Documentation was proven wrong in now six peer reviewed research papers and actual hands on tests of the retained fifth sub sample cut from the single master sample cut from the Shroud.
It was cut from an area the scientists from the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) had to a man agreed should be avoided for C14 testing due to multiple observed anomalies including photographic, both optical and ultraviolet (it glowed under ultraviolet light while the main body of the shroud did not), physical, and chemical.
Multiple statistical experts have come forward now that they’ve finally stopped stonewalling the raw C14 data from the 1988 test, and have stated there were huge red flags in the test data returned. Not a single sub-sub-sample test dating agreed within even its nearest neighbor’s CHI-SQUARED test range! These MUST, or the samples are hopelessly contaminated and cannot be considered as homogeneous with each other, much less as representing the thing to be sampled. In fact, the dating range of these sub-sub-samples, was consistent with their distance from their original location in relation to the cloth’s selvedge edge, i.e. the farther from the edge, the older they dated!
This is consistent with the proposed patch accomplished performed by a technique called French Invisible Reweaving. This technique was developed in the fifteenth century to invisibly repair moth damage to very expensive wall hangings and clothing. The repairs involved actually removing damaged areas, dying threads to match original, attaching the new threads by twisting into the broken old threads, then skillfully reweaving the new threads into the cloth or tapestry, recreating the exact original as it was, down to the very last detail. Such a patch, to the naked eye, is invisible.
However, linen doesn’t take dye well. Cotton does. So these skilled crafts women of the sixteenth century, used starched dyed cotton, retted with alum. Dyed with Alazarin dyes to match the original flax linen thread. These under modern photography, especially electron microscopy, are easy to spot.
It turns out that the tested sub-sub-samples were mixtures of various percentages of added sixteenth century dyed cotton and original Shroud flaxen undyed Linen threads. . . with the percentage of newer cotton higher toward the selvage and older original linen toward the main body. This distorted the age dating by over two hundred years in 5cm.
The C14 test has been completely falsified due to failure to follow agreed sampling and testing protocols when taking the original Shroud sample for C14 testing in 1988. You cannot test something that is not representative of what you’re wanting to test. They ignored the advice of STURP to stay clear of that area.
There were SO many protocol violations in the C14 testing one has to conclude the were not serious in their approach and treated it as a joke. They were sloppy all around.
“recreating the exact original as it was, down to the very last detail. “
Interesting that 2th century experts said even in the 20th century we couldn’t do that.