Shroud of turin carbon dating mistake
We actually found that you can accurately demonstrate 10,000 year old blood using this particular test, which many of the more recent tests will not.
From the immunological tests, we got positive results which is all I can say.
We really don't know how to explain that at this point. I mean the first thing we see - it looks to us that what we are seeing is not whole blood, but the exudation from blood clots, so there has to have been enough time for the blood to have clotted on this individual...before the cloth came into contact with it.
If we keep doing all these tests and we don't prove that it is dis-authentic..it is up to the historians, the theologians, the anthropology and the archaeology types to decide what they want to do with the data. Apparently, you see, the spectroscopy was done, the ultraviolet and the infrared spectroscopy, which was done on the whole cloth not just looking at a sample from it.I'm sure there will be people that will say that the 'artist' used a first century cloth...there are only so many of these ad-hoc hypotheses you can use before it simply becomes more reasonable to accept the fact that this isn't a 14th century artistic work!A) Well honestly at this point that's the one thing we can't do!We know what the chemistry of the image is - we think we know what the chemistry of the blood is..think that makes sense in terms of what one would expect of the pathological properties for one who was crucified, but the interesting thing is with all the work that we have done on it, we still can't suggest a simple process by which the image and the blood could have been put on the cloth by the same process...we now feel quite strongly that the blood got there by being in contact with a wounded body..it is quite clear that the image had to go on there by a different process.