Harry Gove (second from right) around the AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) computer's control console terminal, on , after it had, or was about to, display the alleged hacker's first bogus radiocarbon age of the Shroud, "640 years", which was then calibrated to the `too good to be true' and, as we shall see, effectively impossible "1350 AD" date that the Shroud's flax was supposedly harvested. Linick (1946-1989), is the one in the black shirt standing most prominently in the foreground.]1. [part #1] The mid-point of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65, which `just happens' to be only 25-30 [Left: Pilgrim's badge depicting the Shroud, from its first public exhibition in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in c.1355.]years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France, in the 1350s. Bradt, S., 1997, "New Book Reveals Scientific Controversy Surrounding Turin Shroud," University of Rochester News, January 31. IN 1988 THE SHROUD OF TURIN WAS RADIOCARBON DATED TO 1260-1390 [part #1] On 16 February 1989, a paper in[Right: From left to right, Prof. Because this midpoint 1325 was so close to the Shroud's undisputed historic age, Shroud sceptics [13, 14, 15] and even Prof. Gove, who was a co-inventor of the AMS radiocarbon dating technique, was concerned that three AMS laboratories were too few to statistically identify any outlier date [#4]. Gove that at least one of the three AMS laboratories would return an outlier date that he drafted a letter to the Pope, to be signed by the seven laboratories, recommending that if only three AMS laboratories were to date the Shroud, then "it would be better not to date the Shroud at all". But "the prize" of dating the Shroud "was too great" for the chosen three AMS laboratories and they refused to sign Gove's draft letter to the Pope. Any carbon contaminants, including those forced into the flax fibres' hollow lumen by the superheated steam from the water used to dowse the 960ºC (1760ºF) molten silver fire, which had became part of the flax fibres' molecular structure, would be impossible to remove by pretreatment and so would return an apparently younger radiocarbon age. So even if the flax of the Shroud had been harvested in 1325 or 1350, its radiocarbon date would have been more recent than that, unless: 1) there had been no contamination of the Shroud's flax with younger carbon; or 2) the pretreatment to remove carbon contamination had been perfect, both of which are unlikely.
And even Professor Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Director of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, who as "C. Bronk" was a signatory to the 1989 Nature paper, has admitted, "There is a lot of other evidence that suggests ... Then a year after the Shroud's dating, in 1989, an intercomparison test of 38 radiocarbon dating laboratories (with Oxford abstaining! ), only 7 of the 38 laboratories dated the artifacts of known date correctly, with the AMS laboratories being among the furthest out. No one may copy from this post or any of my posts on this my The Shroud of Turin blog without them first asking and receiving my written permission. And as we shall see next, both before and after the Shroud dating, those three AMS laboratories were still unable to accurately date samples of known age. The three AMS laboratories were unable to accurately date samples of known age before and after the Shroud's dating.[#4] As we saw above, Prof.