From the video description:
"The 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud famously dated this cloth to the period 1260-1390AD. At the press conference announcing this result, Professor Hall of Oxford University claimed that, “There was a multi-million pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it!“ . This announcement was front page news all around the world and today, most people accept that the carbon dating to be conclusive proof that the cloth was a medieval forgery. It seems the debate over the authenticity of this famous piece of linen is now over. Less well known however is the intense criticism that this test attracted from fellow scientists. Indeed one observer claimed that, “The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science”. This video tells the barely believable story of this controversial scientific test, detailing the seemingly endless catalogue of flaws and deficiencies that can be found throughout every stage of the carbon dating process. Much of the information presented in this video is drawn from a series of articles entitled ‘The Politics of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Turin Shroud’. We would like to thank author Joseph G. Marino for producing this comprehensive historical record of events connected to this controversial scientific test. Video extracts are from ‘Turin Shroud: The New Evidence’ produced by Darlow Smithson Productions Ltd."
The radiocarbon date performed on the Shroud of Turin has been a point of controversy since it was shown to be from roughly the 14th century. Much of the debate around the authenticity of the Shroud centers around this singular piece of evidence, largely ignoring all of the rest of the extremely compelling evidence that otherwise points to the Shroud's authenticity as the true burial cloth of Jesus. But more and more evidence is coming to light that seems to oppose the original radiocarbon date. Could the original date have been an error? I've come to think that not only is it a real possibility, it seems extremely likely! Check out some of the evidence here:
Comments