Athetotheist wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:12 pm
But they
did find low levels of cotton, and in the exerpt I cite above they indicate how there might be traces of cotton even on the main part of the cloth.
No doubt trace amounts of cotton (even iron particles) is present on the entire shroud.
The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken "from the main part of the shroud."
What is the "main part of the shroud" that is being referred to? There was only one section that was cut from the Raes corner that was given to the C-14 labs.
Those removing the samples at the time were aware of repair material.
Even before the theory that Benford and Marino proposed in 2000? Why did the labs not mention this before then?
We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated.
I presented the evidence from Rogers' published paper in Thermochimica Acta in
post 1937.
Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously.
The C-14 Nature report did not mention they had any leftover samples from the testing.
...which goes along with Mechthild Flury-Lemberg's statement on the technical impossibility of "invisible reweaving".
I addressed this as well in
post 2052. From her paper, she implies the repair work done on the Raes corner was the sample technique as done by the Poor Clair nuns. However, this is not the claim that is made by Benford and Marino.
Harry E. Gove helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona.
Which was contrary to the agreement that the labs should keep their work secret until the results were published.
Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again."
I can agree that the reweaving could be detected under a microscope. Did they do such an investigation to show the entire fabric had no reweaving?
It's an erroneous claim to state, "probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." I had outlined
a dozen procedural violations the C-14 labs did.
Futher, he had an entirely different opinion prior to the announcement of the C-14 dates when he stated, "I hope the three laboratories stand firm and say to hell with you, let's get a result we all believe in, or leave it undated," when they decided to not allow for his lab to be involved in the testing.
Gove had also stated prior to the publication of the Nature report that it was a "shoddy enterprise":
1988 January . Gove sent a letter to Sir David Wilson of the British Museum telling him that the
dating process had turned into a “shoddy enterprise,” which Tite and the British Museum “might live to regret.”
And yet when the dates came out medieval, Gove was happy to accept the dates at face value.
https://www.academia.edu/35676836/Polit ... Dating_N25