Carbon Dating of the Shroud: Digging Even Deeper

imageA Google translation of an article pertaining to an interview with Francesca Saracino, the director of the documentary "The Night of the Shroud."  It appeared yesterday, March 27, 2012 in Unione Cristiani Cattolici Razionali follows. The article is a bit confusing. Perhaps something is lost in translation. It helps to first look at a quotation from an email that Francesca Saracino sent to me earlier this month: 

. . . We’re just looking for the best way to give more international exposure for a documentary that will change many things on the issue of Carbon 14 test on the Shroud. But it takes time to do this.

And now the automated translation of the Italian version:

Among the experts on the Shroud the release of the documentary "The night of the Shroud" , produced by RAI Polyphemus and directed by Francesca Saracino , was eagerly awaited. For the first time it has shed light on research on the characters and the alleged mysterious maneuvers that characterized the controversialradiocarbon dating performed in 1988.

Since then there has been considerable debate within the scientific world, many of the doubts raised from  Harry Gove , the chief spokesman and coordinator of scientists for the dating of the Shroud that has changed his mind, showing in  a scientific study  serious  doubts on medieval dating of the Shroud. Then the chemist  Raymond N. Rogers , one of the leading experts worldwide in thermal analysis, that at the end of a scientific study  has well said"The radiocarbon date emerged from the examination should not be considered valid for determining the true age of the Shroud" . Even the head of a laboratory that has been made ​​to date, Christopher Ramsey  of Oxford, said  in a statement in 2008 that  "There are plenty of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the date recorded Radiocarbon ‘ . Obviously, it cited the report of the  Italian Statistical Society , with which were found  calculation errors and the modification of some data to arrive at the trust level from 1 to 5%, the minimum threshold in order to present the scientific examination .

Now this documentary, which will be screened tomorrow, March 28, 2012  from 17:30 to 19:00 at the ‘John Paul II Auditorium (free admission) of the Regina Apostolorum in Rome . To achieve it were analyzed unpublished documents: video, audio, files, letters, photos, and witnesses were interviewed at the event, as the prof. Franco Testore, the textile expert who performed the weighing of samples for analysis.

imageOCCF has interviewed the director, Francesca Saracino , trying to steal some information in preview. He politely replied that "it is a long search lasted two and a half years to find evidence on different assumptions or less risky, which in recent years have been made" . She also confirms that in these years "the hypothesis of a plot, an analysis of the" Pilot "was carried out by a series of clues, but never really anything concrete," evidence "was found. We We found evidence that something strange was really there. And ‘this is the novelty of this documentary. Many documentaries have been made ​​on the Shroud, which is considered the theme of the C14, but no one has touched on this subject by digging deep into the Windows before, during and after the date … we did . "

The question as we see it’s really hot. After a few months ago ENEA researchers have rejected the possibility of a medieval forger, now falls (permanently?) the reliability of radiocarbon dating. The most mysterious thing was the presence of strangers to scientists and clergy employees, who have somehow influenced the work:  "In this documentary shows" , he replied the director. "My guess is, there is fear to get the truth about the Shroud " . Who’s in Rome you can certainly lose tomorrow this event, even if"there will be other presentations in various parts of Italy but now I can not give you certain dates.We already have a home video distribution (which has not started yet though) very important, which will soon be revealing the name and we are looking for a broadcast television as well. On this last point we are finding some difficulty for two reasons: on one hand the global crisis, on the other hand, the subject covered in the documentary is always very uncomfortable. For then we faced as we become even more uncomfortable " .

One thought on “Carbon Dating of the Shroud: Digging Even Deeper”

  1. Quote : “After a few months ago ENEA researchers have rejected the possibility of a medieval forger.”

    It’s very weird to see how history is always twisted badly in the Shroud world. First of all, the statement that there’s absolutely zero possibility for a medieval forgery is true only in the potential case that it was a forger doing some form of unknown artwork. And this FACT is not a discovery of ENEA at all. This conclusion was reported first by the STURP team at the beginning of the 80s ! I’m sorry but History (with a big “H”) should not retain that the ENEA is the father of this conclusion while it is, in fact, the STURP team who discover that !

    Having say that, I also want to say that, in the case that it would be some forger who would have created the Shroud while using the corpse of a real crucified person like Jesus, I don’t think any credible scientist (not even Di Lazzaro and his group) can absolutely reject this possibility, simply because we still don’t know how the image was formed ! In other words, we know with a very great degree of certainty (let’s say 99 % to stay prudent) that the Shroud image was not made by any kind of art we know (from any period of time in history), but what we don’t know yet, is the question of whether or not this image was created by some chemical process coming from the dead body. If this possibility would be true, then, in the present state of our knowledge, how can we be 100% sure that the man on the Shroud is really Jesus of Nazareth and not some medieval victim of some genious forger ? Everyone who know me understand that I don’t defend at all this hypothesis ! But, to stay scientifically correct and prudent, we always have to keep this possibility alive, even if she doesn’t stand high on a probabilistic scale. Since this is the reality, I don’t think that this quote fron Dan is completely true and correct… What bugs me the most is the fact that it’s not the first time I read this incorrect statement here.

    Until we can be 100% sure about the age of the cloth, I don’t think anyone can or should completely reject the hypothesis of a medieval forgery done with some yet-to-be-discovered “natural” chemical processes that came out of a dead and tortured body. And I also want to say that even if a new C14 test would came out with a first century date, the skeptics could always say that the cloth is authentic but not the image on it (that could have been done on it centuries later). You see, it will always be impossible to be as categoric as Dan on the possibility that the Shroud can be a forgery. An artwork ? No ! But a natural kind of forgery ? It is possible even if it is unlikely.

Comments are closed.