Carbon dating not flawed
group published the list of tests to be performed on the shroud; these aimed to identify how the image was impressed onto the cloth, to verify the relic's purported origin, and to identify better-suited conservation methods. We are faced with actual blackmail: unless we accept the conditions imposed by the laboratories, they will start a marketing campaign of accusations against the Church, which they will portray as scared of the truth and enemy of science.
lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result." (t)he Church must respond to the challenge of those who want it to stop the process, who would want us to show that the Church fears the science.
The lab representatives were not present at this packaging process, in accordance with the protocol.
In a well-attended press conference on October 13, Cardinal Ballestrero announced the official results, i.e.
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 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 it was therefore still possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample.
group expected to perform the radiometric examination under its own aegis and after the other examinations had been completed, while the laboratories considered radio-carbon dating to be the prime test, which should be completed at the detriment of other tests, if necessary.