Rachel Freer and Timothy Jull wanted to prove that the tissue [cloth] sample used for dating of 1988 is equal to that of the Shroud. Instead, they demonstrated that it is different!

— Gian Marco Rinaldi
Google Translation from Italian of the
abstract from a paper,  “Autogol a Tucson”

For a complete Google translation of the full paper click on Read More

Own goal in Tucson

Gian Marco Rinaldi

Rachel Freer Timothy Jull and wanted to prove that the tissue sample used for dating of 1988 is equal to that of the Shroud. Instead, they demonstrated that it is different!
The Shroud can rejoice. For years they tried to prove that the angle of the cloth of the Shroud from which was cut the flap used for radiocarbon dating is not representative because it is a darn or patch. There were successful, but now comes to their rescue by none other than Timothy Jull, the current Director of the Radiocarbon Laboratory of the University of Arizona (Tucson) and one of the authors of date of 1988.

Jull kept since 1988 a piece of the Shroud of half a square centimeter, which was part of received sample for dating, but then was sidelined. In 2008 he removed from the drawer fragment of the Shroud be studied and given to Rachel Freer, which is expected to be a specialist archaeological fabric. In fact, the Freer was a young graduate who enjoyed a scholarship a year granted by a private foundation and was spending at the University Museum (Arizona State Museum) in Tucson. [1] After two years, Freer and Jull have now published an article in Radiocarbon (the important magazine edited by the same Jull) in the December 2010. [2] Their purpose was to demonstrate that the sample used for dating was no different from the rest of the cloth of the Shroud, Shroud thus disproving those who would like that area sampling has been mended or patched in medieval times. The authors are convinced that they have demonstrated it. Actually showed the opposite.

How many threads?

Freer and Jull counted, respectively, for warp and weft, the number of threads per centimeter in their fragment and show values quite different from those provided by textile experts in the past on several occasions examined the fabric of the Shroud. In the first column in the table show the values of Freer and Jull, compared with those of Piero Vercelli, Gabriel Vial and Gilbert Raes.
Freer Vercelli Vial Raes
warp threads / cm 30 36 37.5 37.8 38.6
weft threads / cm 40 24 25 25.8 25.7
Vercelli for the first column has the values measured in 1997 on the "reserve sample" preserved in Turin, a small strip that was adjacent to the samples provided to laboratories for dating. The second column has an estimate for the average values of the Shroud in general. The shroud has an uneven texture with threads of constant thickness, then there may be Small differences in the density of lines between one area and another, but a difference as strong as for example, for the plot, 25 to 40 is not feasible. Freer and Jull also found that the density of warp threads is less than that of weft threads, while the opposite is true for the Shroud. So if we fidassimo data Freer and Jull, we conclude that the tissue that was subjected to dating was different from that of Shroud. That is the champion of 1988 was uneven and not representative of the whole cloth. Maybe that area had been mended or patched over the centuries, or maybe even the sample came from Shroud but had been replaced with a sample from another tissue. In any case, the dating medieval would be invalidated.

It must be our conclusion? No, thankfully we do not need to trust the data
Freer and Jull ourselves because we can control the number of wires on their piece of tissue.

But in Tucson know how to count?

The authors are not publishing in Radiocarbon a photograph of the entire fragment (only a small details), but you can see photos of the entire obverse and reverse in a video that is on Arizona Museum website. [3] 02.31 Retail is a photo of the right, where the wires are in greater evidence warp (horizontal). 01.23 per minute is the reverse with the weft (vertical). We find the photos from 11.30 minutes for a couple of minutes.

Even with a video screen that is very small, the number of threads, the warp as the plot, one can count with ease. It looks very good that the density of wires is greater than that for the warp to the plot, contrary to what reported by Freer and Jull. To calculate the number of threads per inch, should be know the size of the fragment, which is shaped like a rectangle. In dimensions are as about 5 to 10 mm, but these numbers are approximate and taken in round numbers, because the photograph we see that the relationship between the size is not 1:2. Building on a scale shown in the photographs of video, where he posted a segment referred to as equivalent to one millimeter, can be traced to a rough estimate of the size of the fragment, which are about 6 to 8 / 9 mm. Using these measures,
After counting the threads of the fragment to get an estimate well compatible with the values of about 38/cm 25/cm and found by various experts, but completely incompatible with those of Freer and Jull. So we should not fear that the radiocarbon sample was different from the rest of the Shroud. We can ask the question Freer and how it is possible that Jull have fallen into an error so serious.

It should be noted that it is not difficult to count the wires. You need not be experts in textiles. You do not need provide a sample of the cloth and just one close-up photography, albeit very small, such as shown in the video. Anyone can do it, just know that count, in this case, by one until recently more than twenty. Perhaps in Tucson can not count to twenty?

O exchanged the plot with the warp?

