Radiocarbon dating on the shroud of turin
Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter Mc Crone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).
After Mc Crone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found.
Moreover, Mc Crone once referred to Rogers’ and his fellow STURP co-author’s “incompetence in light microscopy” and pointed out errors in the test procedures they relied on (Mc Crone 1996, 157, 158—171).
Rogers (2005) now also reports the presence of vanillin in the lignin of the radiocarbon-sample area, in contrast to its reported absence in other areas of the cloth.
Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary.
It is an approach I call “shroud science.” Joe Nickell, Ph.
On the tape-lifted STURP samples (affixed to microscope slides), Mc Crone found a variety of substances (including mold spores and wax spatters).
In fact, the radiocarbon sample (a small piece cut from the “main body of the shroud” [Damon 1988, 612]) was destroyed by the testing.He insists the sampled area was that of an interwoven medieval repair that was intentionally colored to match the “older, sepia-colored cloth” (Rogers 2005, 192, 193).However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud.By tortuous logic and selective evidence, however, he uses the coloration to claim the “shroud” image was not the work of a medieval artist (Rogers 2004, 2005).
Rogers follows many other shroud defenders in attempting to discredit the medieval date given by radiocarbon testing (Nickell 1998, 150—151).Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators.