The analysis says nothing about fraud, only that carbon 14 dating procedures were less reliable in 1988.
Why do you think Myrah felt the need to misrepresent the findings?
She didn't misrepresent. There's a lot of backstory behind the testing. Including the samples being all taken from the same area where it had previously been agreed NOT to take samples from.
Including some of the testers having an agenda to disprove the Shroud going in, and chortling about the results.
Including the results (supposedly from the same homogeneous sample) giving results for the age outside of each others 95% confidence error bars.
But by all means, keep on trolling.
No, it does not make that claim. The tests were quite accurate. . . They are just as accurate today. . . But we are able to test smaller samples now. That doesn’t mean the tests in 1988 were inaccurate. In fact, they were quite accurate for what they tested, and that is the problem. The accuracy of the tests SHOWS that what was tested was NOT homogenous.
For a C14 test to be considered valid, the sample being tested must representative of the whole item being dated. Yet the test dates that were returned from just a very small 2 ½ inch x ½ inch sample cut from one end of the Shroud of Turin turned out to so in disagreement with each other the sample itself was determined with a 95% degree of confidence to itself to be NOT homogenous with itself! In other words, from one end of the sample to the other, it was made of differing materials of differing ages! This is unheard of in C14 testing on such a small test sample; it’s a HUGE red flag that something is wrong with the sample In fact, the ages reported creation dates that varied over possible range from 1220AD to 1410AD or 190 years. What was worse was the degrees of confidence of each of the tested sub-samples from the three testing labs, using four samples, did not once overlap another lab’s tests! They should have all been within a range of 25 years, not 190. They were all using the same C14 technique. The testing lab in charge of the overall testing knew this, but they covered it up and rounded the results to get what they wanted it to be. They FUDGED the results.
Not only that, but the ages of the testing seemed to get older the closer into the center of the Shroud the sub-samples were, implying a variable contamination was affecting the master sample. Again, in other words, as the sub-sample got further away from the edge of the cloth, the older the sub-sample tested, implying a larger percentage of older material was being dated, compared to a younger amount closer to the edge.
Prior to this article there have been several other peer-reviewed scientific articles published that have proved that what was tested was a patched area of the Shroud that included a mix of original Linen which had had newer dyed cotton threads re-woven into it by a technique called French Invisible Reweaving, In this technique a skilled artisan matches the color of the original material by dying threads, then actually twists each thread into existing threads of the cloth, and then replicates the weave, repairing a frayed or torn section, interweaving original with new threads. Such patches are invisible to the eye and were used to repair Arras and Tapestries. Under an existing photomicrograph of the original sample taken of the 1988 C14 sample, a slight difference can be discerned between the right and left side threads. A thread from Raes’ Sample taken in 1976 from the area immediately adjacent to the 1988 C14 sample was examined and it fell into two pieces, one part was dyed cotton, the other was Flax Linen. It is thought that the repair was most likely done in the mid-17th Century using then modern French cotton. Combining that age cotton with 1st Century Flaxen Linen in a 40%-60% to 60%-40% varying melange results in the exact dates the 1988 C14 tests reported for each sub-sample locations with those proportions of old to new threads.
Other peer-reviewed statistical papers starting in the early 1990s, using just the various labs’ reported dates, not the raw data, have pointed out the 1988 C14 failed the basic statistical tests for validity any C14 test must meet to be considered valid for homogeneity. There were at least four of these papers published confirming this falsification of the C14 tests on statistical basis alone without access to the raw data.
In 2003, the Late Ray N. Rogers was able to get thread samples from retained middle sub-sample from the 1988 C14 master sample and run tests on them with the intent to falsify the patch hypothesis. To his surprise he found that the left side was made of cotton, dyed with madder root, and bleached and sized with alum, while the left side was undyed and sun-bleached Flaxen Linen. There were distinct twisted together joins of the two pieces. The Linen was Z twist, while the Cotton was S twist and slightly smaller in diameter. He also found a large amount of Vanillan in the Cotton, but no Vanillan in the Flax. Vannillan is a chemical in plants that dissipated over time and takes about 1,400 years to completely disappear. It was Rogers opinion that the Shroud had to be older than 1,400 years for the flax Vannillan to be completely dissipated. Instead of falsifying the patch hypothesis, he actually wound up confirming that hypothesis.
Rogers published his findings in the peer-reviewed chemical journal “Thermochemica Acta” in 2005.