Giulio Fanti writes:
In reference to the paper on the TS (Turin Shroud) just published in the Radiocarbon Journal, there are very few news from my point of view. In fact I had the occasion to perform a parallel study and I know that there is not so much additional material physically visible on the TS linen fibers to explain a significant variation in the resulting date.
Instead, in agreement with a statistical study recently published (London School of Economics Site), and in agreement with a new chemical study in publication, from a Spanish University, I am convinced that there is a non negligible chemical contamination of the cellulose contained in the TS linen fibers. This contamination could be responsible for the variation of many centuries in the resulting date.
In addition, we must remember that the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet explained by science and many hypotheses for this explanation make reference to a burst of energy. Therefore we are not able to define which ambient factor could have interacted with the TS linen. This is in contrast with one of the Libby’s postulates (he was the C-14 method inventor) for the radiocarbon dating and therefore every radiocarbon result relative
according to the Nature’s article: “All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and REMOVE any foreign material….. AFTER these initial cleaning procedures, each laboratory split the samples for further treatment. The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples…”.
Jull in his recent paper states that he found cotton fibers in his sample.
But that’s impossible if Nature tell us the truth!
“The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples. One pair of subsamples from each textile was treated with dilute HCL, dilute NaOH and again in acid, with rinsing in between (method a). The second pair of subsamples was treated with a commercial detergent (1.5% SDS), distilled water, 0.1% HCL and another detergent (1.5% triton X-100)…”.
again: How could prof. Jull have found in his sample wax, spores, iron oxide if the 4 subsamples were treated?
Ann Hedlund, the textile expert consulted by Jull, established that the warp fabric count is 30 yarns per cm (76 per inch) and the weft is 40 yarns per cm (102 inch).
That is very strange since other experts counted differently:
Timossi: warp/40 weft/27
Raes: warp/38,6 weft/25,7
Vial: Warp/37,6 weft/25,8
Vercelli: warp/36 weft/24
Hedlund/Jull: warp/30 weft/40
It’s time for independent observers to examine the hold-back reserve to determine whether there is any support for the Ray Rogers-Joe Marino-Sue Benford thesis (I could add more names but you get the point.) In depth examniation of the reserves which would be non-desatructive of the Shroud itself would be a first step in resolving what little remains of the credibility of the C-14 tests.
As long as the labs withhold their reserve from scrutiny the question will be: what are they hiding?
Comments are closed.