|Chemical Differences||Carbon 14 Sample Area||Main Part of the Shroud of Turin|
|aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing||Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud)||Virtually none|
| Madder-root dye (alizarin and
|a gum medium (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant||Found||Not present|
|Lignin at fiber growth nodes||Very little||Significant|
|vanillin in lignin||Found||Not found|
|cotton fiber in thread||Found||Not found|
|spliced fibers||Found||Not found|
The photograph shown in a previous posting, according to Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud -- in Turin -- and studied the object for more than 27 years, "shows the fluorescence of the area of the radiocarbon sample. It proves that the radiocarbon sample did not have the same chemical composition as the rest of the cloth. This is a fact - not an interpretation. . . Notice that the entire area above the Raes sample [the tiny white triangle on the bottom edge] and along the seam is darker than the main part of the cloth. It does not fluoresce. . .Its chemical composition is different from the Shroud. That is exactly the area sampled for the 1988 dating fiasco. . . The radiocarbon sample was invalid. No strange, magical events are needed to explain the invalid date. I do not know what the real date is, but I know the sample used in 1988 did not yield a valid date. The poor preparation for sampling in 1988, the poor verification of the sample, the failure to follow written protocols, and the unrealistic claims made about "unreliable" radiocarbon dating have done great damage."
The carbon 14 testing, sadly attested to in Nature Magazine in 1989, joins the ranks of junk science. It wasn't the labs that failed. It was the gross incompetence of the sample selection process.
The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail. To sum up the current state of the scientific investigation, the carbon dating does NOT still stand.
As additional information you might consider the book, The Blood and the Shroud, by Ian Wilson, published in 1998. To quote The Washington Post (sorry 'bout that), "Wilson's outstanding study must surely be the most complete yet undertaken of the subject." Although it is the most recent book I have personally read on the subject, you can probably find more up to date info. However, it is quite readable and answers most of the non-radiocarbon dating questions quite well.
The recent discoveries (repairs at the site of sample used for radiocarbon dating, 1st century stitching methodology, image on the back) are obviously not addressed in the book.
Since you raised the radiocarbon dating question, I should re-emphasize the two points I made in my earlier post: fire and biocontamination. Both are addressed in the above referenced book, and both have the potential to skew the results substantially more than you might realize.
1. The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud, binding carbon items from the atmosphere at the time of the fire.
2. The biological "sheath" was quite thick, resulting in enough biomass to skew the results substantially.
These two points are separate from the repairs made to the cloth at the site of the sample, which is sufficient to invalidate the radiocarbon testing all by itself.