Arizona AMS Laboratory
A solid case for 1005-6 AD.
I'm going to throw some dirt or should I say a morsel or crumb next to mv.
The Arizona AMS Laboratory radio carbon dated the Shroud of Turin which is 200 years off in a sample and the Voynich which is 60 years off in a sample. However I'm claiming it to be 400 years off so who is wrong and right? Maybe f68 is two hundred years off according too Rene Zandbergen. This is not an exact science folks.
A solid case for 1005-6 AD.
I'm going to throw some dirt or should I say a morsel or crumb next to mv.
Quote:the NSF-Arizona AMS Laboratory at the University of Arizona has conducted radiocarbon dating on both the Shroud of Turin and the Voynich Manuscript, playing a crucial role in scientific investigations of both controversial artifacts.
The Arizona AMS Laboratory radio carbon dated the Shroud of Turin which is 200 years off in a sample and the Voynich which is 60 years off in a sample. However I'm claiming it to be 400 years off so who is wrong and right? Maybe f68 is two hundred years off according too Rene Zandbergen. This is not an exact science folks.
Quote:In 2010, statisticians Marco Riani and Anthony C. Atkinson wrote in a scientific paper that the statistical analysis of the raw dates obtained from the three laboratories for the radiocarbon test suggests the presence of contamination in some of the samples. They conclude that: "The effect is not large over the sampled region; … our estimate of the change is about two centuries."[49]
In December 2010, Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A. Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon-dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F. Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:The assumptions used to combine the results were clearly explained by Rene Zandbergen:
“A combined dating of the Voynich MS
The dating of each folio doesn’t allow a very precise dating of the MS. The uncertainty in age for each folio is some 50-60 years, and in the case of fol.68 even spans two centuries due to the above-mentioned inversions of the calibration curve. The book production process is likely to have taken considerably less time than these 50-60 years. Under the assumptions that:
– The MS was indeed created over a time span not exceeding (e.g.) 10 years
– It was not using parchment that was prepared many years ago
each sheet provides a measurement or ‘observation’ of the MS creation. Since they are likely to be from different animal hides, these are indeed independent observations. Combining these observations leads to a combined un-calibrated age of 1435 ± 26 years (1 sigma).”
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.