The fundamental problem with all you say here is the presumption that there is still a question mark over the dating.
No there isn’t. None of the main shroud researchers seriously believes the date has any merit whatsoever. It is only forums like this and places like skepdic that give it any oxygen now, which give it credibility if no longer has.
The simple fact is the sample was made of different stuff, and the date gradients illustrates little except an unknown mixture of old and newer stuff. Ie totally irrelevant to a dating. That was one of several warnings meacham gave. The protocols that might have detected it were ditched without justification it or reason,
Rogers was not “ a”chemist he was the lead chemist associated with the shroud until Adler came along. More than anyone he knew what the fibre mix of the shroud was. But even Rogers accepted the RC date until evidence starting with Marino and benford , that there were problems with spectra and fluorescence - for which they suggested repair. The micro graphs he then produced show that area is different stuff in many regards. As a matter of proven record the daters did all they could to exclude him , ( and rest of sturp) leaving the daters blind.
That was game over for the RC dating. Dead and buried, right there. Which was sad . If only the daters had LISTENED. Meacham said “ sample several places” and “ characterise it chemically “ they did neither. If they had only done the second they would have seen inconsistency of the sample with StURP results on the shroud proper.
Sure there are questions surrounding Rogers lignin dating hypothesis ( but that idea was born only of the fact the RC date was no longer relevant ) , I also don’t believe his image formation theory with Maillard reaction, because of diffusion.
But a dispute of lignin dating is not an objection to the core fact the dating sample is “ different stuff” to the shroud.
On the core issue the dating was dead, the day Rogers found it was made of different stuff. Even the linen is different , and the cotton should not be there. It does not “ question” the date it debunks it. It renders it void, as Rogers stated. You are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with the now accepted science.
As for dreadful behaviour , it really happened : if you read the preserved correspondence you would see it for what it is. Scientists behaved badly, like they sometimes do round religious relics ( there is plenty of evidence of that elsewhere too) however much you don’t seem to want to disbelieve it .
The article you quoted said it , citing an “unknown transform” or similar from lab data to published results, that nobody can justify. That is as close as the science world gets to saying “ fiddled”: which it will not say in order to avoid law suits.
The problem fabric does not of itself prove it is other than mediaeval of course.
It just leaves a void, other evidence supports far earlier.
Like shroud sudarium forensic correspondence.
it is not a contest between RC and Fantis novelties. The novelties are now the only “ dates” but for obvious reasons they are only evidence, as unproven ( but controlled) techniques it proves nothing.
The RC dating was dead well over a decade ago. Long live the RC date in the journals of what not to do when dating relics. The sad part is meacham already wrote the what not to do, before the daters went on and did it!
If you actually read a few books on it, instead of a few bits of papers you would have a comprehensive and different perspective.
And so Radiocarbon must be corrupt? Interesting conjecture. Kind of like those folks who claim that if you don't toe the evolution line you get your job axed at the university.
You keep using the phrase "debunked" and other similar phrases but, indeed, no such debunking has occurred. I will readily agree that there are questions which are discussed at length (even today, per the citation I provided earlier). But to think it "debunked" is hyperbolic.
The PUBLISHER was a participant? So according to your conspiracy theory the highest levels of Archeometry and even Oxford Publishing are involved in this crime?
I understand you love "appeal to authority", but you can dial it back a little bit among us here. We've heard that those folks you agree with are the best of the best of the best and the people you disagree with are corrupt incompetent liars.
Let's move on, please.
Sounds like an excuse. But understood.
So now they are incompetent, liars and "insulting". Why not further gild the lilly and accuse them of embezzlement, grand theft auto and treason.
So long as the scientists you listen to aren't incompetent liars. It is a shame that it took the Shroud to help us learn that the entirety of Oxford University and even Oxford Publishing are in on the scam. So much evil. Such a huge conspiracy.
Can you list the GMP protocols for the Vanillin Dating Technique?
I have over the past several posts kept strictly to the science. You are the one constantly accusing people of lying, incompetence, conspiracy and all manner of evils. Their only crime is they disagree with you.
