BREAKING NEWS 1/22/05: Ray Roger's findings have now published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochica Acta, vol.425, no.1-2 (January 20, 2005), pp. 189-194. See background at the "Breaking News" link at www.shroud.com. Free access to the article can be found at http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF. (Adobe Reader needed--available free at www.adobe.com) |
From "Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review" by Dr. Ray Rogers: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf (August 2002) Dr. Rogers also was a member of STURP and directly examined the Shroud. He was in a position to test the patch hypothesis as he still has access to Shroud samples/fibers. His extensive comparative testing led him to conclude that the hypothesis of a 16th century patch skewing the C-14 dating was, in fact, correct. We have recently found that some plant gum, mordants, and dye(s) coat the yarn of the sample which was taken by Gilbert Raes in 1973 for textile analysis.. These deposits are unique to the Raes sample; however, that area was in immediate contact with the radiocarbon sample that was removed for dating in 1988. This fact makes the validity of the radiocarbon sample questionable. |
FTIR: Typical spectral absorption patterns for each fiber type and the blood samples are displayed in Figures 1 through 11 and clearly show distinctive differences indicating differences in their chemical makeup. It should be noted that there is more variation in the patterns of the radiocarbon samples representing an area of a few square centimeters than in those of the non-image samples taken from areas a whole body-image length apart. Note this is specifically true for the radiocarbon fibers and the non-image fibers from the bulk of the cloth, thereby demonstrating that the area selected for the radiocarbon sampling is atypical and is not clearly representative of the rest of the Shroud. |
Again, it should be noted that a great deal of variability was evidenced in the radiocarbon samples. Some of the patchy encrustations were so thick as to mask the underlying carbon of fibers whose continuity were clearly obvious in the microscope images. there is clearly evident chemical compositional difference between this sample area and the non-image areas of the cloth. In fact, the FTIR data for the radiocarbon sample, in a sense confirming its inappropriate physical location, shows physical characteristics of both the waterstain and scorch regions of the cloth. To what extent this affects the observed date is not at all obvious. Nevertheless, the accuracy of the reported date is justifiably suspect. Further, comparison of the dorsal head wounds on the Shroud with a similar pattern of wounds on the 7th century Cloth of Oviedo confirms the the inaccuracy of the reported radiocarbon date. |
From "Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review" by Dr. Ray Rogers: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf (August 2002) Dr. Rogers also was a member of STURP and directly examined the Shroud. He was in a position to test the patch hypothesis as he still has access to Shroud samples/fibers. His extensive comparative testing led him to conclude that the hypothesis of a 16th century patch skewing the C-14 dating was, in fact, correct. We have recently found that some plant gum, mordants, and dye(s) coat the yarn of the sample which was taken by Gilbert Raes in 1973 for textile analysis.. These deposits are unique to the Raes sample; however, that area was in immediate contact with the radiocarbon sample that was removed for dating in 1988. This fact makes the validity of the radiocarbon sample questionable. |
The 1988 radiocarbon age determinations were the best that could have been obtained anywhere in the world. Effects of sample-preparation methods were studied and careful statistical analyses were made. Damon, et al., reported that "The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence." Unfortunately, that date does not reflect the STURP observations on the linen-production technology and the chemistry of the fibers from the tape samples... Unfortunately, the sample was approved at the time of sampling by two textile experts, Franco Testore, professor of Textile Technology at the Turin Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum, Lyon, France. No chemical or microscopic investigations were made to characterized the sample. I believe that was a major disaster in the history of Shroud studies. |
Samples from the main part of the cloth are significantly different from the Raes sample with regard to cotton content. Differences between amounts of lignin on linen fibers in the Raes samples and on Shroud fibers are significant. There is probably a similar difference between the radiocarbon samples and the main part of the Shroud. The outside of Raes thread #14 showed the heaviest encrustation and deepest color of any of the samples. The encrustation is heaviest on cotton fibers, it is the vehicle for the yellow-brown color, and it suggests that the cotton was added by wiping a viscous liquid on the outside of the yarn in order to match the color of new material to the old, sepia color of the Shroud. |
...the presence of a gum coating on retained 1988 radiocarbon-dating samples would prove that the samples were not representative of the main part of the relic's cloth. Such a lack of association would prove that the radiocarbon date is invalid. Raes thread #1 shows distinct encrustation and color on one end, but the other end is nearly whiteThis section of yarn is obviously an end-to-end splice of two different batches of yarn. No splices of this type were observed in the main part of the Shroud. The radiocarbon sample area is darker than normal, a fact that is not the result of image color or scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in that area, brightening into more normal fluorescence to the right. The photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition than the main part of the cloth, and it is truly anomalous. |
The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better selection of samples. Linen-production technology indicates that the Shroud of Turin is probably older than indicated by the dates obtained in 1988. There seems to be ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the radiocarbon analysis; therefore, the reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth was produced. |
From "Further Spectroscopic Investigations of Samples of the Shroud of Turin," by Alan D. Adler, Russell Selzer and Frank DeBlase. Presented at 1998 Dallas Symposium. Proceedings published in 2002. Dr. Adler was a member of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) that studied the Shroud for 5 days in 1978. Dr. Adler was appointed by the custodians of the Shroud as a member of the Conservation Committee and served on it before his untimely death in 2000. A radiocarbon dating of samples taken from the Shroud reported a mid-14th century date, seemingly settling the authenticity issue. However, it is now argued that since it was not old enough to be authentic, it must be a painting. Unfortunately, a detailed protocol for sampling the cloth to assure both precision and accuracy recommended by a convened meeting of consultants was not followed. Only a single sample was taken from a rewoven edge in a waterstained area a few inches from one of the burn marks incurred in the historically recorded 1532 fire. This location was near the bottom of the frontal body image on the edge where a large section of cloth is missing below the seamed so-called side strip. No historic record exists accounting for this missing material and how or when this damage occurred. The nature and/or extent of the repairs undertaken here are also unknown. Therefore, the possibility exists that this selvage edge might be linen not original to the Shroud. The selection of this single suspicious sample site is a sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the radiodate. This spectroscopic investigation was therefore undertaken to determine whether any evidence can be obtained to support such doubts. |
BREAKING NEWS 1/22/05: Ray Roger's findings have now published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochica Acta, vol.425, no.1-2 (January 20, 2005), pp. 189-194. See background at the "Breaking News" link at www.shroud.com. Free access to the article can be found at http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF. (Adobe Reader needed--available free at www.adobe.com) |
