imageA reader from Austin writes:

Mr. Porter, your response to Mr. Roberts was near “perfect.”  His claim that the evidence in support of a medieval origin was “perfect” is ludicrous. I don’t doubt that individual test results were generally accurate for the carbon 14 content of each sub-sample tested, but it is clear that the combined result was arrived at without sufficient statistical analysis. Had the carbon dating laboratories done so they would have realized there was too much variability to claim success. 

There was compelling evidence that the sampling region was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. It was an ultraviolet photograph called the “Blue Quad Mosaic.” Analysis at JPL in Pasadena established the possibility that the chemistry of the sample area was different than the rest of the shroud.  In addition to the clues you listed, this published clue was ignored by those involved in the “huge efforts” of dating the cloth. 

That these same scientists took a single sample from a very soiled corner of the cloth and divided it among themselves was shamefully unscientific. If that is all the church would allow, they should have objected and walked away. To make matters worse they did not do a comprehensive chemical profile of the various pieces cut from the one sample. This was woefully unprofessional. Perfect evidence, my ass.

Mr. Porter, you might also want to mention that there was no vanillin in the shroud except in the sample area. This shows that the cloth was at least twice as old as the carbon date age.

Image Credit: FILE: Quad MOSAIC Ventral Legs CU.jpg; TITLE: Quad MOSAIC Ventral Legs CU 1076×1200; DESCRIPTION: Quad Mosaic CU of the corner from which the c-14 samples of the Shroud of Turin were taken in 1988. Contact Barrie Schwortz for technical details; CREDITS: (c) 1978 Jean Lorre Collection, STERA, Inc. All Rights Reserved; COPYRIGHT: (c) 1978 Jean Lorre Collection, STERA, Inc. All Rights Reserved; See: