Replies

Cite the study that finds the carbon dating was falsified.

I have done that. . . numerous times in these threads. . . and I did above.

First is the Statistical anomalies: "Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud-A Critical Statistical Analysis.", R. Van Haelst, 1997, Belgium.

Conclusion:
An X^2 test value 8.43 > 5.99 states that there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the results of the 3 laboratories. From the X^2 test result, one can determinate the % significance level : 2.718^-(8.43/2) = 1.3 %. From this test, one may conclude, that the probability of obtaining, by chance alone, a scatter as high as that observed for the Shroud, is only 13 in 1000. Because we assume all radiocarbon dates to be correct, we must conclude, that the SMALL samples, taken at the same place, do not have the same radioactivity and are not REPRESENTATIVE for the Shroud.

A later statistical paper, using a different statistical approach also came to the same conclusion; "RADIOCARBON DATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN THE NATURE REPORT", R. Van Haelst, 1998, Belgium.

"Because I was Therefore I used the method given in Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook, my technical bible. The reader is referred to any text-book on statistical analysis.
Here the more powerful F-test value is used, instead of the Chi^2 test.
The F-test, for the Shroud, is based on the THREE mean results obtained by the laboratories and the TWELVE independent results taken from Table 1 in Nature. Here the quoted errors will have NO influence. For 95% confidence and (3-1)-(12-3) degrees of freedom, the MAXIMUM F-value, taken from statistic tables is 4.26. I found a F-value of 4.7 >> 4.26, consequently the reported data are NOT CONSISTENT. Such data should not be used in any further calculations.

In other words, the F value to prove homogeneity must be below 4.26, and these samples were not. Ergo, they were not homogenous. . . and falsified the 1988 C-14 testing.

Three separate peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the sample was compromised and contained COTTON form the 17th Century. This was published: "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin", Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194

Abstract
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample. Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

None of the labs who produced the result that the Shroud did not exist until roughly the 14th century has withdrawn their conclusions.

Nothing has been falsified, except in the minds of pseudoscientists and their camp-followers. The "peer reviewed" papers you've produced were produced by the advocates for the authenticity of the Shroud, and refute nothing.

The Shroud is a fake, has been proven to be a fake, and was indeed denounced as a fake when it first appeared. Contrary to the silly claims made by STURP and its adherents, there is nothing special about the Shroud forgery. It could easily have been produced by ordinary means available at the time it was forged (sometime around 1360.)