Www datingtarget com maryse dating the miz
I have decided to retrospectively split part #4 of my series, "My theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker" into two parts.So this part #5 is what was previously the latter half of part #4, expanded.Other previous posts in this series were part #1, part #2, and part #3.
Furthermore, instead of having received samples taken from different areas of the shroud, they all received sections of a single portion taken from one edge of the cloth. 2 of the Nature paper below.[Above (click to enlarge): Calibrated ages and dates of Arizona () laboratories based on the ages (before 1950) and years in Table 2, drawn on the calibration curve of Fig. See my spreadsheet table and bar chart below for these calibrated years.][Above: My spreadsheet table showing calibrated years of the Shroud (sample 1) based on Table 2 and Fig. See my bar chart below for a clearer view of the still wide differences between the three laboratories' dating of the same `postage stamp' sized sample of the Shroud divided between the three laboratories and dated by the same AMS method].[Above: My bar chart of the Shroud samples' calibrated years based on my table above, which is turn is based on Table 2 and Fig. As can be seen, there are still wide variations between the three laboratories' dating of the Shroud, with Oxford's years still not overlapping Arizona's and Zurich' and those two laboratories overlapping by only 8 years (1285-1293), again distorted by limitations of the spreadsheet.]This is inexplicable given that the laboratories' Shroud samples were all from the same `postage stamp' size sliver of linen, and all were [Above (click to enlarge): Drawing of the approximately 8 x 1.2 mm sample area, from A1 (Arizona 1), O (Oxford), Z (Zurich) to A (Arizona), with a photo of the 8 cm x 1.2 cm sample superimposed over the drawing on the bottom right hand side. Clearly there can be no significant difference in contamination between samples in such a tiny area. Note that the "dated" in the title is misleading, because to be "dated" by radiocarbon dating entails that the sample be reduced to pure carbon. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted". Below is my spreadsheet table showing the age ranges (before 1950) and the years they equate to:[Above: Spreadsheet table showing minimum and maximum year ranges of each of the three laboratories' average for Sample 1 (the Shroud).
The computer hacker, as I have alleged, was Arizona Radiocarbon Laboratory physicist Timothy W. G., 2008, "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud," Chemistry Today, Vol 26, No.