But when I read articles about the results, they never mention the uncalibrated data, which could actually be correct. I am not an expert in every subject that impinges on the discussion, but I will do my best.
There are two reasons uncalibrated dates must be mentioned: 1) this prevents people from making up any number they please, and 2) it is for the sake of posterity, where future scientists can check the results and apply new ideas of calibration. Radiocarbon dates are affected by many outside factors.
The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.His Ph D thesis was on isotope ratios in meteorites, including surface exposure dating.He was employed at Caltech's Division of Geological & Planetary Sciences at the time of writing the first edition.When I did the math from their results section of the YBP, they all turned out to be right around the year 1400 .I understand calibration might have something to do with this, but then in the article it says in italicized words that the uncalibrated date “Must Always Be Mentioned”. CMI’s Dr Rob Carter responds: Anthony, As a fan of biblical archaeology, I was asked to address your question.