They demonstrated that the sample area was significantly unlike the rest of the shroud.
You can find a more detailed report about their research on the .
The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire.
But what we should be reading, if scientific accuracy is important, is that the carbon dating is well understood to be invalid. Thanks to the Internet, many of today’s readers are well informed and this makes reporters’ stories that mostly rely on regurgitated old information look lame.
What is being reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals and at scientific conference is very different than what is being reported in main stream media. Because, invariably, any reporting about the shroud falls under the general category of religion which is often a subcategory of something called lifestyle. The new information, well documented in ethical scientific journals, doesn’t prove that the shroud is authentic. But it does show that the single scientific argument having any peer-reviewed gravitas, has crumbled.
Not that it shouldn’t be so categorized, but journalists who write these stories invariably have only a sketchy and often outdated understanding of the science of the shroud. Now, other arguments from history and other scientific disciplines that suggest that the shroud is much older warrant consideration and mention.
So much has happened in the twenty years since the shroud was carbon dated. That carbon dating exercise warrants more than a mild “some people question” attempt at balanced reporting. To still accept the carbon dating of the shroud, we must imagine that Robert Villarreal and his team of nine scientists at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory were wrong when they showed that the carbon dating violated the first principle of carbon dating: the sample must represent the whole.
As he explained to Sciences et Avenir, it is "a piece of the shroud sample, which his Tucson laboratory received on 14 April 1988” - which he had cut, set aside and assumed something of a caretaker role for.
For the first 1988 analyses, the Vatican had permitted only a few milligrams of the shroud to be taken for analysis by three laboratories, in Tucson (USA), Zurich (Switzerland) and Oxford (England).
Though the Catholic Church has never taken an official stance on the object's authenticity, tens of thousands flock to Turin, Italy, every year to get a glimpse of the object, believing that it wrapped the bruised and bleeding body of Jesus Christ after his crucifixion. 1204, the cloth was smuggled to safety in Athens, Greece, where it stayed until A. Centuries later, in the 1980s, radiocarbon dating, which measures the rate at which different isotopes of the carbon atoms decay, suggested the shroud was made between A. What's more, the Gospel of Matthew notes that "the earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open" after Jesus was crucified.
[Religious Mysteries: 8 Alleged Relics of Jesus] According to legend, the shroud was secretly carried from Judea in A. 30 or 33, and was housed in Edessa, Turkey, and Constantinople (the name for Istanbul before the Ottomans took over) for centuries. So geologists have argued that an earthquake at Jesus' death could have released a burst of neutrons.
The neutron burst not only would have thrown off the radiocarbon dating but also would have led to the darkened imprint on the shroud. In the current study, Barcaccia and his colleagues analyzed dust that they vacuumed from the shroud that contained traces of both plant and human DNA.