You can read the first part, The Facts and History of the Shroud, here.The second part, The Physical Science study, can be read here.All studies and research of it shut down for 13 years.
[Correction: reader Dan Porter from the website called to my attention that the original article incorrectly cited a 2005 paper published by Benford and Marino.
This is the final part four-part part series on the Shroud of Turin.
If queried for their opinion about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, probably 9 out of every 10 people would essentially say the same thing — carbon testing performed in 1988 clearly proved that the religious artifact was nothing more than a brilliantly conceived fraud.
I can’t say that I find fault with the Shroud’s critics, because I’ve seen the same evidence.
After all, test results obtained by careful application of the scientific method are really tough to dispute.
And the 1988 tests seemed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the Shroud was a forgery.But then a pair of amateur detectives/scientists named Joe Marino and Sue Bedford published a peer-reviewed research paper suggesting that the carbon dating test results for the Shroud of Turin were incorrect — not because the tests were flawed, but because the sample itself was flawed.Bedford and Marino claimed that the sample that was carbon-dated came from a section of the shroud that had been expertly repaired to be undetectable by the naked eye.The summary of conclusions reached by the STURP team included this statement: We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin.The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.The third part, Biblical Accounts Corroborated by the Shroud, can be read here. Wayne Phillips (posted below) as the basis of my notes.The Carbon Dating Between 19, there were over 100 studies of the Shroud published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, all of which point to it being authentic.And now we even know that the shroud could have been in Jerusalem in 33 AD.Here’s what we should acknowledge that cannot ever be proved: The shroud temporarily covered the mortal remains of Jesus the Christ while He was in the tomb prior to His resurrection.The new tests have recently been performed, putting the shroud in the right time frame so that it could be authentic.Shortly before dying of cancer, Ray Rogers published a paper refuting the earlier carbon dating results from the tests performed in 1988, on the basis the sample was flawed.