سبق وقولنا ان هذة النتيجة ليست نهائية
دا نتيجة الكربون المشع اللى عملوها لكن العينة الىل خدوها لا تصلح ان يجرى عليها تاريخ وقالوا اسبابهم العلمية
which proved that the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin was flawed because the sample used was invalid
معلش نمت بدرى امبارح 
قبل ان ابين كيف تم اختبار الكربون وكل ماهو متعلق به .. يجب ان اوضح نقطة هامة .. وهى انه سواء كان هو الكفن ام لا .. فلن يؤثر هذا على الايمان المسيحى .. فهل لم يكن هناك ايمان قبل اكتشافه !! بالطبع لا ..
فنحن هنا امام تحليل علمى و ليس العواطف
المرتبطه بالام السيد المسيح عند صلبه لفداء العالم .. والان لنبدأ فى كيفية عمل الاختبار
اولا : ماهى الجهات التى اشتركت بالتحليل
1 - Department of Geosciences,
2 - Department of Physics, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721, USA
3 - Research Laboratory for Archaeology and History of Art, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX1 3QJ, UK
4 - Institut für Mittelenergiephysik, ETH-Hönggerberg, CH-8093 Zürich, Switzerland
5 - Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964, USA
6 - Research Laboratory, British Museum, London WC1B 3DG, UK
ثانيا : من هم العلماء الذين قاموا بالتحليل
P. E. Damon,1 D. J. Donahue,2 B. H. Gore,1 A. L. Hatheway,2 A. J. T. Jull,1 T. W. Linick,2 P. J. Sercel,2 L. J. Toolin,1 C.R. Bronk,3 E. T. Hall,3
R. E. M. Hedges, 3 R. Housley,3 I. A. Law,3 C. Perry,3 G. Bonani,4 S. Trumbore,5 W. Woelfli,4 J. C. Ambers,6 S. G. E. Bowman,6 M. N. Leese6 & M. S. Tite6
ثالثا : كيف تم فصل العينات من الكفن
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully ********ed by video film and photography. The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples
رابعا : خطوات التحليل و القياس
Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.
All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material. The Oxford group cleaned the samples using a vacuum pipette, followed by cleaning in petroleum ether (40° C for 1 h) to remove lipids and candlewax, for example. Zurich precleaned the sample in an ultrasonic bath. After these initial cleaning procedures, each laboratory split the samples for further treatment.
The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples. One pair of subsamples from each textile was treated with dilute HCL, dilute NaOH and again in acid, with rinsing in between (method a). The second pair of subsamples was treated with a commercial detergent (1.5% SDS), distilled water, 0.1% HCL and another detergent (1.5% triton X-100); they were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for 60 min and washed with distilled water at 70° C in an ultrasonic bath (method b).
The Oxford group divided the precleaned sample into three. Each subsample was treated with 1M HCL (80° C for 2h), 1M NaOH (80° C for 2 h) and again in acid, with rinsing in between. Two of the three samples were then bleached in NaOCL (2.5% at pH-3 for 30 min). The Zurich group first split each ultrasonically cleaned sample in half, with the treatment of the second set of samples being deferred until the radiocarbon measurements on the first set had been completed. The first set of samples was further subdivided into three portions. One-third received no further treatment, one-third was submitted to a weak treatment with 0.5% HCL (room temperature), 0.25% NaOH (room temperature) and again in acid, with rinsing in between. The final third was given a strong treatment, using the same procedure except that hot (80° C) 5% HCL and 2.5% NaOH were used. After the first set of measurements revealed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.
All of the groups combusted the cleaned textile subsample with copper oxide in sealed tubes, then converted the resulting CO2 to graphite targets. Arizona and Oxford converted CO2 to CO in the presence of zinc, followed by iron-catalysed reduction to graphite, as described in Slota et al. 6. Zurich used cobalt-catalysed reduction in the presence hydrogen, as described by Vogel et al. 7,8.
خامسا : النتائج
Calibrated date 95% confidence levels
SampleMean Date (yr BP)Calendar date ranges1*691 ± 3168%AD 1273 - 1288 95%AD 1262 - 1312, 1353 - 1384 cal2 **937 ± 1668%AD 1032 - 1048, 1089 - 1119, 1142 - 1154 cal 95%AD 1026 - 1160 cal3**1,964 ± 20***68%AD 11-64 cal 95%9 cal BC - AD 78 cal4**724 ± 2068%AD 1268 - 1278 cal 95%AD 1263 - 1283 cal
وكما نرى كلها متطابقه فى نسبة ال 95 %
و تختلف فى +- نسبة الخطأ من السنوات ... ال 5% الباقية .. فهى بالزيادة و النقص
هؤلاء العلماء مش بيهزروا و انما اتبعوا
الطرق العلمية فى التحليل و القياس
واخيرا .. وبالرغم من هذا .. فالموضوع مفتوح للنقاش
محدش قال هوا كدا و خلاص !
اما السيناريوا لكفن تورينوا ففى المشاركة القادمة
..
