[Missouri gal]

1) The radiocarbon dating was debunked by the principal author of the original radiocarbon study when he discovered the rc samples were dyed cotton, not linen. This was explained as a “reweave patch” placed by Marguerite de Charnay in mid thirteenth century. RC dating cannot be repeated because they then coated the shroud with an organic preservative.
2) The blood and internal fluids leaked onto the head wrapping, and stains match the head wrapping (Sudarium of Oviedo, kept in Spain for centuries) in shape and content.

3) Very obvious that the blood flow alternates consistent with alternating position of a crucifixion victim. The victim actually was standing on the nail in the feet.

4) Impossible for anybody in 13th century to know to mix lung fluid with blood from the mouth.

No way does this alleged study meet the “smell test.”

[j.havenfarm]

I agree that this study is very fishy. Of course you’re right about the carbon-14. They didn’t follow the protocols they’d established. The cloth is heavily contaminated, the sample taken from a repaired area. To my
Mind the “Pray Manuscript” is dispositive of the invalidity of the carbon 14. For those unfamiliar with this document, it’s, if I recall, a 12th century painting depicting the shroud that depicted a distinctive series of burn holes and the distinctive weave pattern of the shroud. It is undisputed that the manuscript is older than the earliest age for the
Cloth assigned by the c14 testing.