Carbon dating is possible.You can see the entire discussion here: QuoraThe likely contamination will not alter the results.
Here is the proof test that have been performed.
In 2008 Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, undertook test to analyze if
carbon-14 found on the weave may have been significantly affected by the weather, the conservation methods employed throughout the centuries, as well as the volatile carbon generated by the fire that damaged the shroud while in Savoy custody at Chambéry. As well as other similar theories including that candle smoke (rich in carbon dioxide) and the volatile carbon molecules produced during the two fires may have altered the carbon content of the cloth.
These tests show no significant reaction – even though the sensitivity of the measurements is sufficient to detect contamination that would offset the age by less than a single year.
Professor Ramsey noted that carbon monoxide does not undergo significant reactions with linen which could result in an incorporation of a significant number of CO molecules into the cellulose structure. He also added that there is as yet no direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate.
Now fair enough that you do not agree with the carbon dating, but please provide some factual evidence to support your claim.
Saying the smoke altered the results is just a bit of hot air.
Furthermore you do realize that the pollen from Palestine theory has been widely discredited. Other studies and examinations have not been able to identify the pollen species with certainty.
One major study that examined the cloth has also concluded that the shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red iron oxide. So yes there are paint pigment on the shroud.
It is an interesting historically significant object, but sadly it is not the shroud of Jesus. But that doesn't matter as a fake cloth should in no way diminish the message of Jesus or the believe in Christianity for people.
There have been successful attempts to reproduce it.
Dr. Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 method used to date small samples as used in the Shroud tests, when presented with these percentages of the known approxmately patching date when the cotton was applied in the French Invisible Reweaving Technique, was asked the potential date for what the date would be for the unknown Flax Linen carbon source would have to be to skew to the dates returned for the various mixes as the known diagonal border seen on the retained fifth subsample. Dr. Gove put those criteria into his calculator and he came to the conclusion that the original non-Cotton material had to have been dated to first century, plus or minus 100 years. He explained the amount of C14 in the newer contaminating material was skewing the date farther forward in time. Error 2
This is factually untrue. If we were to take the results of each of the subsamples tests by them selves, the results span a time period from 1140AD to 1390AD with not a single one of those subsample’s error bars overlapping any of the other subsample’s error bars. That is an impossibility (the Tau squared test) for an item that is supposed to be homogenous. To claim it would not skew the date by even one year is a complete lie, because the sampling data skews itself until the Oxford Lab, Ramsey, averaged the results. That is an impermissible thing to do with these data. Error 6
Here we have another false claim. The identification of the pollen was done by one of the world’s top experts on Panynology… and done at the Source in Israel, Dr. Avinoam Danin, Professor of Botany, Department of Evolution, Systematics, and Ecology The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, The claim it was discredited comes from non-Palynologists who have no expertise, mostly by a guy with a degree in Geology. I’ll go with the scientific publish papers over the popular press stories written by a dilettante skeptic. Error 7
Walter C. McCrone, a visible light microscopist is notorious for his claims back in 1979 for that claim. McCrone never examined the cloth. He had some microscopic slides and sticky tapes borrowed from STURP which he had to be sued to retrieve as he claimed they were “now his” in violation of his agreement. He refused to allow his work to be peer-reviewed and published his findings in his own publication, “The Microscopist,” of which he was publisher and editor. He also believed that everything could be done with a light microscope and even refused to allow his OWN in house electron microscopists to check his conclusions.
However, his claim is the ONLY one who made that unsupported and unduplicated claim that was not supported by numerous other claims that found NO pigments on the shroud that rose to the level of visibility, and NO red ocher (the red iron Oxide), vermillion, and no egg albumin that McCrone claimed to have found in his 300 power microscope. At one point, McCrone claimed he had identified that the grind used in the Red Ochre was a specific type, but that fine grind had only been developed in the early 19th Century. McCrone ignored the work of ELECTRON Microscopists and Electron-microspectroscopy which is so accurate it could analyze the components of the vinyl baggies samples were placed in to the point the analysts could determine the specific manufacturers of those baggies. Those tests found NO pigments, no red ocher, no vermillion, egg albumin (McCrone claimed he could tell the exact dilution of the paint used!), and McCrone has been thoroughly debunked in all of the research applied to the Shroud in the past 55 years since he made his claims. McCrone was a laughing stock among Shroud researchers because he allowed his atheistic viewpoint to blind his scientific conclusions.
We now know WHAT the image is composed of, and it is not any kind of paint, dye, or other applied pigment made by man. It is not a photograph. The image exists in a layer of the starch 100 times thinner than a human hair on top of the surface only of the Linen fibers and does not penetrate into the body of the linen fibers at all. It is made up of aged starch fractions that has apparently aged more than the linen around it. Why? We have no idea. There are no DUSTINGS, no red ocher dusts, no dyes, no photo fixings, no chemical residues different from any other linen fibers… just the starch is aged more. Error 8
To see what REAL science about the Shroud looks like, take a look at this overview is like from Shroud.com, a site run by a practicing Jew.
An overview of current research on the Shroud as of 2004, by Ray N. Rogers