Shroud of turin carbon dating controversy

Nickell also relies heavily on the work of the late microscopist and shroud skeptic Walter Mc Crone, who, Nickell claimed, was part of the original STURP team from 1978 and was only driven out when he got the “wrong” answers from his research.

“Mc Crone found scores of problems with the image,” he said, “including that the blood stains were unnaturally bright.” According to Mc Crone, the blood stains, as well as the image itself, seemed to be made from a pigment of “red ochre and vermilion tempera paint.” In fact, Mc Crone was never part of the STURP team, and others who viewed his attempt to create a similar image using this kind of paint instead found it entirely unconvincing as a replica of the shroud.

“But it would be more convincing if the basic research had first been presented in a professional, peer-reviewed journal.

If you’re using old techniques in new ways, then you need to submit your approach to other scientists.” Fanti has announced that “an international professional journal,” presumably peer-reviewed, will soon publish a paper in which he defends his scientific approach.

While he rejects the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, Nickell insists that a shroud might be found that he could accept did come from the tomb of Jesus Christ, but its history from the grave to the present day would have to be completely documented. “That implies a miracl, and as such takes it out of the realm of science.” Rebutting Nickell “Joe Nickell won’t even debate me any more,” said Schwortz, who participated in the original STURP team as a Jew who did not believe Jesus Christ was the Messiah.