Summary C-14 sample was heterogeneous

As I mentioned before, I actually believe the raw dates of the C-14 from the labs are correct. The reason it has a medieval date is because the C-14 sample also contained recent material. As proposed by Benford and Marino, it contained a cotton fabric that was used to repair that section of the shroud and it also was dyed to match the existing linen.

Supporting evidence:

1. The quad mosaic imaging shows the Raes corner is chemically different.


2. Benford and Marino presented several lines of evidence the sample was not homogeneous:

– Visual differences in weaving
– Confirmation of reweave from multiple textile experts
– Testimony from Riggi other non-linen fibers were present
– Bryan Walsh analysis of data of a 97.7% chance the 3 labs samples were different


3. Ray Rogers, the lead chemist of STURP, analyzed a sample from the same section used by the C-14 labs and confirmed cotton and a dye existed.


4. Robert Villarreal, a Los Alamos National Lab chemist, confirmed chemical differences between the ends of the threads from the sample Rogers gave him.


5. John Brown, principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute, studied some threads from the Raes sample and found evidence of cotton threads with dye applied to it.


6. In Gilbert Raes’ report from his sample that was cut in 1973, he had noted the presence of cotton fibers in his sample.


7. Even in the official 1988 C-14 Nature report there is evidence the lab samples were not homogeneous.