Was any explanation ever given for why they ignored STURP's recommendations on how to take the Shroud samples?
Is there any assurance that they will follow such advice if another series of samples is taken or that some other kind of mistake wont also be made?
If another inexplicable mistake is made and the C14 test comes out with a 7th century date, for example, would this not just about destroy any further exploration into the Shrouds origin?
I am just curious about how those in charge of any C14 dating will be able to know that they have a reliable sample.
Also, if the dating does come back as 1st century AD, will that settle the argument? I am doubtful on that score.
bump
No explanation was offered... but one can be assumed: politics. The Italian authorities and the Church's science committee on the shroud had their noses put out of joint by the expertise demonstrated by STURP. It is noteworthy that after the 1988 C14 fiasco, that almost all Shroud decisions are being made unilaterally by the Church's Science Committee... composed almost entirely of Italians.
Is there any assurance that they will follow such advice if another series of samples is taken or that some other kind of mistake wont also be made?
But three prestigious C14 labs have a lot of egg on their faces right now for not following the post sampling protocols that might have discovered the problem before testing. In addition, the Church would be much more alert to any finagling that might take place with the protocols as happened at literally the last moment in 1988. At the time the sample was cut, the scientists and the custodian of the Shroud argued for over two hours before the bad sample was chosen... that is not what should have happened.
The STURP photographs, both visible light and ultraviolet, SHOWED that there were problems with the sampled area. The patch is distinctly darker in visible light photos and distinctly lighter in UV-photos (which Barrie showed in his presentation Saturday). Had they bothered to do the chemical tests required in the original protocols, the problem would have become obvious.
There now exists plenty of removed Shroud material from the cut away portions of the charred areas that were either scraped or scissored out in the 2002 "restoration." These could be tested without impacting the Shroud in any way since their removal has already been done.
There is another problem. The Church's Science Committee not only selected the wrong sample of the Shroud, but they also turned their attention to the casket that stores the Shroud when it is not on display. Without asking anyone about the potential adverse chemical effects, the committee decided to sanitize and preserve the wood in the casket by treating it with Thymol [(CH3)2CHC6H3(CH3)OH]. It is an spicy smelling aromatic crystalline substance that evaporates and suffuses into wood and cloth. It is used by some museums to protect items. However, it is made with Eucalyptus oils derived from modern Eucalyptus trees...grown in today's CO2... and because it suffuses through an object carrying its own chemical makeup into the object, it has a Carbon 14 impact. The museum grade Thymol contents label provided this information:(50% C14, 40% C12, 10% C16)! C14 test technicians state that Thymol is a distinct problem when dating Thymol suffused objects.
It may be that an accurate C14 test is no longer possible because of this ill-advised treatment of the casket with Thymol... which has the unfortunate side effect of also suffusing the Shroud.
There are even more problems with Thymol as related to the Shroud:
The problems associated with surface analyses are now compounded by the fact that thymol was used to sterilize the reliquary after the 1988 sampling operation. Thymol is a phenolic compound that will react with many functional groups on the Shroud. This will confuse image analyses, and it may result in damage to the cloth. As one example, we found a significant amount of iron in the Shroud's cloth. Iron reacts with phenolic compounds to form complexes, and some of them are intensely colored. I would urge the custodians of the Shroud to consult with chemists before taking other irreversible actions. - www.shroudstory.com's FAQ
Another example of irreversibly bad science was Max Frei's sampling with sticky tape. He literally used an off-brand cellophane tape he purchased in an Italian "dime store" on the way to the Cathedral. The STURP team had brought with them a sticky tape specially designed by 3M to not leave residue and built an expensive applicator that applied the tape with a known amount of force. Frei used his thumb. In later years, wherever Frei stuck his tape, a dark rectangular pattern of dirt could be seen. Frei and Don Devan (IIRC) almost came to blows when Devan stopped Frei from applying his dime store tape to the image of the face. He was successful, but Frei was angry... but time has proved Devan correct.
Also, if the dating does come back as 1st century AD, will that settle the argument? I am doubtful on that score.
Nope... Science can prove what it is not. It can provide information about what it is... but not who it is. That will probably always remain a matter of personal opinion and faith.