[shroudie]

You wrote: "To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the 14C results are greatly exaggerated."

Ah, the original Mark Twain quip was useful for Twain while he still was alive. But it meant nothing, did it, after he was in fact really dead. He could not go about saying it, could he?

And your paraphrase was useful while some were wildly speculating as to why the carbon 14 testing might be wrong. But now, the carbon 14 results are DEAD. They have been proven inaccurate through faulty sampling. There is no doubt about it. It is over, proven wrong. It is time to get over it and move on. See:

http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

For a definative 38 page scientific paper see:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

Shroudie

[Ichneumon]

And your paraphrase was useful while some were wildly speculating as to why the carbon 14 testing might be wrong.

It still is useful.

But now, the carbon 14 results are DEAD. They have been proven inaccurate through faulty sampling. There is no doubt about it. It is over, proven wrong. It is time to get over it and move on.

It *really* doesn't help your case when you wildly overstate things like this and speak in absolute terms. Let's have a look at what you provide for supporting documentation, shall we?

See: http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

Quotes from your source:

"Any change caused by the fire would likely be too trivial to be significant. And while a microbiotic growth found on some archeological artifacts may be present on the Shroud, it is questionable if there can be sufficient quantity of this newer material to alter the measurements enough to make a first century cloth seem medieval."

"The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way."

"It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different."

For a definative 38 page scientific paper see: http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

Are you sure you want to declare that paper "definitive"? It clashes with some of your *other* claims about the shroud...

In any case, about the 14C testing it says:

"The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better selection of samples."

Your own sources say the same thing I do: While there is reason to *question* the applicability of the date of the sample to the date of the shroud as a whole, that's quite simply not the same thing as "it is over, proven wrong", or "is, in fact, inaccurate".

All that has been determined is that the area sampled for 14C dating is different in composition in several ways from the main body of the shroud. And while there are indications that this may be due to subsequent "patching", that can *not* be determined with any degree of certainty. For all we know any "patching" may have been done near the same time as the origination of the shroud itself, or it may simply be a part of the original shroud's production which underwent different treatment or flax from a different source, etc.

Also note that the presumed date of the post-fire patching of shroud, 1532, is *not* consistent with the measured 14C date of the sampled area (AD 1260-1390), so any attempt to write off the sampled area as merely a post-fire patch area has some real 'splaining to do. (And yes, I've seen the attempt to claim that the sample was "half patch and half original cloth", but that itself is inconsistent with the areas determined by Rogers and Arnoldi to be same/different as the main body of the shroud...)

I agree with Rogers and Arnoldi (your own source) when they say that there needs to be 14C dating of less anomalous portions of the shroud in order to settle the issue, but even so the fact remains that at least a portion of the shroud *has* been accurately dated to around 1300AD, and the possibility still remains that the remainder of it may match, regardless of differing composition and weave. Or it may not.

But the point is that in trying to declare the known dating of a portion of the shroud to be "DEAD", or "proven inaccurate", or "no doubt about it ... over, proven wrong", you are engaging in wishful, goal-driven conclusion-making, of the very sort that Rogers and Arnoldi rightly condemn:

"Goal-directed "theories" and pseudoscience have badly damaged the credibility of rigorous scientific studies on the Shroud of Turin. [...] I would like to urge persons tempted to call on "science" to prove their point to please use complete, rigorous science. Anything less is scientifically embarrassing and counterproductive to Shroud studies."