DBowling wrote:Here is an interesting video I saw a few years ago. It demonstrates how the radiocarbon date results for the Shroud are the result of French reweaving of 16th century cloth into the Shroud at the location where the single radiocarbon sample was taken.
It does nothing of the sort. It is a triumph of wishful thinking over evidence. It is based on the idea that some 16th Century threads are intermingled with some 1st Century threads in such a way as to distort all the 12 different radiocarbon sample readings, but appear completely invisibly mingled to the eye or microscope. This is wholly unsupported by the evidence.
The story begins at 25:15, and a shot of one of four 'quad mosaic' images, made by the STuRP team in 1978. "Look here," says Sue Benford, "nowhere else is there this definitive, intentional dark green." The area in dark green is the bottom left hand corner of the quad mosaic picture, covering the place where the radiocarbon sample was cut from. However, what is not pointed out is that there are four of these images covering the whole shroud (covering about one square metre each) and that all of them show a dark green area in their bottom left hand corners.
Next, from 25:28. the narrator says "Benford noticed something strange about the area where the carbon dating samples had been taken. The herringbone weave, that is so consistent throughout the main body of the Shroud, seemed misaligned - off axis." This is demonstrably untrue. Now that we all have access to Shroud 2.0, we can all see that the entire Shroud is not at all consistent across its entire surface. The radiocarbon corner is wholly unexceptional. What's more, the implication drawn from this non observation is also demonstrably untrue. Here is Joe Marino, from 25:44. "Our theory is that there is a mixture of 16th century cloth and 1st century cloth, and the data that we're finding on the cloth matches that theory." The main thing wrong with this is that if the two sides of the 'axis' were different ages, then results from one side would have come out as 1st century, results from the other side would have come out as 16th century, and only results from pieces containing the axis would have come out between the two. This is not what happened. All 12 results were medieval.
A 'history' for the reweaving hypothesis begins at 26:05. Narrator: "According to this theory, cotton from the 16th century was invisibly woven into the linen fibres of the Shroud, a fixer was applied to the patched area, and the repair was expertly dyed so that it would be invisible to the naked eye. It is a craft they contend was called "French Reweaving." [...] Sue Benford: "The ends are unravelled in the main cloth, the ends are unravelled in the patch, they are spliced together, and the threads are connected and interwoven, so you see literally an interweaving such that you have old and new on both sides of the equation." Not only is this not a description of French Reweaving, which is far from invisible, but it describes a wholly impossible process. Consider taking a piece of cloth, say a handkerchief, and cutting a small rectangle about half an inch wide and three inches long from one corner. Then bring in a "patch" of about the the same dimensions, and unravel sufficient of its threads to enable them to be 'spliced' together. Or rather, don't just consider it, actually do it. Hold a thin strip of cloth, with fine threads - 1/3 of a millimetre wide - and attempt to unravel some, with the object of 'splicing' them to another piece similarly unravelled. Of course it's not possible, and has never been used as a method of mending torn cloth. French Reweaving, which was, and still is, used to mend expensive cloth, is completely different; a very clever way of mending so that the mend is extremely hard to detect from one side, but it is easily visible from the other.
I could go on to analyse the rest of the video, and poor Ray Rogers's desperate but ultimately fruitless attempts to justify the interweaving hypothesis microscopically, and will if I'm asked, but this will be enough for now, I guess.