BBC Documentary on the new evidence for the authenticity for the Shroud of Turin - e.g., the Shroud has historical attestation which predates, substantially, the results of the radiocarbon tests. For the answer to the question as to why the samples which were radiocarbon-dated seemed to have proven the Shroud was not authentic, please visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotat... where the following information is divulged: 1. Interwoven Cotton Ray Rogers (STURP Member): "...if you happen to hit a place where a yarn segment from the original Shroud was spliced into the new (reweaved) part, the splice very definitely shows the new yarn that was being put in and dyed to match. The only thing that was dyed or stained was this radiocarbon [dated] area; so, my hypothesis at the moment is that this was done on purpose to fool your eye [by the original artisan/s]." 2. Ultraviolet Photography i. Ray Rogers (STURP Member): "[The corner from which the samples which were subjected to radiocarbon dating had been taken was]... significantly darker than any of the rest of the Shroud. ...the radiocarbon sample was hot; and if they had looked at any of the photographs that we had, and studied the information we *had* (as of 1978!), they would have known that that was the *worst possible place* that they could have taken a sample... My conclusion is that that area was manipulated - it was done by somebody with great skill, and [with] different materials than were used to make the Shroud." ii. Barry Schwortz (STURP Member): "Had somebody paid attention to my photographs (of '78), and other data that we'd gathered, they would have chosen a different area [from which to extract material for the purpose of dating]." 3. Dyes, Gums & Resins Unique to the Sampled Corner i. Ray Rogers (STURP Member): "You've got photomicrographs that demonstrated this very clearly: the cotton fibers from radiocarbon sample are fairly heavily-coated with the gum-dye, Mordant; and some of the linen fibers don't show any of that at all - they just as slick as anything and it didn't stick to them. ... They come in, and they [extract the samples] in secret, and take *the worst possible* sample they could [take]. The people who certified the sample[s] are still trying to convince everybody that 'everybody else is wrong' - they're [in the] right - 'those were perfectly valid samples'." ii. Joseph S. Accetta (STURP Member): "Here's the whole crux of the [matter]: linen is very difficult to dye, and it ages as times goes on, so it's colored - so, in order to match a reweaving with the original color, you have to use cotton and you dye the cotton. Roy found some waxes on those samples that suggested to him that the threads were from the (so-called) 'invisible reweaving process'." iii. Bob Villareal (Ret. Los Alamos Lab Chemist): "[Ray Rogers] wanted to know [whether] this corner of the Shroud was of the same composition [as the rest of the Shroud] - whether it was flax, or linen or cotton. If it was cotton it [would not have been] the same [composition] as [that of] the main Shroud... I received a call from [a colleague at Los Alamos Lab], 'The thread that I was going to analyze broke into two pieces! Is God gonna' be mad at me?'." Narrator (who'd been informed by Bob Villareal): "The threads turned out to be two separate pieces woven together... but even more important was what held them together: a Mordant, a gum-like substance used to set dyes. This finding was a revelation - independent confirmation that this section of the Shroud had been dyed. Since Ray Rogers had long ago confirmed there were no dyes on the main body of the Shroud, it was now clear the carbon dating samples had been cut from an anomalous part of the Shroud: the damaged corner was not like the rest."

• published: 03 Jul 2015
• views: 5674