Carbon dating shroud of turin 2016
It is hypothesised that the sampled area was a medieval repair which was conducted by "invisible reweaving".Since the C14 dating at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.The medieval repair argument was included an article by American chemist Raymond Rogers, who conducted chemical analysis for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) and who was involved in work with the Shroud since the STURP project began in 1978.
If you’re using old techniques in new ways, then you need to submit your approach to other scientists." The official report of the dating process, written by the people who performed the sampling, states that the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." As part of the testing process in 1988, a Derbyshire laboratory in the UK assisted the University of Oxford radiocarbon acceleration unit by identifying foreign material removed from the samples before they were processed.
In 1988, three radiocarbon dating tests dated a sample of the shroud as being from the Middle Ages, Allegations have been made that the sample of the shroud chosen for testing was defective in some way, usually involving questions about the provenance of the threads: for example that the sample chosen was not from the original shroud but from a repair or restoration carried out in the Middle Ages.
Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.
If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing.
Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely.