While this hypothesis has been argued on the basis of indirect chemistry, it can be discounted on the basis of evident bandings in the 1978 radiographs and transmitted light images of STURP. These data photographs show clearly that the banding structures (which are in the Shroud) propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would, ten years later, be where the sample was taken for radiocarbon dating.
Dr. Jackson's is mischaracterizing Raymond N. Rogers' peer-reviewed chemical tests as "indirect chemistry." As a matter of fact, Rogers' tests were done on the remaining sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 for the Carbon Dating tests and threads and small pieces of the main body of the Shroud. Rogers' chemistry analysis showed that the sample that was C-14 tested was both physically and chemically not the same as the main body of the Shroud, regardless of the radiographic and transmitted light photographs showing a continuation of "banding structures" cited by Dr. Jackson as if that alone was proof that the sample was the same as the main body of the Shroud. The banding structures are visible to the naked eye and could have been incorporated into the repaired repaired areas by the extremely skilled French weavers who apparently repaired the cloth in the mid 16th Century.
Among the discrepancies where the tested area differ from the main body of the shroud are:
All of these show that the sample that was tested is not homogenous (the same) as the Main body of the Shroud.
Thanx for the ping ot this on-going discussion. Has there been dating done of old woven materials perahps going back to the Roman period, as a control for this hypothesis, to check if ‘enrichment’ is seen in such other material?