Rosa Rubicondior: The Fraud Of Turin - How Fundamentalists Lie To Us

The 'shroud' as displayed in Turin Cathedral

Following my post about the so-called 'Shroud of Turin' which reported on an article presenting compelling evidence of how the image was produced by the Early Medieval French artist who made it, I have been bombarded with messages on BlueSky by a user who goes by the name 'Gohan ProLife' who claims to have proof of the shroud's authenticity, although he has failed to produce anything resembling provenance connecting the cloth which suddenly turned up in Early Medieval France with the funeral of a man-god in 1st century Palestine, apart from some vague references to pollen. And so far, he has failed to explain how a cloth used in a funeral in 1st century Palestine came to be woven on a loom which was invented in Medieval Germany

The quality of his 'evidence' can be judged from his claim that a paper in the journal Thermochemica Acta is peer-reviews 'proof' that the radiocarbon dating that placed the flax from which the canvas was woven in the Early Middle Ages, was wrong because it was carried out on fabric used to repair the canvas in the Middle Ages. Even if this were true, how it proves that the cloth was once wrapped around the body of a dead man-god remains a mystery. Nor have we had any explanation of why the claim flatly contradicts the story in the Bible of there being TWO cloths - one for the body and one for the head. Apparently, it is considered much more likely that the story in the Bible is fake, than that a medieval relic is another in a lengthy list of fake relics currently stocking the reliquaries of European Catholic cathedrals.

In 'Gohan ProLife's initial ploy which he apparently thought he needed to reinforce with passive aggression, he claimed the paper proved the radiocarbon dating labs tested cotton, not linen. The only mention of cotton in the paper is a reference to what are assumed to have been cotton fibres, and nor does the "Preliminary estimates" the paper describes prove anything; it simply raises a few questions. All the substantive claims the author made in 2005 have subsequently been refuted by others - a fact that 'Gohan ProLife' seems to be unaware, having stopped his 'research' at the first paper that told him what he wanted. He has also apparently failed to comprehend the significance of the phrase, 'Preliminary estimates'

He is now quibbling over whether the link I sent him to a .txt copy of ChatGPT 5's assessment of his claim is really a link to Wikipedia (it isn't), which strongly suggests he hasn't found the courage or personal integrity to read it. So, I reproduce it below, together with more a more detailed AI analysis of the paper.

Firstly, the part of the cited paper that isn't behind a paywall:

Abstract
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.

Introduction
The Shroud of Turin is a large piece of linen that shows the faint image of a man on its surface. Many people believe it is the burial cloth of Jesus, making it extremely controversial. Radiocarbon ages were determined in 1988 [1.1], which should have settled controversies as to the age of the linen. The 1988 radiocarbon age determinations were the best that could have been obtained. Sample preparation methods were compared and confirmed, and the measurements were made with the best available instruments. Damon et al. reported [1.1] that “The age of the shroud is obtained as a.d. 1260–1390, with at least 95% confidence.” However, that date does not agree with observations on the linen-production technology nor the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main part of the cloth in 1978 [2.1], [3.1]. The 1988 sampling operation was described in [1.1]: “The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (∼10 mm × 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.” Franco Testore, professor of textile technology at the Turin Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum, Lyon, France, approved the location of the radiocarbon sample. However, the operation was done in secrecy, and no chemical investigations were made at the time to characterize the sample.

Rogers, Raymond N. (2005)
Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
Thermochimica Acta 425(1) 189-194, DOI: 10.1016/j.tca.2004.09.029

© 2004 Elsevier B.V.
Reprinted under the terms of s60 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Creationists and other religious fundamentalists are notorious in online debates for citing papers that, on reading, don't support them, so I asked ChatGPT 5 for an objective assessment of his claim that this was proof that the radiometric dating was wrong (Try it yourself - go to https://chatgpt.com and post the following question, or following this link: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_68af12b794c48191afd50a9f73deb64a):

Does this paper prove that the part of the shroud of Turin used for radiocarbon dating was from a later repair and not the original cloth? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745

You're asking whether the 2004 paper demonstrates that the linen used for the Shroud of Turin's 1988 radiocarbon dating sample originated from a later repair—not the original cloth. Based on the broader scientific discussion, it's clear that the paper presents a compelling hypothesis — but ultimately does not constitute definitive proof.

