imageThomas Stielau comments on Carbon Dating News in 2008. This is in response, I think, to a comment I made on April 23, 2009.  Stielau should probably read the release he links to before calling me a liar:

If you are in fact an expert or even a person particularly interested in the shroud you would already be aware that the shroud was indeed retested in 2008 and I am left with no choice but to call you a liar.

Here is the link to the news release of the second test dated to 25th of March 2008 on the university of Oxfords official website:

Please abandon this foolishness.

Just before posting I noticed that Hugh Farey responded to Stielau. He said it better than I might have:

Dear me. It’s not clear that you have read the news release to which you refer, or seen the film associated with it. This test was done on pieces of modern linen, not the shroud, which had been ‘contaminated’ with carbon monoxide, to test the hypothesis that such contamination seriously distorts radiocarbon dates in general. It was found that there was no appreciable difference between contaminated and uncontaminated linen, and the hypothesis was rejected. I’m not sure who you think you ‘have no choice’ but to call a liar, but I am sure you will be pleased to know that another option is in fact available. Foolishness? Not, it seems, on the basis of your comment. Happy New Year!

Okay, now. Back to reality.