Shroud of turin carbon dating controversy
These subsamples were then subjected to cleaning procedures described in detail by Damon et al.These procedures would undoubtedly have removed the contaminants reported by Rogers.It also gives very clear and well thought out guidelines to proper scientific thinking.
I have also re-read papers by Joe Marino and Sue Benford, Ray Rogers and John Brown that describe examinations of the Raes threads, the area where the radiocarbon samples were taken from and a radiocarbon sample itself from the Shroud that clearly show substantial contamination, as well as the 1989 paper by Danon et al, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin", of which Jull was one of the co-authors.
Over the years he has followed the scientific debate on the Shroud and particularly the controversy over its radio-carbon dating.
It was this controversy in particular and some of the hypotheses that arose from it that eventually led to his decision to carry out further research and write his own outstanding book on the subject of the Shroud.
The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless.
Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial.
He describes in great detail the tests he carried out, the results he obtained and the conclusions he reached.