And now we even know that the shroud could have been in Jerusalem in 33 AD.Here’s what we should acknowledge that cannot ever be proved: The shroud temporarily covered the mortal remains of Jesus the Christ while He was in the tomb prior to His resurrection.

carbon dating shroud turin-53carbon dating shroud turin-21carbon dating shroud turin-48

[Correction: reader Dan Porter from the website called to my attention that the original article incorrectly cited a 2005 paper published by Benford and Marino.

I am an Australian evangelical Christian in my 70s. Which is about the length of the Ninety Mile Beach in Victoria, Australia, only a part of which is shown right[24]. M., 2012, "New Photographs of Arizona Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Samples," Shroud.com, November 21.

If queried for their opinion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, probably 9 out of every 10 people would essentially say the same thing — carbon testing performed in 1988 clearly proved that the religious artifact was nothing more than a brilliantly conceived fraud.

I can’t say that I find fault with the Shroud’s critics, because I’ve seen the same evidence.

Instead, Rogers found powerful evidence suggesting Benford and Marino had been absolutely correct in saying the material for the original carbon dating tests had been taken from a contaminated section of the shroud, identifying cotton fibers in the sample not found in the rest of the shroud.

He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating.Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford) [Right[9, announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390! Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph [Right (enlarge) [33]] supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[34]. "[10].■ In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... But as can be seen, the wrinkles in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area (see here) are the same green colour. I have assumed for simplicity of calculation that the grains of sand are perfectly spherical and I have ignored the tiny gaps between the curves of each grain. "Seacombe-Ninety Mile Beach Marine National Park," Holidayz, n.d. After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute.And the 1988 tests seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud was a forgery.Rogers also claimed in an interview that he’d come close to proving the shroud was real. Here’s what we think we currently know: The Shroud of Turin once covered the bloodied corpse of a crucified man.

||

He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating.

Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford) [Right[9]], announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390! Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph [Right (enlarge) [33]] supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[34].

"[10].■ In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... But as can be seen, the wrinkles in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area (see here) are the same green colour. I have assumed for simplicity of calculation that the grains of sand are perfectly spherical and I have ignored the tiny gaps between the curves of each grain. "Seacombe-Ninety Mile Beach Marine National Park," Holidayz, n.d.

After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute.

And the 1988 tests seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud was a forgery.

Rogers also claimed in an interview that he’d come close to proving the shroud was real. Here’s what we think we currently know: The Shroud of Turin once covered the bloodied corpse of a crucified man.

||

He proposed testing the scorch marks on the shroud for more accurate carbon dating.

Edward Hall (Oxford), Dr Michael Tite (British Museum) and Dr Robert Hedges (Oxford) [Right[9]], announced that the Shroud's radiocarbon date was "1260-1390! Benford and Marino claimed that the green colour of the Shroud sample area in the "Blue Quad Mosaic" photograph [Right (enlarge) [33]] supported their theory that the sample area was 60% 16th century cotton[34].

"[10].■ In 1989 Nature reported that the Shroud was "mediaeval ... In February 1989 the scientific journal Nature reported:"Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich ... But as can be seen, the wrinkles in the Shroud near the radiocarbon dating sample area (see here) are the same green colour. I have assumed for simplicity of calculation that the grains of sand are perfectly spherical and I have ignored the tiny gaps between the curves of each grain. "Seacombe-Ninety Mile Beach Marine National Park," Holidayz, n.d.

After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute.

]]