Trevor Ogden suggests:
> I would not judge him too severely on what the press reported, especially
> as the report as a whole > seems to have a message they wish to sell. <
Thanks Trevor. Well, this certainly seems to suggest the newspapers (two)
were reporting what he had actually expressed:
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the Shroud is
older than the radiocarbon dates allow..."
It seems its not just the newspapers that have a message (agenda?) they are
trying to sell.
I really do not understand why (when the last twenty years have seen a
veritable forest of Shroudie books and articles not to mention websites
about "why the radiocarbon dates were wrong" all proposing various wacky
ideas and amateurish pseudoscience to "justify" it, why the Oxford Lab is
throwing its support behind this one. Just to get on the TV?
PS/ The Turin Shroud weighs about 9.07kg
The Jackson model of "why the C14 date is wrong" requires more than 181g of
its substance (2%) to be carbon monoxide contaminent so securely fixed to
the material that it was not removed by the rigorous cleaning techniques
applied in three separate leading laboratories to the samples (carbon
monoxide is of course a gas). And how did it get there? Its a miracle, no