Like most lazy sceptics you seem to think that there was only ever one paper on the shroud. What you mean perhaps is there is only one DISCREDITED paper. Which is the paper in nature because the numbers do not add up.
WHy do you never reaseach anythign before comment? Why so facetious about moon landings? The reasons I think what I do, is I read the science, not sceptic blogs. I have volumes and volumes of it. I have spent a life collecting it.
There is an enormous volume of science on the shroud, hundreds or thousands of papers on various aspects. One I will link later in this post. it is the most researched artefact in history bar none.
The lack of heteregoneity in the data is now accepted, which was presented as homogeneity. Yet instead of studying to see why it was heterogeneous they fiddled the data to make it homogeneous.
It was noted from the date of the nature article itself that there was something odd in the quoted deviations which did not appear to match the data.
It was not just the data. None of the accounts of the leading participants match each other. You can read the entire farce in marinos book, letter by letter, email by email and interviews with all.
So it is not possible to say with certainty who was present (accounts differ on when some arrived) what weight or size of fabric was taken (the pieces and weights do not add up to the whole), and one of the reasons given is trimming away an edge that "did not look right!! Even how many cloths were put in tubes ( a dispute over 3 or 4). Or how many people in the room at the time , was it 3 or 4? They did it all off camera with an unknown number of people present.. The whole thing was farcical, Tite admitted it was not a good look, but only admitted it later.
Nobody can trust the outcome from the process they used.
Gonella on behalf of the church was FURIOUS as his various letters prove. His comments on oxford particularly were scathing.
Remember how you demanded supervision? The labs refused to allow indepenent witnesses and then conferred before publishing. They also demanded to be in the room at the time of sampling. On a blind trial they should not have been there at all!
FOI requests on raw data finally got the entire data sets which showed zurich had more results than they claimed, outliers were discounted. Nobody did solve the mystery of where the deviation of 31 for arizona came from. The numbers calculate 17 . Number 31 was pulled out of thin air! To this day nobody knows where it came from. The numbers were made to look homogeneous when they clearly were not.
There was a massive argument going on that lasted a decade as the entire illusion of the RC date began to crumble. Now it is just ignored. When people started asking questions they were refused raw data, and nobody can answer why Halls took all the files home and refused interviews and conference appearances, and Tucson took the remaining fabric home. They were trying to dodge scrutiny.
There was a massive row going on which is documented in many books, askign why the daters ignored good procedure and the protocols.
Of course in the world of science there is a politeness. They do not use the word "fiddled" there are a lot of polite euphemisms take this in a recent paper.
Oh so polite! Here is how they say FIDDLED in "polite science speak". I prefer fiddled, since it cannot have been an accident. It was clearly deliberate so an active verb is needed.
" showed that some of the original Shroud date measurements reported by the three laboratories to the British Museum were modified from their original ‘raw’
laboratory values and transformed into their published form using an
unstated methodology"
Nice prose for fiddled dont you think? If they had not FIDDLED the figures , to try to produce artificial homogeneity, they might have noticed this.. which at very least tells you you cannot trust the dates at all.
An instructive inter-laboratory comparison: The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - ScienceDirect
So my suggestion is you read Rogers BOOK " a chemists perspective" which expands on his paper, ditto adler, who wrote many peer reviewed papers, ditto marino etc for a full explanation of how they screwed up because of arrogance. The sample had little in common with the shroud.
The answer to the question is simple.
It was made of different "stuff", blended at the edge with real shroud . It had a lot of cotton. The shroud does not. The linen was different, and dyed. They ignored all the warning of meacham the archeologist attached to the project. The only one with much experience of RC dating fabrics! Read his book which expands on his papers.
Nobody believes the date is right, except for flat earth sceptics.
You mean like the Moon Landing?
Care to provide any citations this time 'round?
More vicious accusations.
Vicious accusation.
Is there any insult you will spare them? Now they are "scared".
Scared liars.
Then maybe you can show me the most recent science paper (not a popular book you bought at Catholic Supply).