Trying to imagine how they can be committed an error so gross, you can make the hypothesis that Freer and Jull have exchanged the plot for the warp, then did a rough count of all leading to round numbers. So for the warp threads of the plot were counted, they found about 25 people and rounded to 30. For the plot, they counted the warps, and have found about 38 rounds to 40.
In their tissue fragment does not pass a reversal of the diagonal line of the ears (which indicates the direction of the warp threads) and Jull probably did not remember how it was positioned fragment over the entire sample as received, but where the line of inversion was visible. This is not an excuse because the authors had to make a comparison between their fragment and the Shroud
general, so they had to know the fabric of the Shroud. However little you know, we know that diagonal of the ear are at an angle smaller (less than 45 degrees) than the warps and relative the weft threads. (The angle to the warp threads is an average of 33 degrees, noticeably different from the angle of 57 degrees with respect to the weft threads.) So looking at the inclination of the diagonals it soon becomes clear what the respective directions of weft and warp. It is then that the photographs shown in the video (as in detail shown in photo) of the warp yarns run horizontally.

If the authors were informed a bit ‘on the fabric of the Shroud, they also learned that the Shroud the right (the side of the sheet where there is the body shape) looks better, with more uniform texture, than the reverse. And that law is the one that warps even more apparent (the warp yarns pass over three weft yarns and under one). It was enough then to recognize the right to see the warp direction. But if the authors could not determine which was the warp and weft which would always could ask the opinion of someone who knows the fabric of the Shroud (just send an email Italy), but could not come up with a case which was the warp direction.

What comparison?

If it’s serious and Freer Jull were unable to determine the density of the wires, it is even more serious have not noticed that the values they provide are different and incompatible with those of the Shroud, from time known and easily available in the literature. This is unforgivable. Their aim was to compare their piece with the shroud to see if it was the same fabric. Then necessarily were to compare the data they obtained with those published in the past several textile experts
for the Shroud.

The situation is unbelievable when you consider that Freer and Jull indicate, as a reference text for fabric of the Shroud, a 1981 article by John Tyrer [4]. They write in the introduction:
"Objective An excellent technical description of the shroud, ITS possible origins and weaving technologies, is given by Tyrer (1981), Which We reffering to the reader. "
Well, in the Tyrer, highlighted in a table on p. 22, the calculated values are provided at the time Gilbert Raes, which, as already seen, are 38.6 and 25.7 for the warp to the plot. In addition, the authors cite Raes of the same original report published in 1976. Freer Jull and then provide values incompatible with those shown by Tyrer and Raes in the articles cited by them, but are not aware
discrepancy. In the section on results, they say that the fabric of the fragment is a "3 / 1 twill" and note that "This is consistent with the rest of the Shroud of Turin (Tyrer 1981)." Tyrer also refer to a comparison, but immediately after giving their wrong values of 30 threads / cm for the warp and 40 for the plot and forget to do the comparison.

Even without comparing the numerical values, you know, for anyone who is employed in the Shroud, the wires warp / cm are more than the plot. Indeed, this is a feature general for all tissues, at least those made in pre-industrial levels. In the hand-weaving, work that requires more time to fix is that the weft threads, and then putting the thinner weft threads will save time in processing. There may be exceptions to this rule, but Freer, from an expert of ancient fabrics have been surprised by finding a higher density for the plot. It is also known that the Shroud the weft threads are thicker than average warps, another reason more because they are fewer in number. It may be added, with a minimum of geometric intuition, just look at a photo of the Shroud to understand that the number of threads per inch is greater for the warp. The angle of the diagonal twill formed with the threads of the warp is sufficient to determine the relationship between threads / cm and weft threads / cm warp.

In fact, each "step" is the intersection of the diagonal of a weft with a warp. If the diagonals were at 45 degrees, there would be an equal number of warp and weft per inch. With an angle smaller, the number of weft threads is less than, equal to the ratio in the tangent (trigonometric) angle. In our case, with an angle of about 33 degrees, this ratio is about 0.65, in good agreement with the values
given above for the numbers of warp and weft.

For those who have read something about the Shroud, is also known that a double band of the ear contains 80 wires warp and is about 2.2 cm wide. 80 for 2.2 is obtained by dividing the value of 36.4 warp yarns per entimeter.Multiplying by 0.65 (tangent of 33 degrees) is obtained 23.7 per plot. These numbers are consistent with those listed above.

Instead Freer Jull and declare the values of all unlikely to 30/cm for the warp and 40/cm for the moth. With these values, the angle of the diagonals of the ear with the direction of the warp would be 53 degrees instead of 33.In short, Jull and Freer had no confidence with the fabric of the Shroud, and then how they could make a comparison with its fragment?.
Other tests
Freer and Jull damage to the fabric thickness value of 250 microns. Vercelli made 10 measurements the reserve sample to obtain an average of 390 microns with a minimum of 340 and a maximum of 430. John Jackson measured in different areas of the cloth found values between 318 and 391 microns. The measurement thickness can be gentle and not unique and there is wonder and Jull Freer reported But a smaller value could tell the difference and comment. Otherwise, the Shroud will say that the fragment is too thin and they will find a reason to confirm their thesis of a anomaly in the radiocarbon sample.

