I'll be brave. I'll write about the Shroud of Turin

March 27, 2008

Anytime I report on the Turin shroud I end up under fire. My latest article is no exception. I've been inundated with choleric emails from upset readers, atheists, and skeptics. I was served the same plate of angry notes when I reported on studies that pointed in the opposite direction.

I think that anytime something is written about a subject that people hold dear, passionate reactions will ensue. But, in my experience -- and I have been reporting on shroud research for the past 10 years -- no other topic has received such violent reactions as the Turin shroud has.

I'm going to be brave and write about the Turin shroud again. As those who read the article will know, the BBC aired last Saturday a controversial documentary. Indeed, Shroud of Turin – A Conflict of Evidence has stirred new doubts about the radiocarbon testing.

Based on information about C-14 dating that wasn't available 20 years ago, a new hypothesis formulated by John Jackson, the director of the Turin Shroud Center in Colorado, suggests that a mere two percent contamination could skew results by 1,300 years.

Unlike many other individuals involved in the ongoing debate over the shroud, Christopher Ramsey, director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which carried out the tests in 1988, seems to make every attempt at keeping an open mind. He believed the new theory was worth investigating. In the BBC documentary, he even called for the scientific community to revisit the subject.

Here are some key points from the documentary -- courtesy of Performance Films, Ltd.

John Jackson suggests that the shroud might have been contaminated with carbon monoxide. He took some modern linen samples and submitted them to all the possible conditions that the shroud itself could have been exposed to: extreme heat, ultraviolet light, handling, water, and so on.

Initial tests show that in normal conditions there is no contamination at the level needed to alter radiocarbon dates at all. According to Ramsey, the original medieval date is still most likely to be correct, based on current evidence.

Ramsey believes it is necessary to test whether there is anything in the specific storage conditions of the shroud that might affect its dating.

Ramsey said: ‘Further research on the Turin shroud is certainly needed. It is important that we continue to investigate anything that might have affected the accuracy of the original radiocarbon tests. It is equally important that other experts critically assess and reinterpret all the evidence, which may point to an earlier date.’

Comments

[paul]

Key points : The shroud is a fake. There was no such person as jesus. There is no god. The bible is babble and best used as toilet paper.

[Daniel Rossi]

The shroud is Leonardo da Vinci job.