However shroudies are not convinced and even a well known skeptic (pro forgery) wrote a couple of days ago that in fact Jull demonstrated that the datation was invalid !
The key contention has been all along that the person who did the actual sampling of the cloth showed up out of nowhere (his name was Reggia I think) and he had been selected by the manufacturer of something.
The key contention is thus that the sample was non-representative.
JTansut (talk) , 11 January 2011 (UTC) I have not looked into this issue, so can not comment, but if you want to be sure, leave a message for user: Thucyd who knows a lot about the topic and discuss it. But I can tell you that currently there is a huge discussion between all scientists around a peer-reviewed article published by Timothy Jull in december in Radiocarbon, his own journal (University of Arizona).
History2007 (talk) , 11 January 2011 (UTC) Hello JTansut and History. Jull claimed that he kept in secrecy in 1988 a unknown sample and that he cannot confirm Rogers' findings (Thermochimica Acta, 2005).
This angers and annoys those who hate Christianity and their failure to correct this page shows it pains them to report the truth that the shroud is not a fake after all.
It's easier to discuss neutrality if you assume good faith of other editors, rather than guessing that they all hate Christianity.
As a result, when this was conclusively proven, new carbon dating was authorized which confirmed that the date of the shroud is from the time of Jesus' death.
Those responsible for this article should have already come back and corrected it since the new results of the latest carbon dating were announced world-wide in March of 2013.
It's one of my first translation: so, please, correct where you find mistakes. --Campelli (talk) , 16 January 2009 (UTC) The article states "Contamination by as little as 2% additional carbon molecule may be sufficient, the documentary suggests, to backdate the shroud by almost 14 centuries" Although this quote is cited, the claim that contamination of 2% additional carbon isn't realistic.