A reader writes:
What happened to the 2003 proposal by William Meacham and Raymond Rogers to take about 30 mg of carbon dust and scrapings from the horrific so-called restoration in 2002 — now stored in glass vials — and subjecting it to radiocarbon dating. It is a mixture of carbonized and charred shroud material along with all manner of contamination.
While we can assume that the date would be unreliable, because of contamination, it could still be useful. Imagine what it would mean if the calculated age was significantly older than the age determined in 1988.
So what happened? Anyone know?
In view of this, I call your attention to Shroud Material Lost.
Don’t you just love the name of the first signatory on that protest re the 2002 vandalism: Philippe Bourcier de Carbon? I had to google it to be certain it was a real person.
As for the vandalism itself – a possibility that needs to be at least briefly considered is that it was done deliberately to forestall a repeat of the radiocarbon dating on ‘dispensable’ charred linen. (Maybe Rogers had been advocating that already, prior to 2002, resulting in a hastily-drawn up defensive strategy?).
Now why would anyone want to do that I wonder? You know, compromise any Mark 2 C-14 dating? Afraid of it returning the same answer? Remedy: ensure the burned bits get so thoroughly mixed up and contaminated with crud that no self-respecting radiocarbon dating lab would touch it with a bargepole (customised manufacture, non-carbon-based, naturally).
Deliberate or not, the fact that carbon dating has been compromised could be a good thing. It forces researchers to consider alternate, read more foolproof, methods (which may or may not be available yet). Fanti’s textile tests, while woeful on proper scientific documentation, are an example of new such methods. Better ones are on the way.
I suspect that the Archdiocese of Turin has already secretly dated the material. I think that is why they have shown so much confidence of late. It is the best of both worlds for them, knowing it is authentic and keeping it a mystery.
The samples that are still in possession of Tucson should be used. Prof. Jull should disclose how the two original samples received by the lab were cut up, and what was the position of the samples still in his possession with respect to the other samples. Those who think that the results published in 1989 show non-uniformity should be permitted to make predictions concerning the outcome of the new measurements, and then these measurements should be done. The crucial point is that prof. Jull should make known how the pieces that his lab received were subdivided; he should make known the geometry of the partition of these samples. The prediction will be that the Tucson subsamples that were closer to the Oxford/Zurich samples will tend to show older ages.
So … The only solution can be a new 14C test [B.T.W. : in the past I read something about a new and exact 14C test from a researcher of the ENEA. But now I have found nothing of new on that argument using Google !!!] on that “useless material” (and with the preliminar analyses in order to operate with a correct procedure !).
There is also the SCR (= So Called Reserve) to test (… and there are also the past samples taken from the Shroud). Then we cannot destroy all the material forever. … What kind of analysis about the different samples of linen material ?
— — — — —
In a previous message by Louis (May 10, 2013 = Comment Promoted: Do not blindly accept the results of the 1988 dating) I have read “there are now calls for examinations at the molecular level” and then some of the inherent claims have been were written from myself if I am right … The other words by Louis were : “If we reach the molecular level and find what is expected to be seen…” We just passed through the problem, we didn’t stop there … This turns in a sort of pasquinade about the new dating.
Then see the claims in the new book by Giulio Fanti (and Saverio Gaeta) : three different methods (= ATR-FTIR, Raman and “mechanical dating” or MMP) are indicated and the inherent scientific discussion seems not to be guided with a polished style (and then read my intervention about the “AFM three-point bending test” in order to discover what is the mechanical answer from the samples …).
errata corrige :
… claims have been written from myself if I am right … etc.