Hacker News Reader

Comment by appguy | Hacker News Reader

Scientists have recently used a new x-ray imaging technique to date The Shroud to the 1st century. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-13758359/amp...

View on HN

That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage. Additionally, their findings suggests the shroud was kept within a very narrow range of temperatures to support the 1st century hypothesis, which makes it even more suspect.

Additionally, their findings contradict a very well established C14 dating technique, in an extremely well documented and thought out study, using 8 different world class laboratories, for which their only explanation is "contamination" (ignoring the fact that the sample is pristine by comparison with many artifacts routinely dated using C14).

Also, if you want to cite a study, maybe find the link to the study, not a Daily Mail article.

[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/5/2/47

These 8 laboratories shared the same sample collected from a corner of the shroud. The priests handling the shroud would always hold it by its corners. So the explanation is not as weak as it may sound.

The priests handling the shroud didn't stop handling it in the 14th century. The fire it survived by dousing with water was from the 16th century. There is no reason whatsoever that all 8 laboratories happened to find the same contaminants from the same century.

The Carbon 14 dating process is not sensitive to pollution from, say, the sweat or sebum on the hands of people handling it. What's more, the sample was vigorously cleaned before analysis.

The article (the one that this thread is about, not the study) addresses exactly this. The author makes the point is C14 dating is widely misunderstood by non-experts who still decide it's within their expertise to find fault with the it.

It's susceptible to contamination from millennia-newer cloth fibers though!

Did nobody here read the article? The author covered this:

> … to distort the result by 13 centuries the threads employed in the mending would have had to have been more numerous than the threads of the part to be mended

Furthermore, the samples were examined by two textile experts, and later by a lab that looked for trace fabrics that could have affected the radiocarbon dating, and they all confirmed that the sample was the original fabric.

If only there was evidence that any such fibers existed. Alas, there is not.

Believe it or not, it gets worse. The authors of this paper are the same folks who came up with this particular dating technique. And I can't find any evidence the technique has been independently validated. Not that that should count for much from this layman.

> That study [0] is published in a non-peer-reviewed journal with a very low impact factor, Heritage.

Haha, MDPI. lol. It’s worse than low impact factor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com