[Soliton]

Which, of course, is why so many respected scientists have agreed that the Carbon-14 tests were flawed and Oxford University is doing new tests, last I heard?

The "flawed C-14 tests were accurate. They were taken under a very strict protocol and under direct observation of the Vatican and experts in carbon dating. Rogers received a specimen that was allegedly from the shroud without any protocol whatsoever. The original scientists stand by their results. If Rogers wants to prove them wrong, he will have to do another C-14 test. Something that will never happen. His vanillin dating test was invented by him as a bogus way to allow for a first century date. It is not only totally invalid, but borders on fraud.

[grey_whiskers]

The "flawed C-14 tests were accurate. They were taken under a very strict protocol and under direct observation of the Vatican and experts in carbon dating. Rogers received a specimen that was allegedly from the shroud without any protocol whatsoever. The original scientists stand by their results.

Have you looked at THE SAME WEBSITE YOU POSTED FROM ?

Click here. The problem is that the history of the Shroud, from the preparation of the linen fabric to its storage over the ages, may have resulted in properties which make *any* C-14 dating problematic.

And looky here!

This paper, also on the site you quoted from (but somehow neglected to mention, and ignored even after it was given to you in post 47), is not peer-reviewed: it *is* a review, of the problems with the statistics cited in your own article from Nature.
And it includes accounts of personal conversations with the scientists who did the testing in that paper.

Oh, yes, post 47 was commended to you in post 73.

Finally -- do you know the difference between accuracy and precision? Do you know the meaning of the term "systematic error"?

Cheers!