Archidiacre a écrit : ↑dim. 21 oct. 2018, 14:39 Ce qui rend la datation au carbone 1988 plus "officielle", c'est simplement toute l'organisation publique par l'Eglise ainsi que sa médiatisation générale (vidéos, documentaires, etc.). Mais si vous feuilletez un minimum la recherche scientifique, vous constatez qu'il n'y a jamais plus de certifications exigées dans les datations d'autres artefacts, que dans celles des études du Dr. Fanti. Mais bien sûr ici, il y a des égos en jeu, ce qui crée un deux poids deux mesures entre le jugement d'une datation du suaire et celle d'autres tissus sans importance médiatique: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 5X15002817 Pour l'un, on cherchera a créer des controverses, à attaquer la bonne foi des auteurs, à élaborer des théories de falsifications, pour l'autre, on ne dira rien, même si les deux articles sont autant en règles au niveau de la démarche scientifique.

"je vous demande de me citer un seul scientifique non-croyant qui y adhère" ...Attaquer sur la foi personnelle de chercheurs, de leurs collaborateurs, des pairs qui ont revu leurs études et les éditeurs qui les ont publiées, et ce sans aucune preuve, pour discréditer une affirmation scientifique, c'est ridicule, mais bien représentatif de votre incapacité à argumenter concrètement sur le fond et sans attaque personnelle.

Il a été peer reviewed en tant que procédé AVANT sa publication, ce qui se fait dans presque tous les journaux scientifiques qui soumettent chaque publication à un comité de lecture scientifique avant de les laisser publiées. Ca n'a donc aucun sens logique, si on sait de quoi on parle, de chercher des citations ultérieures pour dire s'il a été revu par des pairs ou non. C'était la condition de la publication de la revue et il n'y a pas besoin d'études publiées avant celle-ci. Vous confondez des concepts que vous ne comprenez pas. Il aurait suffi, même en ne sachant utiliser que google, de se renseigner auprès des éditeurs:

Peer Review Policy
We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in all World Scientific and Imperial College Press journals. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process. Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:
• Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
• Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
• Papers will be refereed by at least 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
• In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
• All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
• All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
• Editors and reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
• Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.

https://www.worldscientific.com/page/au ... iew-policy

During the International Symposium, held in Rome in 1993, statistician Philippe Bourcier de Carbon listed fifteen points of failure in the radiocarbon history of the Shroud: 1.absence of a formal report of the sampling;
2.absence of a video archive on the final steps of the samples packaging;
3.in the official reports, contradictions about the cutting and the weight of the samples by people in charge of sampling;
4.breaches of the protocols initially planned for the operation of dating;
5.rejection of the usual procedure of double-blind test;
6.refusal of the interdisciplinary documentation, which is usual in the procedures for radiocarbon dating;
7.exclusion of acknowledged specialists in the Shroud, particularly American scientists who
participated in previous works of STURP;
8.communication to the laboratories, most unusual, of the dates of the control samples prior to testing;
9.intercommunication of results among the three laboratories during the job;
10.disclosure to the media of the first results before the delivering of the findings;
11.refusal to publish raw results of the measurements (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989);
12.non-explanation of the unique isolation of the confidence interval of the measures performed by the Oxford laboratory compared to those made by other laboratories;
13.unacceptable value of 6.4 published in the journal Nature for the chi-squared statistical test on the results of the radiocarbon dosage on the Shroud;
14.rejection of any cross-debate on the statistical measures performed;
15.rejection, absolutely uncommon, of the publication of the statistical expertise of this operation, officially entrusted to professor Bray of “G. Colonnetti” Institute of Turin (requested also with insistence in its official statement by the Scientific Committee which prepared the Symposium in Paris in 1989).

C'est à vous de prouver qu'il avait été forcé (y croire sans preuve est étrange pour un sceptique).

-Ca n'est pas moi qui les dit controversées, mais bien des scientifiques, je me permet à nouveau de vous rafraîchir la mémoire:

toutes les attaques de la datation au carbone ont jusqu'ici été faites par des arguments scientifiques

Si l'argument de la médiatisation ne vaut rien dans le débat, alors abstenez-vous.

D'ailleurs, ce vilain complotiste a publié cette critique dans le journal Nature, et un docteur ayant travaillé sur l'étude lui a répondu en CONFIRMANT que cela n'avait pas été filmé et que c'était illogique.

-Inutile de m'attarder sur l'évêque de Turin tant que vous esquiverez constamment les faits qui montrent que ses propos ne s'appliquent pas à tout échantillon et qu'il se trompe sur d'autres, et que le Pape lui-même a approuvé l'étude de Fanti:

Exemple de review de son livre qui rappelle sa démission: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3179806?se ... b_contents. Je n'ai pas son propre livre, mais on peut voir dans l'aperçu de la page 172 "My STURP resignation letter to John Jackson" https://books.google.ie/books?redir_esc ... esignation

"After carbon-14 dating [2] of a linen piece taken from a corner of the TS, the scientific controversy regarding its authenticity exploded. Indeed, the medieval date, derived from carbon-14 analysis, is evidently not compatible with the historical period in which Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine, i.e., about 2000 years ago. At the same time, carbon-14 dating results remained controversial
[…] "
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7416301625
"The purpose of our article is not to discuss the reliability of the various assumptions made, but to show how robustmethods of statistical analysis […] can help to shed light on
results that are a source of scientific controversy.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/G_ ... 000000.pdf

