>> Shroud of Turin Story Home Page
>> List of Glossary Terms

2005

In 2005 a significant change occurred for Shroud of Turin supporters. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample was invalid.

Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the Shroud of Turin was much older. The Shroud was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000 years old.  

Immediately after publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball: “Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don't imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it.”  Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.” 

>> List of Glossary Terms

Shroud of Turin Story

© 2005 Daniel R. Porter, Bronxville, New York