1-It seems obvious. But obviously they didn’t plan to analyse the samples before C14 tests destroyed them. Result is nobody can say what the samples were really made of.

2-20 years later the size of the sample could be very small.

Carbon dating is not proof of anything, apply that same method to rocks, mounts or anything we know the age of because we have seen and it does not work, I am shocked people still take carbon dating as a good method.

You have the Bible, you have the 6,000 year old earth, you have the Idesign, you have proof that evolution is no longer accepted (june 16th, 2009) what else do you require?

if you need facts then what you are really saying is you want to see Christs marks of the cross and the spear wound which pearsed him?

to cap the question the shroud was handled by many many people on sections of the cloth down many many years, test the section that caught fire, theres your proof if you are so desperate to get it.

Maria was correct that further testing was being done. She just perhaps confused issues. A gent by the name of Chris Ramsay at Oxford commenced further testing on shroud fibres last year and the testing done up ’til now confirms the C-14 dating. As it stands now, there is no direct evidence to support the pro shroud devotees assumptions.

It is also assumed that the sample was “invalid” and based on the original writings of Benford and Marino, investigation of the Rae’s samples by Rogers and his still alive coherts at Los Alamos are continuing his work, AGAIN with the Rae’s sample NOT the Riggi sample which was cut a decent (considering the sample size) way away, and through the obligatory cleansing methods done on the fabric prior to the c-14 testing, any contaminant would be and was destroyed. How BTW Rogers claims to have tested 2 fibres from the Riggi sample is beyond me as Gonella did not supply them( from the spare samples) and any used IN the testing, were destroyed. I suppose dead men cannot ammend their lies.

Also as to Roger’s testing, it is scientifically invalid, hence no reputable journal wanting a bar of it, except for the nepotistic TA.

Before you address me to the shroudstory site, I have been there done that and the majority of the face value determinings by Daniel Porter, someone I doubt would know his butt from face, has misinterpreted many of the “findings” even on the PDF’s he supplies on his site. Perhaps he assumes people will just believe his “take” and not actually read the PDF’s themselves for confirmation.

As for you James Youung, why not actually GET A LIFE rather than claiming to live one “through” your invisible friend.

Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts but we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.

Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BC to 50 AD. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.

Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 AD covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BC and lived into the 60s AD, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 AD, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus’ death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.

Why would this be??????????????????????

Yes, carbon dating is good. So good that it will produce bad results every time if bad samples are used. GIGO!

No, the carbon 14 dating was never redone. It should be. But one thing is certain, the results were invalid because the sample was invalid.