The plot thickens as to Fantis tests. It does look like there is some kind of chain of evidence for the fiber samples he tested.
Things are gonna get heated in the coming months as we wait for peer review of his tests .
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2013/03/r ... n-and.html
In 1988, three scientific laboratories released results of studies of the Carbon 14 isotope a fragment of the Shroud which indicated that originated in 1325, not at the time of Christ’s crucifixion in 30 CE (AD). That finding was incompatible with the mass of scientific tests that STURP had conducted and publicized. But to the militant atheistic community, and those Christians who can not deal with the reality of the crucifixion (there are such) it was music to their ears. Because it is easier to report a finding of fraud by three labs than the detailed scientific analysis of STURP, the C-14 gave skeptics an easy out, the Shroud was remitted, for awhile, to the back pages of history.
There were some who were skeptical in turn of the C-14 findings – and indeed one experienced archaeologist, William Meacham was skeptical of the idea of carbon dating the Shroud because it had undergone some vicissitudes, including a file in 1532 that could of, but did not, consume it before it was rescued. While supporting the general concept of carbon dating the Shroud, he also expressed his concerns before the Shroud was carbon dated.
“Proposals for radiocarbon dating of samples from the Shroud are still under consideration by the Catholic church, although approval has been given in principle. The result eventually obtained will undoubtedly have an enormous and, I would submit, unwarranted impact on the general view of the Shroud's authenticity. A C14 age of 2,000 years would not appreciably tilt the scales toward genuineness, as only the cloth, not the image, would be so dated. A more recent date of whatever magnitude would also fail to settle the matter in view of the many possibilities of exchange and contamination over the centuries (variations in ambient atmosphere, boiling in oil and water, exposure to smoke and fire, contact with other organic materials) and the still unknown conditions of image formation, which affected the very cellulose of the linen. The antiquity of the Shroud can, however, be established from archaeological data now available, employing criteria commonly accepted for the dating of manuscripts, ceramics, and stone and metal artifacts not subjected to radiometric measurements.”
http://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm
In 2000 at a Shroud conference in Ovieto, Italy, Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, reported on their extensive research into the site of the C-14 test. They concluded that the portion of the Shroud from which the tested samples were taken was actually at a place were the Shroud had been rewoven by an invisible mending technique. Barrie Schwortz who had been documenting photographer for the STURP investigation in 1978 and had founded a web page dedicated to providing information about the Shroud located at https:/www.shroud.com, published their report on the web page.
Rogers, who was a Schwortz friend, was livid. He called Schwortz and demanded why he had posted a paper from what he regarded as the “lunatic fringe” and that in five minutes he could show how inane their claims were. Schwortz responded to his friends anger: "Okay, do it.” Rogers said he would get back to him.
It didn’t take five minutes, it took a half an hour. Schwortz’s friend Ray, with the hair trigger temper, was chagrined. His message was simple. "They’re right.” In 2002, he co-authored a paper with Anna Arnoldi that Schwortz published on Shroud.com which among other things debunked the C-14 test of 1988.
https://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
There is currency to this story, Earlier this week Giulio Fanti, an Italian scientist released a book about the Shroud which claimed that new tests he had performed dated the Shroud between 300BC and 400 AD(CE). That would put the date of Christ’s crucifixion towards the middle of the possibilities and, if Fanti has his science right, further rebut the C-14 dating to 1325. The Fanti story was published in the Daily Mail, a British newspaper paper and picked of by news media arpound the world. A detailed story of the controversy also appears on Shroud.com [where else?] athttps://shroud.com/latebrak.htm
The Shroud.com story also carries an attack by the Turin authorities on Fanti’s claim that he had carried out tests on a fibers of the Shroud obtained from (ta da) Ray Rogers. The Turin authorities had not authorized the fibers to be transferred. The Fanti research was thus unauthorized.
But now the plot thickens considerably. In 2005, Rogers published a paper in Thermachimica Acta that specifically stated how he had received samples of the carbon related to the carbon dating area of the Shroud:
“
received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments have been preserved.” Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2 , 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194
At that time, Gonella was the duly appointed Scientific Adviser to the Archbishop of Turin. In the same paper, Rogers further reported:
“On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.” (Emphasis added)
I do not feel I can comment currently on Fanti’s “Mystery of the Shroud.” As of yet there is no English translation available. But I can comment on this: Roger’s 2005 statements are a “past recollection recorded.” While it was not contemporaneously recorded, it certainly is evidence of a chain of possession which began with Prof. Gonella, now deceased.
The authorities in Turin by denying official confirmation of Fanti's are denying authenticity of Fanti’s work . Yet, in law they have a principal of evidence expressed in Latin: Res ipsa loquitur.” The facts speak for themselves.
John C. Klotz
