advances and continuing problems with radiocarbon dating was held in Trondheim, Norway, June 24th to 28th. This was attended by Dr. Robert Dinegar for STURP, and by the Revd. Kim Dreisbach representing

Shroud's authenticity, and we should not shy of the forgery hypothesis if that is the way all the evidence points. The Cardinal of Turin had the courage (though not necessarily the wisdom) to accept

Turin...The bravest attempt to declare the Shroud a painting was made by Walter McCrone, a respected art investigator. McCrone detected red particles on some of the fibres containing the image, and

some serious radiocarbon dating errors. This caused him to wonder whether the Shroud might have become covered with a similar accretion that had led to similar errors, and on his journeying to Turin

attend, among these Don Fossati from Turin, Père Dubarle and Antoine Legrand, from Paris, and the U.S. pathologist Dr. Robert Bucklin (of Silent Witness fame). Nonetheless the Symposium, specially

Shroud of Turin Research Project). The results of these analyses were published in the following years and still today they are the main references of modern knowledge on the Shroud. Since then over

From Dr. John Jackson of the Turin Shroud Center, Colorado I feel some comments are needed on Tony Fleming's article 'Could carbon dating be erroneous if the Shroud was kept in a metallic container for

it was in fact the first research to challenge the radiocarbon dating in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Simply ignoring it does a great disservice to those who dedicated themselves to doing

Jackson, Director of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado, who is convinced that the Shroud dates from the time of Jesus’s crucifixion and that the radiocarbon dating was wrong because the sample used

22 R.E.M. HEDGES et al., Radiocarbon dates of the Oxford AMS system: Archaeometry datelist 6, in Archaeometry 29, 2 (1987), pp. 289-306, on p. 303. 23 A. NICOLOTTI, op. cit. p. 81. 24 B. FRALE, La