Secondly, none of the radiocarbon dates for mammoths given in that table are 44,000 or 29,500. 30Same paper (slightly different citation) same flaws: There is no direct quote saying that in the article and the dates themselves aren’t in the table either.So not only is the quote a fabrication but the information contained in it is too.“One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the ‘wood immediately around the carcass’ was 9-10,000.” Troy L. As if that wasn’t bad enough, Dima wasn’t found until 1977 – two years after the citation was published.
Proof carbon dating false
It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet.
It has also been noted that there is a space where the front and back of the head meet, and that what appears to be the outline of the back of the head is a water stain.
Here once again, we see the remains of mammoths being paraded as evidence for evolution, when quite the opposite is true.
I’m somewhat skeptical that describing a CT scan as high-tech is part of some brainwashing campaign.
This means that the direct quote given in is a pure fabrication.
No part of the article goes “one part of the Vollosovitch mammoth…”, it’s all a table."All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century."The "shroud" of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide with an image of a man on it.Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle.And what, may I ask, are “major skeletal differences?””So we find two members of the same species that lived at different times and also have different anatomy.Also, as the paper linked to just now should indicate, “theorists” do mention that these mammoths were found with vegetation.