in response, I think, to a comment I made on April 23, 2009. Stielau should probably read the release he links to before calling me a liar:
If you are in fact an expert or even a person particularly interested in the shroud you would already be aware that the shroud was indeed retested in 2008 and I am left with no choice but to call you a liar.
Here is the link to the news release of the second test dated to 25th of March 2008 on the university of Oxfords official website:
Please abandon this foolishness.
Just before posting I noticed that Hugh Farey responded to Stielau. He said it better than I might have:
Dear me. It’s not clear that you have read the news release to which you refer, or seen the film associated with it. This test was done on pieces of modern linen, not the shroud, which had been ‘contaminated’ with carbon monoxide, to test the hypothesis that such contamination seriously distorts radiocarbon dates in general. It was found that there was no appreciable difference between contaminated and uncontaminated linen, and the hypothesis was rejected. I’m not sure who you think you ‘have no choice’ but to call a liar, but I am sure you will be pleased to know that another option is in fact available. Foolishness? Not, it seems, on the basis of your comment. Happy New Year!
Okay, now. Back to reality.
As at March 2008, the prestigious Oxford University and Dr Ramsey still hadn’t twigged that the fundamental issue was the failure to follow proper scientific protocols in the sampling regime, with the consequential result that the sample was not representative – in fact an outlier, with its singular cotton contamination, probably from early in the Middle Ages. I also note that as at May 2008, they had seemed to researched the CO contamination issue canvassed by John Jackson, with negative results, but possibly not subjected the CO test samples to high temperature heating such as that from the Chambery 1532 fire that may have had some effect on the absorption of CO. I also note that in David Rolfe’s recent video, posted here on Dec 21, that the CO question was still being treated as a live issue, which would seem to make it a little dated, unless other related CO issues were still open, such as the question of heating, As noted above, the Thomas Stielau comment is ill-informed, and precipitate.
Mr. Stielau posted stale news. As for Dr. Christopher Ramsey, he is willing to entertain proposals for a new CD test but at the rates things are going in the realm of Shroud studies where there are many hypotheses and no agreement about what exactly went wrong it is difficult to proceed. It also looks that Mr. Steilau is not aware that Dr. Michael Tite was present at the Round Table convened by Cardinal Severino Poletto. Remember: if a piece of the TS is subjected to C14 again and no 1st century date is obtained no attention will be paid to pleas for yet another test.
Comments are closed.