Freer and Jull are three cotton fibers with microscopic observations in a few wires in their fragment. Have not attempted an assessment of the percentage of cotton fiber in relation to flax. Not clear whether the cotton fibers are twisted into a thread or are outside the wire, then from a pollution accident. Are not examined the cotton fibers to distinguish the case of cotton of the genus Gossypium, one used throughout the Old World until the discovery of America, or if you is an American variety imported after Columbus. The Shroud say there is cotton in the sample used for dating, but that there is anywhere else in the whole sheet, and they get a test for their argument that that corner would have been ended. Freer will be happy because they have well and Jull found their cotton.

Freer and Jull have also seen that fibers did not identify. Not even to know whether these are internal pollution of surface or wires.

Freer and Jull say they have disproved the result of Ray Rogers, who had found that the area of collection for radiocarbon has a patina and has been dyed pink. Using fluorescent microscopy, without provide details of the procedure, to say that there is no patina or dyeing their fragment. I do not know what Fluorescence microscopy is critical to rule out the presence of a coating, but the Shroud do not take into account. They can always say that Rogers had used the microscope magnification greater than moderate, Freer and used by Jull, and had also used chemical methods.

Appendix
Jull has thus proved to have a fragment of the Shroud of which it gives weight: 12.39 mg. Photography
the entire fragment, shown in the video said, allows us to deduce whether it was in 1988 or was not used,
for dating, the smaller piece of the two who were sent to the laboratory.
In fact it was known that in 1988 the Arizona lab received the sample into two parts, a high of 39.5 mg
and a small 14.2-mg. The workshop gave four subsamples, but so far no one knew how it was
subdivision was made, that no one knew if it was used only the larger piece, or even the
smaller piece. But now, seeing the photograph of the preserved fragment, we can exclude that
this is the small piece or part, because the form does not match. So the current fragment
was cut from the large piece of 39.5 mg, leaving a piece of 27.1 mg. This residue is not sufficient to divide it into four sub-samples that were dated. So it must have been used for
dating even the small piece of 14.2 mg.
This is not important for the outcome of the dating, however, is large in relation to a study of
statistics, much heralded in recent times, led by Giulio Fanti and colleagues and published in
Spring 2010. [5] Fanti claims to have shown that the radiocarbon age of the tissue varies with
position within the few inches of the strip was taken. In this strip, starting
from the edge of the sheet, the order was as follows: reserve sample, small piece of Arizona, Oxford, Zurich;
large piece of Arizona. Since Oxford has found an average of dates older than the dates and Arizona
Young, Fanti and colleagues hope to demonstrate that there is a change of date in a linear. But Arizona had assumed that he had dated only large piece, beyond the edge of Zurich.
If, as now relies, at least one third of the material dated from Arizona came from the small piece,
who was at the other end of the strip and on the other side of Oxford, then the presumed linearity is no more.
After the publication of the article by Freer and Jull, Fanti is now (December 24) intervened with a comment
on an American blog [6] but did not mention this problem, in fact continued to refer to the
statistical study. We’ll see how long will it before he notices that the article by Freer and Jull,
unintended side effect, has failed statistics.
Notes
[1] Rachel Freer had met the year before, in 2007, a Master of Science in "Textiles, Fashion Merchandising, and Design" at the University of Rhode Island. In 2008 the museum was in Tucson with
a scholarship for one year of the Kress Foundation for "Object conservation." Following does not take
roles in museums, universities or other institutions. She started offering their own services or for advice
preservation or restoration of tissue or other objects, using a Waters-Freer Preservation Services with
based in Texas. The second name was added after his recent marriage.
[2] Rachel A. Freer-Waters, AJ Timothy Jull, Investigating a dated piece of the Shroud of Turin.
Radiocarbon, 52 (4), 2010, 1521-1527.
[3] http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/podcasts/ep033_beyond_naked_eye.shtml
The video shows an exhibition held at the Museum in late 2008.
It was entitled "Beyond the Naked Eye: Science Reveals Nature’s Art". As the title says, it was
Photographs taken during scientific research, usually under a microscope, which were also fine by
artistic point of view. Co-curator of the exhibition was in fact Rachel Freer (visible in a photo per minute 00,24)
also include colorful pictures that she obtained from observing the threads of the shroud under the microscope, together
macrophotos from the fragment.
[4] John Tyrer, Looking at the Turin Shroud as a textile. Textile Horizons, December 1981, 20-23.
http://www.sindone.info/TYRER1.PDF
[5] G. Fanti, F. Crosilla, M. Riani, AC Atkinson: A robust statistical analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud
radiocarbon dating results.
It is a report presented at the conference in Frascati, 4-6 May 2010, available here:
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/RianiWeb.pdf
A similar version in Italian is here SISmagazine:
http://www.sis-statistica.it/magazine/spip.php?article177
[6] http://shroudstory.com/2010/12/24/more-about-julls-paper-in-radiocarbon-journal