The 1988 carbon dating was also questioned on the basis that the fragments tested had been contaminated by modern material.
Scientists, however, believed that the different cleaning procedures at the three laboratories would between them have removed all possible contamination.
Writing in 1390, the bishop said that the cloth first started attracting pilgrims in 1355 when it was in the possession of the Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight building a church at Lirey to give thanks to God for a miraculous escape from English imprisonment during the Hundred Years War.D’Arcis told the pope that his predecessor as Bishop of Troyes, Henry of Poitiers, had fairly quickly discovered “the fraud” and obtained a confession from the artist who produced it that it was “a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.” It is fair to say that when d’Arcis wrote about the shroud still being used as a moneyspinner in 1390, he was a bit angry.But since some have refused to believe the bishop’s findings, or the 1988 carbon dating showing the shroud was from the medieval, not the Biblical era, or the subsequent debunking of claims disputing the carbon dating, scientists today are still studying the Turin Shroud.In the latest, but almost certainly not final instalment, they have used modern forensic techniques to show that apparent blood spatters on the shroud could only have been produced by someone moving to adopt different poses – rather than lying still, in the manner of a dead and yet to be resurrected Messiah.The Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado suggested carbon monoxide could have altered the shroud’s radiocarbon age to make it seem much younger.
It was, however, pointed out that this would have required unnatural concentrations of a gas that doesn’t normally react with linen, and that no such contamination has ever been observed.
, seemed to leave little room for doubt by stating: “The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval [not Biblical]”.
Counter-arguments, however, were marshalled - In 1998 it was reported that the office of Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the former Cardinal Archbishop of Turin, had issued a statement suggesting the carbon dating had somehow been interfered as a result of an "overseas Masonic plot" There were more science-based objections to the carbon dating results, but they tended to be met with what looked like further rounds of scientific debunking.
That is the verdict of Catholic Bishop Pierre d’Arcis who has written to tell the Pope it was “a clever sleight of hand” by someone “falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them”.
Admittedly, since Bishop d’Arcis was writing in 1390, to Pope Clement VII rather than Pope Francis, this is not exactly new news.
AD 1260-1390" was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. [#10(2) & #1] Attempts by Shroud pro-authenticists to explain by conventional means the discrepancy between the Shroud being 1st century, yet its radiocarbon date is 1260-1390, all fail.• Carbon contamination.