Francesca Saracino and Joe Marino sent along links to stories that appear the Italian Press.
Since both articles are in Italian, Joe sent along some translation text:
Shroud Not Medieval
A DVD documentary, Francesca Saracino, the result of a long investigation, finally brings to light the "raw data" Carbon 14 tests. Statisticians confirm that the operation of dating had failed.
Marco Tosatti
The Night of the Shroud "a documentary investigation Francesca Saracino, produced by Paul Monks Freguglia for Polyphemus, in co-production with RAI and distributed in Italy by Medusa Home Entertainment from 10 October. The documentary will be released in the coming days, and contains an accurate reconstruction, with unpublished documents and testimonies of what is a real mosaic of secret intrigues and mysteries: the controversial examination of C14, a mystery not yet entirely clear on which still today many are questioning. Francesca Saracino and Paul Monks came into possession of a copy of the raw data of the laboratory of Arizona and partial raw data of the other two laboratories). The diocese of Turin has repeatedly called for the raw data of the laboratories, in order to verify the correctness of the procedures followed, but was never able to get it. Auditors states that in the report published by Nature, consistent with the raw data examined, "there is an arithmetic error." Omit any comment on the existence of an arithmetic error in a report prepared by scientists, overseen by the British Museum and published in Nature. But perhaps it is just an oversight. "A simple error, which were not the first to notice. A small arithmetic error but it is decisive because it makes you conclude that the material examined by the three laboratories is homogeneous. " This is important, because if a sample so small – a few inches of fabric – there is a lack of homogeneity in the age of the fabric so strong, when you consider the entire Shroud – four yards of linen – "we could have a ripple hundreds or even several thousand years. " He concludes Professor. Conti, from a strictly scientific point of view, "there is sufficient evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the Shroud is a medieval relic." So why the workshops, the British Museum, Nature and other players more or less obscure, endorsed, in the words of Franco Faia, associate prof. Luigi Gonella, "the greatest scientific fraud of all time"? "The Night of the Shroud" has many elements and suspects, according to which each can form an opinion, and why not bring forward solutions. But there’s enough to note, coldly, what is the opinion of scientists, supported by the figures.
If you want to read the entire article, go to Vatican Insider: [they list link below]
Night of the Shroud, a documentary raises the opposition to the tests C14
The authors have made the investigation to examine chemical and statistical raw data. Among them, the professor of statistics Pierluigi Conti, Sapienza University in
Marco Tosatti
Rome
Franco Faia, who along with Luigi Gonella and John Riggi, Marche was the protagonist and witness the operation of the carbon dating of the Shroud 14, defines what happened then, bluntly states: "This is the biggest scam of all scientific time. "
These words Faia the pronunciation is "The Night of the Shroud" a documentary investigation Francesca Saracino, produced by Paul Monks Freguglia for Polyphemus, in co-production with RAI and distributed in Italy by Medusa Home Entertainment from 10 October.
The documentary will be released in the coming days, and contains an accurate reconstruction, with unpublished documents and testimonies of what is a real mosaic of secret intrigues and mysteries: the controversial examination of C14, a mystery not yet entirely clear on which still today many are questioning.
Vatican Insider has had access to preview the DVD as a whole and in particular the extra content, which has not disclosed, and what appears to be a real thriller. And especially interesting to us an unpublished document that sheds light illuminating the incident carbon-14, and the statement that the linen cloth kept in Turin was medieval.
Rebuild a brief history. Three laboratories (Tucson, Zurich, Oxford) had some tiny fragment of the Shroud to date it with the C14. The result of the tests, carried out in a continuous and persistent breach of the procedures, which threw a heavy shadow on the seriousness of the entity coordination, the British Museum – said 1290 to 1360. But the "raw data" of the examinations, that is, the basic figures which were used to compile the report were never made public.
Francesca Saracino and Paul Monks came into possession of a copy of the raw data of the laboratory of Arizona and partial raw data of the other two laboratories). The diocese of Turin has repeatedly called for the raw data of the laboratories, in order to verify the correctness of the procedures followed, but was never able to get it.
Auditors states that in the report published by Nature, consistent with the raw data examined, "there is an arithmetic error." Omit any comment on the existence of an arithmetic error in a report prepared by scientists, overseen by the British Museum and published in Nature. But perhaps it is just an oversight. "A simple error, which were not the first to notice. A small arithmetic error but it is decisive because it makes you conclude that the material examined by the three laboratories is homogeneous. "
But if you correct the error, Conti says, "we arrive at the opposite conclusion: that the age of the Shroud dated material from the laboratory of Arizona is different – 50, 60, 70 years – from dated material from the other two laboratories" . Conti is adamant: "This completely undermines the statistical conclusions derived from the article of Nature." A similar result, conducted with other statistical calculation methods, has been obtained independently by prof. Riani the University of Parma.
This is important, because if a sample so small – a few inches of fabric – there is a lack of homogeneity in the age of the fabric so strong, when you consider the entire Shroud – four yards of linen – "we could have a ripple hundreds or even several thousand years. " He concludes Professor. Conti, from a strictly scientific point of view, "there is sufficient evidence in favor of the hypothesis that the Shroud is a medieval relic."
So why the workshops, the British Museum, Nature and other players more or less obscure, endorsed "the greatest scientific fraud of all time"? "The Night of the Shroud" has many elements and suspects, according to which each can form an opinion, and why not bring forward solutions. But there’s enough to note, coldly, what is the opinion of scientists, supported by the figures.
The original idea conveyed by Proff. Conti in the Italian version I am afraid is not correctly captured in the English translation we see in the post. In fact, Prof. Conti is AGAINST the idea of the Shroud being medieval.
A quick search indicates that PierLuigi Conti has got eight papers in JCR journals which at least, speaks in favour of his scientific profile. However, it would be great if those original raw figures from Tucson laboratory never made public before, could now be freely granted to anyone to corroborate his conclusions after an open discussion. I am afraid that as many other things in this world of the Shroud (photos, samples…) this will never happen….
At this point, I would have a question for the authors: In a recent peer-reviewed paper (1) the authors show that Arizona data belonged to different subsamples. Have the mathematicians consulted for this documentary taken this into account?
Nevertheless, the most interesting thing is that again, someone independently states that when you consider the entire Shroud – four yards of linen – “we could have a ripple hundreds or even several thousand years”. That is, after the paper by Morgan where he analyzed the UV image of the test area, and after this recent peer-reviewed paper (1) once again we have a trend. Fascinating.
(1) Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti,Fabio Crosilla
, 2012. Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon
dating of the Shroud of Turin
. Stat. Comput
. DOI 10.1007/s11222-012-9329-5
I agree Gabriel, adding secrecy to secrecy won’t help. They got the raw data ? Great, let’s publish them.
But this confirms the original statistical analysis may have serious flaws.