in 1898 ... the shock

The Carbon -14 method used for dating artifacts is not always reliable, especially when it is used on textile. Besides, the Carbon-14 dating method is based on two very strict hypotheses: the first one is that the amount of Carbon-14 in the object has decreased at a fixed and constant rate over the years. The second hypothesis is that the object must have been preserved in the same environment over the years, which we know has not been at all the case of the Shroud. The Carbon-14 method is efficient to date an object that was buried underground during its entire history, but surely not to date an object like the Shroud that was moved, manipulated, burned, altered and patched several times over centuries!

Any technique has a margin of error. So why should we consider that the Carbon-14 method is infallible in this particular case, since the dating obtained does not solve the problem of knowing how the image could have been formed if it was indeed created in the Middle Ages?

Some of the elements that could explain why the carbon dating is not accurate are:

• The sample of the dating was taken from the edge of the Shroud, which could be part of the patched areas that were added later through history (as we know that the Shroud has been patched several times, especially following the Chambéry fire).
• The Shroud suffered several alterations due to at least two well-known and listed fires which left visible traces on the Shroud. The exposure of the fabric to very high temperatures altered its chemical composition, and therefore its Carbon-14 content.
• Carbon-14 measures the radioactivity content of an object. The higher the radioactivity, the more recent the object. What if the flash of the resurrection had increased the radioactivity of the fabric, which therefore “rejuvenated” the Carbon-14 content of the Shroud?
• There are historical traces of the Shroud which date back to a period before the Middle Ages: the Codex of Pray, the iconography and testimonies of the time, the Mandylion…
• The methods of collection and analysis of the fabric were also very doubtful. Moreover, the announcement of the test results showed a deliberate intention to question the authenticity of the Shroud, especially through the dubious triumphalism exhibited by the scientists in charge of the dating. (The exclamation point on the screen, the statement of Dr. Hall that there is “no doubt” anymore on the non- authenticity of the Shroud and that “those who say the opposite can agree with those who continue to say that the earth is flat”).
• Coincidence or deliberate manipulation? The dates (between 1260 and 1390) fall exactly during the period when the trace of the Shroud was lost, after the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 and before its reappearance in Lirey in 1348!

• Three-dimensional “photographic” image impossible to reproduce even nowadays.

• “Negative photographic” aspect of the image

•  Historical and iconographical proofs of the existence of the Shroud before the Middle Ages

• Anatomical details impossible to imagine or to reproduce by a forger: oversized lungs, retracted thumbs, nails in the wrist, nails in the heel, constantly flowing blood of the post- mortem wound, broken nose, swollen cheek, blood of the arms flowing upwards, traces of Roman whip…

• Image insensible to fire and water !

• Carbon-14 dating

•  The image is formed using a “photographic” technique (most probably by radiation) but with a uniform source of light spread all over the body (and not from a single source of light like it is the case for a normal photography). As if a light irradiated the whole body vertically (like a scanner).
• The spear wound kept on bleeding. It did not coagulate like all the other wounds that appear on the Shroud. This is because this wound was inflicted after death. No counterfeiter could have thought about such precise detail.
• Absence of traces of putrefaction of the corpse. Hence, the corpse did not stay more than two days in the Shroud.
• Absence of traces of tearing of the Shroud’s threads. So the corpse was not extracted from the Shroud. It is as if it had evaporated. This shows a dematerialization of the body rather than a removal.
• There is no image under the blood which means that the blood had impregnated the fabric BEFORE the image was formed. No forger would think of putting the blood trace BEFORE creating the image!
• It is a three-dimensional image that takes into account the distance between the Shroud and each part of the body (example: the nose  appears more marked than the cheeks, the knees more than the legs, the chest more than the belly ...). How has a “medieval forger” been able to create such three-dimensional image?
• Although the fabric is very thin (3mm), there is no image on the back of the Shroud, only traces of blood.

Why would a forger bother himself with so many tiny details that do not meet the eye immediately but appear only when the image is analyzed with microscopes and scanners?

It would be rather surprising if a forger from the Middle Ages wanted to surprise scientists from the 20th Century!