Blind dating ua ix
The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol.The labs were also each given three control samples (one more than originally intended), that were: and communicated their results to the British Museum.These included an article by American chemist Raymond Rogers, who conducted chemical analysis for the Shroud of Turin Research Project and who was involved in work with the Shroud since the STURP project began in 1978.Rogers took 32 documented adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles during the STURP process in 1978. Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979, which Gonellla told him were from the Raes sample.
The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Dr Tite and the archbishop.
group initially planned to conduct a range of different studies on the cloth, including radio-carbon dating. The six labs that showed interest in performing the procedure fell into two categories, according to the method they utilised: In 1982, the S. The blind-test method was abandoned because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, and a laboratory could thus identify the shroud sample.
Gove consulted numerous laboratories which were able at the time (1982) to carbon-date small fabric samples. [...] The pressure on the ecclesiastic authorities to accept the Turin protocol have almost approached illegality.
It is hypothesised that the sampled area was a medieval repair which was conducted by "invisible reweaving".
Since the C14 dating at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.