[WellyP]

I smell a conflict of interest! Carbon dating is very good. There is virtually no way they could have made a 1,000 error.

This is a great Medieval fake!

[pgkdan]

There is virtually no way they could have made a 1,000 error.

You have no idea what you are talking about. There are numerous ways such an error could have been made and most have been discussed here on FR many, many times.

[DuncanWaring]

I’ve read a claim, which I’ll neither advocate nor deprecate, that the carbon-dating test was inadvertently run on a patch made during the era it sustained the burns.

[BertWheeler]

I’m not taking sides here, but the Carbon-14 dating used in 1988 is the “fake” in this issue. The carbon dating also didn’t take into effect the fact that only outlying material was tested nor was the material intrusion taken into effect.

However, like I said before, I’m not taking side - just pointing out inconsistencies.

[Desdemona]

I'm going to add to what some others have said here about the 1988 carbon dating. It was done on a segment of the cloth that was rewoven with cotton dyed to match the color of the linen. The researchers who did the carbon dating confirmed that when they looked more closely at the samples after a textile expert called their attention to some inconsistencies. As a result, the carbon dating has been discarded as any sort of evidence by the very people who ran the tests.

[Domestic Church]

If I recall correctly, I think I read that the error wasn’t in the carbon dating but in the sample of cloth which was used for the carbon dating - it was of a repaired area and I think there were indications of woven repairs made over the centuries and the sample was not from the main original cloth where the corporal stains were located. Of course that raises more questions such as in whose interest is it to sample such a repaired area of the cloth?

Wasn’t there a later carbon dating that went back to the 1st century?

[aruanan]

I smell a conflict of interest! Carbon dating is very good. There is virtually no way they could have made a 1,000 error.

This is a great Medieval fake!

If you actually knew anything about carbon dating as it relates to the Shroud, you'd never have been able to say what you did above.

[Swordmaker]

I smell a conflict of interest! Carbon dating is very good. There is virtually no way they could have made a 1,000 error.

You can if you date, as has now been proved, a cotton patch on a Linen (Flax) shroud.

[muawiyah]

You did know that the current state of knowledge is that the radio carbon dating was OK, but "they" managed to select for measurement a portion of the Shroud that consisted of a Medieval "repair".

The repairs were known about for hundreds of years.

More recently some of the sampled area has been carefully examined and found to consist of 2 kinds of cloth simply weaved together as a repair.

[RightOnline]

Wrong. Ray Rogers’ work (building on some terrific research by others) on this is the definitive statement on the subject. The radiocarbon testing was done (four locations) on samples taken from “rewoven” sections of the Shroud. They were rewoven using a technique known as “invisible weave”.

In short, those were not part of the original Shroud. This is well-known for any who care about little things like “facts”.

It’s not a medieval forgery, period.