What the Paper and Related Work Claim

Raymond Rogers (2005, Thermochimica Acta) analysed chemical features of threads purportedly from the radiocarbon sample and compared these to threads from the main body of the shroud. He found that the sample threads contained gum/dye/mordant coatings and cotton fibres, materials that differing notably from the rest of the cloth. From this, he concluded that the sample likely came from a medieval repair, making it non‑representative of the original linen—and thus compromised the dating result [1].
Similarly, M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino highlighted chemical discrepancies between the radiocarbon sampling area and other parts of the cloth, further questioning whether the dated sample was representative of the original fabric [2].
Another source notes that the Shroud has indeed undergone repairs, including potentially in the area used for radiocarbon dating. It states: “It is well known and documented that the Shroud has been repaired several times in its history, including in the area from which the C‑14 sample was taken.” [3]
These points support the notion that the sample might have been compromised—consistent with the hypothesis that it came from a repair zone.

Counterarguments and Official Assessments

The official sample report asserts that the dated portion “came from a single site on the main body of the shroud, away from any patches or charred areas” [4].
Textile-restoration expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who led the 2002 conservation of the Shroud, rejected the idea of “invisible reweaving” repair. She argued that such skilful restoration—undetectable at the microscopic level—would be technically impossible. Her analysis found no traces suggesting such repairs in the sampled area [4].
Harry Gove, a pioneer of radiocarbon dating, noted it would take “incredible virtuosity” to invisibly mend the cloth in such a manner that the repair wouldn't be seen even under a microscope. He considered it very convincing that the sample measured genuinely original cloth, cleaned meticulously before dating [1].

Summary and Professional Perspective
Claim Summary

Repair Hypothesis The 2004 paper (via Rogers' 2005 analysis) and related findings present tantalising evidence that the radiocarbon sample might have included medieval repair material. Chemical differences (gum, dyes, cotton) raise concerns about representativeness.

Counter-Evidence Official documentation and expert analysis (Flury-Lemberg, Gove) argue against this theory, stating no repair was present in the sampling area, and that the sample was indeed original and properly cleaned.

Conclusion The 2004 paper does not prove the sample was from a later repair. It offers a plausible but contested hypothesis that remains unconfirmed by broader scientific consensus. The majority view still holds that the sample was typical of the main cloth and suitable for dating.

That said, as our understanding evolves, these critiques remain valuable. For instance, more recent statistical analyses show heterogeneity in dating results among the laboratories, suggesting there could be subtle issues—but not necessarily confirming the repair hypothesis [4, 5]. In summary: No, the 2004 study does not definitively prove the sample was from a later repair. It raises serious questions, but the sample's representativeness remains debated—without decisive resolution.

Let me know if you'd like a deep dive into later statistical critiques or assessments of Shroud dating methodology!

[Me] Yes, a deeper dive would be useful, please.

Short answer: No. Rogers’ 2005 paper raises a plausible repair/contamination hypothesis for the corner that was sampled in 1988, but it does not definitively prove the dated material was a later repair. Since then, other peer-reviewed work has both challenged and partially supported different pieces of his argument. Here’s the deeper dive you asked for.

What Rogers actually reported (2005)

Rogers compared minute fibres said to come from the 1988 sampling corner (adjacent to the 1973 “Raes” sample) with fibres from elsewhere on the cloth. He reported:

traces of plant gum with dye lakes (consistent with madder/alizarin and an aluminium mordant) on the corner threads, unlike fibres from the main cloth;
cotton intermingled with linen in the corner threads;
vanillin present in lignin on the corner threads but absent on the main-cloth lignin, which he argued implied the main cloth was far older than the corner. On that basis he concluded the C-14 corner was not representative of the Shroud’s original linen and may include medieval repair material. [6]

Caveats: Rogers’ specimens had a complicated chain of custody (Raes fibres received in 1979; very small “C-14 area” thread fragments received in 2003). Some later analyses questioned whether the exact pieces he examined were unequivocally from the same fabric as the dated subsamples. [7]

The 1988 dating and what was supposed to be sampled

The original inter-laboratory AMS test (Arizona, Oxford, Zürich) reported AD 1260–1390 (95% CI) from a single strip cut on 21 April 1988 from the lower-left edge (frontal image side). Cleaning protocols (acid–base–acid and solvents) were applied before measurement. The Oxford Radiocarbon Unit later published supplementary details and a photographic archive of their cleaning and handling. [8, 9]

Evidence that pushes back on the repair/contamination claim

Microscopy of an undoubted remnant from the Arizona split: Freer-Waters & Jull (2010) examined a retained fragment from the very piece Arizona dated. They reported typical linen, no dye/coating, and only minor cotton contamination—concluding the dated material appeared representative of the main cloth. [10]
Mass spectrometry critique: Bella, Garlaschelli & Samperi (2015) argued that published spectra do not support a “medieval invisible mending” scenario; they saw no mass-spec evidence for the specific dye/mordant coating that Rogers proposed. They reiterated this in a follow-up comment (2016). [11, 12]
Conservation/textile opinion: Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (who led the 2002 conservation) has repeatedly stated the radiocarbon corner did not show the tell-tale textile features of reweaving/patching that would be expected if modern threads were invisibly introduced. [13]

