More About Jull’s Paper in Radiocarbon Journal
Giulio Fanti writes:
In reference to the paper on the TS (Turin Shroud) just published in the Radiocarbon Journal, there are very few news from my point of view. In fact I had the occasion to perform a parallel study and I know that there is not so much additional material physically visible on the TS linen fibers to explain a significant variation in the resulting date.
Instead, in agreement with a statistical study recently published (London School of Economics Site), and in agreement with a new chemical study in publication, from a Spanish University, I am convinced that there is a non negligible chemical contamination of the cellulose contained in the TS linen fibers. This contamination could be responsible for the variation of many centuries in the resulting date.
In addition, we must remember that the body image of the Turin Shroud has not yet explained by science and many hypotheses for this explanation make reference to a burst of energy. Therefore we are not able to define which ambient factor could have interacted with the TS linen. This is in contrast with one of the Libby’s postulates (he was the C-14 method inventor) for the radiocarbon dating and therefore every radiocarbon result relative
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
according to the Nature’s article: “All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and REMOVE any foreign material….. AFTER these initial cleaning procedures, each laboratory split the samples for further treatment. The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples…”.
Jull in his recent paper states that he found cotton fibers in his sample.
But that’s impossible if Nature tell us the truth!
from Nature’s:
“The Arizona group split each sample into four subsamples. One pair of subsamples from each textile was treated with dilute HCL, dilute NaOH and again in acid, with rinsing in between (method a). The second pair of subsamples was treated with a commercial detergent (1.5% SDS), distilled water, 0.1% HCL and another detergent (1.5% triton X-100)…”.
again: How could prof. Jull have found in his sample wax, spores, iron oxide if the 4 subsamples were treated?
Ann Hedlund, the textile expert consulted by Jull, established that the warp fabric count is 30 yarns per cm (76 per inch) and the weft is 40 yarns per cm (102 inch).
That is very strange since other experts counted differently:
Timossi: warp/40 weft/27
Raes: warp/38,6 weft/25,7
Vial: Warp/37,6 weft/25,8
Vercelli: warp/36 weft/24
Hedlund/Jull: warp/30 weft/40