# New data on The Shroud -- Assessment? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 12, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703 "2005-02-12T03:43:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![LivingInThePast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19b73/32.png) [@LivingInThePast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LivingInThePast)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/1 "2005-02-12T03:43:26Z")
[This BBC story](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm) claims that > [@](#): > > **The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.** > A research paper published in _Thermochimica Acta_ suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. One of their claims is that the radiocarbon dating was done on a patch of the shroud that was actually a from a (former) hole patched by nuns in more recent times. The new test appears to be based on the level of vanillin in the fabric. Does anyone have a critique of this new set of assertions? ---
**Author:** ![LivingInThePast](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19b73/32.png) [@LivingInThePast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LivingInThePast)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/2 "2005-02-12T04:02:05Z")
Well, I stumbled across [an article that critiques the new dating of the Shroud](http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html). Any other comments, anyone? ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/3 "2005-02-12T13:16:10Z")
The Nickell article is likely to be the most detailed sceptical response thus far. Rogers does have a long track record of involvement with the Shroud, though it should be said that his reputation has been as one of the less, well, evangelical supporters of authenticity. He was one of the original members of STURP, the group of scientists who got access to the Shroud back in the 1970s, but was expelled because he was not, as he described it, a “soldier for Christ”. Harry Gove, the inventor of AMS, described him as “one of the few scientists in that organisation for whom I had real respect” - and Gove’s general line on STURP is that they’re a bunch of religious zealots with an agenda, rather objective scientists. See his memoir _Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud_ (IoP, 1996), especially p128. Of course, Rogers’ motives and objectivity may have shifted in the intervening decades. ---
**Author:** ![bonzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@bonzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bonzer)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/4 "2005-02-12T13:17:34Z")
“rather **than** objective scientists” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/5 "2005-02-12T13:45:08Z")
I just don’t understand how a patch was not seen when they took the sample for the carbon dating. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2005, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/6 "2005-02-12T14:19:25Z")
Was vilified by the STURP crowd…yet, he was the most objective of the scientists who examined the shroud. People also have to admit that Dr. McCrone was right about the so-called “Vinland” map (which Yale Unversity got royally screwed on. McCrone warned Yale that the "map"had traces of a modern pigment (anatase) which was invented in 1922! yet. the scientific community disparaged McCrone continously. I’d say that Dr. McCrone’s conclusions still stand: -the sgroud is of 13th century origen -the shroud has a painted image in it -the shroud incorparates cloth,pigments, and fabrication techniques unknown in the ancient world Plus,it is NOT a good rendition of a dead body! All of the proportions are wrong! (The head/body ratio is all wrong) And the “blood stains” are in the wrong places. I find the Church’s position on the shroud a bit strange…it is clearly a forgery, but the Church continues to accord it reverence…why? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/7 "2008-12-15T17:54:47Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > I just don’t understand how a patch was not seen when they took the sample for the carbon dating. Apparently, whoever did it used a technique called [French Reweaving](http://www.thefrenchreweavers.com/), and then died the cotton threads to match the linen. French Reweaving is also called Invisible Reweaving. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2008, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-data-on-the-shroud-assessment/289703/8 "2008-12-15T21:27:09Z")
I closed this thread earlier today because it was started in 2005 and zombified. That’s the only reason I closed it. Please feel free to start a new thread and link to this one, or not, at your discretion. **Gfactor** General Questions Moderator