Evidence that keeps the question open (statistics on the 1988 data)

Two independent statistical lines of work looked not at chemistry but at the pattern of dates in the 1988 subsamples:

Riani, Atkinson, Fanti & Crosilla (2013) found a spatial gradient — subsamples from different parts of the strip trend older/younger — suggesting heterogeneity across the sampling strip. They did not claim to know why (repair, contaminants, cleaning artefacts, etc.). [14]
Casabianca et al. (2019) obtained portions of the raw lab data via the British Museum and concluded there is statistically significant inter-laboratory heterogeneity and that combining all results into a single age as in Nature (1989) is not strictly warranted. Again, this is about heterogeneity, not proof of repair. [15]

A 2020 review (Di Lazzaro et al.) synthesised these analyses: they argue the patterning in the data and inter-lab differences mean the 1988 dating does not meet current best-practice accuracy; they recommend that a new dating — with better sampling design — would be scientifically justified. This is a call for better data, not a demonstration of authenticity or repair. [16]

Where that leaves Rogers’ “repair” hypothesis

Supported elements: Rogers did observe chemical differences on fibres said to be from near the dated corner, and the statistical heterogeneity in the 1988 results is real enough to merit attention. [6, 16]
Contested elements: Whether the 1988 lab subsamples themselves included repair material remains unproven. Direct inspection of an authenticated Arizona remnant found no coating/dye and only minor cotton; mass-spec critics find no spectral support for the dye/mordant layer. Textile specialists dispute that an extensive “invisible reweave” of the kind envisaged would escape detection. [10, 11, 12, 13]

What would actually settle it

New, multi-site sampling along a documented transect (centre-to-edge), with pre-registered protocols;
Independent pre-treatments (multiple labs; different chemistries);
Blinding and chain-of-custody safeguards;
Co-located micro-analytical mapping (microscopy, FTIR/Raman, Py-GC/MS) to identify coatings, lignin/vanillin state, cotton admixture, and residues before combustion;
Transparent release of raw data and quality-control blanks. These are exactly the kinds of steps suggested by post-2010 methodological reviews. [11]

Bottom line

Rogers’ paper does not prove the C-14 sample came from a repair. It presents a testable hypothesis and offers interesting chemical observations on fibres attributed to that corner.[6]
Counter-analyses on authenticated lab remnants and mass-spectrometry critiques undercut the strongest version of the repair claim. [10, 11]
Independent statistics on the 1988 data show heterogeneity and a spatial trend, which means the single combined medieval age should be treated with caution — but these statistics do not identify the cause (repair vs. uneven contamination vs. cleaning artefacts). [14, 15]
[My highlights]

**Summary and Professional Perspective**
Claim	Summary
Repair Hypothesis	The 2004 paper (via Rogers' 2005 analysis) and related findings present tantalising evidence that the radiocarbon sample might have included medieval repair material. Chemical differences (gum, dyes, cotton) raise concerns about representativeness.
Counter-Evidence	Official documentation and expert analysis (Flury-Lemberg, Gove) argue against this theory, stating no repair was present in the sampling area, and that the sample was indeed original and properly cleaned.
Conclusion	The 2004 paper does not prove the sample was from a later repair. It offers a plausible but contested hypothesis that remains unconfirmed by broader scientific consensus. The majority view still holds that the sample was typical of the main cloth and suitable for dating.

So, what this episode tells us about ‘Gohan ProLife’ is that he is either too eager to embrace anything that appears to support his pre-conceived beliefs and is psychologically closed to contrary evidence, in other words, a bigot, or he is fully aware that his arguments are fallacious but chooses to employ them regardless, in the hope of persuading others to share his views. His reliance on passive aggression suggests the latter is more likely since it betrays an awareness of the weakness of his position.

What sort of god needs it's advocates to be intellectually dishonest and to use tricks and tactics to win converts to its religion?

Religion provides excuses for people who need excuses.

Advertisement

Ten Reasons To Lose Faith: And Why You Are Better Off Without It

This book explains why faith is a fallacy and serves no useful purpose other than providing an excuse for pretending to know things that are unknown. It also explains how losing faith liberates former sufferers from fear, delusion and the control of others, freeing them to see the world in a different light, to recognise the injustices that religions cause and to accept people for who they are, not which group they happened to be born in. A society based on atheist, Humanist principles would be a less divided, more inclusive, more peaceful society and one more appreciative of the one opportunity that life gives us to enjoy and wonder at the world we live in.

Amazon