Exsqueeze me, but you're apparently quite ignorant of the scientific peer-review process. Getting past the editors of a publication is just THE FIRST hurdle. In order to actually "pass the review process", as you assert, it has to have been published and available for a while so that the scientific community can evaluate and comment on it, which has NOT BEEN DONE YET, since Roger's paper is just being published THIS MONTH -- and this is the most critical part of the review process.
The research was submitted for peer review in APRIL. It was vetted and underwent some changes in response to criticism from other chemists. It was finally published in January. It will be criticized by a wider audience.
You state this as a certainty, while there is still much debate on that topic. I know *you've* made up your mind, but don't present your opinion as if it were established fact.
It is a certainty that the sample that was burned in the C14 tests is not exemplar of the main body of the shroud. If it is not exemplar then the specific test results of that sample cannot be generalized to the main body of the shroud. That invalidates the test. This would not have occured had not a last minute dumping of the agreed protocols which called for seven sample to be taken from seven areas including image, scorch, and non-image areas, not happened. The area where the 1988 sample was taken was an area where it was agreed the SAMPLE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN because of problems with non-similarity with the rest of the Shroud. On glaring difference was the differences in florescence of that area compared to the rest of the Shroud.
Allegedly... Yes, I know you have reasons for coming to that conclusion -- but others have reasons for disagreeing.
Please provide their reasoning. How can they generalize a test result from a non-exemplar sample to a the thing it is not similar to? The 1988 tests demonstrated a degree of scientific sloppiness that should not have happened.
Say what? Please clarify yourself here. ". . . OUTSIDE the degree of confidence..."
The 1988 sample was cut into five parts (IIRC). Two of the labs got one part and the Arizona lab got two. The reported dates from the three labs' testing of the four samples ranged from 1260 to 1390 AD with a degree of confidence of plus or minus 25 years. Instead, the four samples produced dates that did NOT fall within the 50 year range... they range over 120 years. The "youngest" and "oldest" do not even overlap in their confidence ranges, in fact, they fail to overlap by an astonishing 80 years! For sub-samples cut from the same sample this is FAR TO GREAT. This should have been a red flag.
It is especially interesting that the youngest and oldest were the two samples that were sent to the same lab... the Arizona lab... which has the reputation of being the most accurate. The youngest and oldest were taken from the two opposite ends of the original sample wtih the other two in between. the next youngest was located next to the youngest and the next oldest was located next to the oldest. In other words, as the cloth got closer to the main body of the shroud, the reported ages got older and older.
What "observed ratio" would that be? Surely you're not claiming to be able to know what proportion of which fibers of (alleged) different provenance went into *each* sliver taken from the samples for each 14C test? Manure.
Actually, you can. Photomicrographs were taken of the sample that was taken and of each sub-sample. ALthough not examined at the time for anomolies, they can be seen today. There is a bifurcation of "old" to "new" fibers running lengthwise through the sample at a slight diagonal bias where the "invisible" reweaving intertwined threads with cotton intermixed in the linen fibers with the original threads with no cotton intermixed. In addition, it is these new fibers that show a differeing "fullering" method than is seen on the rest of the shroud. The percentage of "new" fiber is greater in the "younger" sample end (estimated at about 60% new) and lesser in the "older: sample end (about 40%).
Double manure. If you don't (and can't) know the actual proportions of (again, allegedly) different provenance threads in the actual 14C sample slivers (which is likely to *NOT* be the same as the proportion in the full sample swatch itself), then it's ludicrous to be able to make any such conclusion.
Since we CAN KNOW the approximate proportions of the mixed materials, it is possible to calculate the approximate age of the original fibers if one knows an approximate date for the new material. IIRD it was Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 dating method, who was asked to do the calculations. My recollection is that the results were 1st Century with a degree of confidence of plus or minus 100 years. The much high than normal range is due to the estimates of the proportions and the estimate for when the repair was done.
Gove also agreed that the C14 tests were invalid because of the non-exemplar nature of the samples.
Furthermore, even Rogers seems to disagree with you, since he apparently has concluded that the "original" material can only be pinned down to a wide age range of 1700 or so years ("between 1,300 and 3,000"). So how exactly did *you* manage to pin it down to an exact century, hmm?
Rogers Lignin/Vanillin test works only on samples younger than 1300 years because at that date the vanillin is essentially undetectable and can provide no information beyond that. I believe he selected the 3000 as an outer range because that is about how old similar cloths have been found preserved.
At the very least, Rogers should consider how much heat could have entered the cloth through AIR CONVECTION, which is how heat from a fire is usually spread. In short, hot air (part of the shroud was ON FIRE at the time) spreads and heats other nearby materials it passes through/over. For Rogers to just mumble about "low thermal conductivity" in linen, as if the only way a piece of cloth ON FIRE could have other parts of it heated is by having the heat directly conducted along the lengths of the fibers themselves, like a spoon handle eventually getting hot while the other end of it rests in the soup bowl...
IChneumon, Linen degrades rapidly in the presence of heat, whether conducted through the fibers or convected by the air... and it changes color. Rogers is quite familiar with the transfer of heat... he is a Pyrolosis Chemist. However the heat is applied to the linen, it would have done so in a non-homogeneous manner. Some areas of the shroud were reduced to ash, other merely discolored and most of the rest apparently unaffected. The test for the vanillin reaction was negative in all parts of the shroud except for the C14 sample area. This alone shows that the sampled area is not exemplar of the body of the shroud.
And Rogers entire "test" is based on the assumption that his (untested) model of vanillin leeching out of the linen has is valid under all conditions. I see nothing in his paper which attempts to deal with the fact that vanillin changes from a solid crystal to a liquid at about 82 degrees C. (180-ish F.), temperatures easily reached in proximity to a fire -- might this hasten or otherwise affect the vanillin loss? Rogers doesn't even *attempt* to examine that question.
Actually it has. Independent test of linen being heated and even burned were undertaken. I cannot find the article right now, but I recall reading it about six months ago.
Perfect response!