Carbon dating and shroud of turin
A relatively small amount of carbon monoxide (roughly 2% of the carbon in the linen) could alter the age of the sample by a thousand years.
This is the only contamination hypothesis which could affect the radiocarbon age of the Shroud enough to allow it to be 2000 years old.
There are also other possible types of contaminant, and it it could be that one, or some combination of these, might mean that the Shroud is somewhat older than the radiocarbon date suggests.
It is important to realise, however, that only if some enriched contaminant can be identified does it become credible that the date is wrong by 1000 years.
(My email address can be found in my Blogger profile.) Note that comments submitted to this thread more than a few days after the thread originated will automatically go into moderation. Garbling would be more difficult to explain if the numbers had been, say, 200 A. It's common for the reporting of an actual event to become garbled over time.
We have the blog set up that way in order to avoid having posts appear in old threads without our knowing of it. Often, a historical core of information will be surrounded by a lot of misinformation and contradictions (e.g., early reports of the death of Osama bin Laden).
No one has been able to explain or reproduce the nano-metre thin discolouration of the surface fibres that forms the image.
If you set out to study these issues in depth, you enter a labyrinth of garbled information, without much guidance and without a lot of hope of accomplishing much. Eyewitnesses and other sources relevant to the events in question are gradually dying off.
The image, though clearly perceptible to the eye, is revealed in much more clarity when reversed into the negative image below. Its charted history begins in 1355 but no one knows its origins though there are potential links with a known ancient cloth of similar description and with an ancient provenance that disappeared from Constantinople 150 years earlier.
It is a unique and multi-dimensional artefact in every sense.
I intend to keep updating this thread as more information comes to light. The differences among these accounts weaken the accounts' credibility.
If you think anything should be added or changed, you can leave a comment here or send me an email. date for the other end led to a garbled memory of 1200 A. Whatever the case, it's easy to think of ways in which these numbers could get garbled over time. But just as we don't want to underestimate the differences, we also don't want to overestimate them.I don't claim to have even come close to resolving all of the difficulties.