Il a été peer reviewed en tant que procédé AVANT sa publication, ce qui se fait dans presque tous les journaux scientifiques qui soumettent chaque publication à un comité de lecture scientifique avant de les laisser publiées. Ca n'a donc aucun sens logique, si on sait de quoi on parle, de chercher des citations ultérieures pour dire s'il a été revu par des pairs ou non. C'était la condition de la publication de la revue et il n'y a pas besoin d'étude publiées avant celle-ci. Vous confondez des concepts que vous ne comprenez pas. Il aurait suffit, même en ne sachant utiliser que google, de se renseigner auprès des éditeurs:

Peer Review Policy
We are committed to prompt evaluation and publication of fully accepted papers in all World Scientific and Imperial College Press journals. To maintain a high-quality publication, all submissions undergo a rigorous review process. Characteristics of the peer review process are as follows:
• Simultaneous submissions of the same manuscript to different journals will not be tolerated.
• Manuscripts with contents outside the scope will not be considered for review.
• Papers will be refereed by at least 2 experts as suggested by the editorial board.
• In addition, Editors will have the option of seeking additional reviews when needed. Authors will be informed when Editors decide further review is required.
• All publication decisions are made by the journal's Editors-in-Chief on the basis of the referees' reports. Authors of papers that are not accepted are notified promptly.
• All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat manuscripts as confidential material as well.
• Editors and reviewers involved in the review process should disclose conflicts of interest resulting from direct competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, and remove oneself from cases in which such conflicts preclude an objective evaluation. Privileged information or ideas that are obtained through peer review must not be used for competitive gain.
• Our peer review process is confidential and identities of reviewers cannot be revealed.

https://www.worldscientific.com/page/au ... iew-policy

2. The C-14 testers from three labs witnessed the cutting of a sample from the Shroud and the cutting of that sample into three samples, but they did not immediately obtain those samples.3. The Shroud samples were taken to another location where they were presumably sealed into containers which the C-14 testers then received. Only Ballestrero (the Shroud's custodian), Gonella (the scientific advisor to the Shroud's custodian), and Tite were present at the undocumented sample sealing. Consequently, the testers, who were not present, cannot say for a fact that the samples they obtained were the samples they saw cut from the Shroud. (Note: Twin samples could have come from an area of the Shroud rewoven during medieval times, or from the Shroud's side-strip which may be medieval, or from a medieval cloth similar in weave to the Shroud.

L'archevêque de Turin n'avait fait que répéter l'affirmation du Cardinal Saldarini en 1995 remettant en cause la source des échantillons. Mais la situation sur la provenance de l'échantillon a été clarifiée à plusieurs reprises. D'une part, parce que cela ne concerne pas ceux reçus en 1978 comme Saldarini l'avait précisé: " this is evidently not the case of the research carried out on material taken for the tests in October 1978 and following the explicit authorization of the Papal Custodian;"
D'une autre parce que c'est erroné et qu'il y a bel et bien d'autres échantillons en vigueur:
"... I had been caught in a political situation in which the words of Cardinal Ballestrero would be disregarded once he relinguished his custodianship of the Shroud to Cardinal Saldarini, as happened in September 1990 ... When I obtained the samples in Turin in May 1993 ... I believed that Riggi and Gonella had the authority to give me the samples. ... Were the samples from Riggi truly from the Shroud of Turin? I have the photograph of Cardinal Ballestrero's seal on the container in which the samples were kept. There is no doubt, as one looks at the samples, that they are from the Shroud. Also, during my conference at the Polytechnic of Turin, where I showed the photographs of the samples, Dr Franco A. Testore, who had actually done the weighing of the Shroud segments, recognized the three trimmings as being from the borders of the segment cut on April 21, 1988." (Garza-Valdes, 1998, pp.76-77. ).
Voir: https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2 ... -show.html
Dans son livre de 2015, l'avocat Marco Conca donnait lui-même les preuves que l'échantillon était bel et bien fiable, et qu'il avait même reçu l'approbation de Monseigneur Peter Wells au nom de Benoit XVI (scan des lettres à l'appui) en p.278.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/978 ... Fb18627-15

antoine75 a écrit : ↑ven. 19 oct. 2018, 14:14 Je n'ai pas trouvé ma réponse à ma question : la matière traçant le corps sur le suaire est elle de matière végétale, de parfum mêlé à des traces de sang ? Ça doit être simple à analyser ça sans parler de la composition du suaire en lin.

l'archevêque de Turin ne visait pas à réfuter les études en question

the Holy See and the Papal Custodian declare that no serious value can be recognized to the
results of such experiments.

The TS dating have been performed using flax fibers sampled from the TS by STURP members; the first Author has their traceability documents that is also reported in Ref. [14]. For example in the case of the mechanical dating, eight different TS fibers, coming from the “h” Filter (corresponding to a dusts vacuumed from the back of the TS in correspondence of the glutes area) have been recognized as such by the first author among others using a petrographic microscope and a particular technique based on cross-polarization [17]. TS fibers in fact present a greater number of transversal defects (kink bands) than other more recent flax fibers and it is therefore relatively easy to detect them.

Leurs études sont faites sans une once d'objectivité

Regardez les trois liens que vous partagez juste derrière, aucun rapport avec votre affirmation que vous cherchez à valider en sous entendant que vous possédez la preuve de se que vous avancez.

. Mike Tite, the test coordinator, said that "all stages" of the sampling of the Shroud would
"be fully documented by video film and photography" (Nature 332, 482; 7 April 1988).
This was not done. The sealing of the samples into containers was not documented on
film. No explanation has been given

Il avait en effet pu étudier le Codex Pray – un document écrit entre 1192 et 1195 – à la Bibliothèque nationale de Budapest. Il est fait état dans ce document d’un linceul vénéré à Constantinople. Détail surprenant : les représentations de ce linceul montrent 4 trous dans l’étoffe, disposés en forme de L, exactement comme sur le Saint-Suaire actuel.