Talk:Shroud of Turin Research Project

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism.

Skepticism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Incomplete[edit]

This is very incomplete. It lacks the results of the first and second Carbon-14 dating. The first one was faulty and many mocked and criticized those finding fault and calling for a second test. This continued for some time until Ray Rogers wrote an additional peer-reviewed paper showing why the first tests were faulty. He died from cancer before the second carbon-14 tests proved that him right.

This is the stuff of great suspense movies.

Interestingly, Rogers only did the tests that provided the foundation for his final peer-reviewed paper that brought about the new carbon-14 tests because he was angry at the temerity of Joe Marino and Sue Benford to challenge the carbon-14 test results! (How dare common, uneducated non-scientists challenge the work of educated scientists on the basis of nothing but suspicion!) LOL He was amazed to find out they were right! No significant person has written about the foundation of the confidence of those claiming the original carbon-14 dating was faulty EVEN though they were ABSOLUTELY CORRECT!

Numerous people speculated that the faulty carbon-14 tests were based on a conspiracy to make the shroud appear to be a fake or a forgery. That also would make an interesting mystery and suspense movie even though I think it wrong.

When Ray Rogers found about the complaints of Benford and Marino, he fussed to Barrie Schwartz that "I can prove them wrong in five minutes!" To which, Barry said, "Well, Ray, go ahead and do it." Ray got out the pieces of the shroud fragments that he had left and started examining them and called Barrie back the same afternoon and said, "They were right!"

That got the ball rolling for the new Carbon-14 tests that proved that the Shroud of Turin was indeed from the time of Jesus.

Now, why doesn't this article accurately represent the work of the STURP team and the true scientific results of their work which can be found on the official pages of the STURP team under the aegis of Barrie Schwartz? And here: theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html

And why aren't the many other Wikipedia pages that don't have the final results on them ALSO corrected? This information is several years old.

Because the bulk of the editors on Wikipedia don't like the finding?71.2.183.232 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one C14 dating exercise. The results have been questioned by some non-experts, but supported by all experts so far. All else is a POV-pushing conspiracy theory. Keep calm, and carry on. Wdford (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Incomplete" is for certain! There should be a list of all the data collected and the tests used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dismalscholar (talk • contribs) 22:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you make such a list and publish it in a reliable source, we may be able to link it, depending on how WP:DUE it is. But it does not belong in the article, since Wikipedia articles are supposed to be short summaries with links to good sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nickell statement[edit]

The Joe Nickell statement may have a major problem. He claims STURP's leaders served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild, but the Guild website's search feature doesn't back this up. I'm not saying that Nickell's statement is false, just that I'm not finding backup and that his linked article includes no names of who he claims are STURP's leaders (the actual four leaders are Jackson, Jumper, Mottern, and D'Muhala). Please, others have a look, and if his statement is incorrect, as it may be, then that sentence either should be removed as inaccurate or at least a NPOV tag added. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This interesting 2021 article mentions Jackson but not in context to the guild, but Guild search terms for the other three leaders names bring back no results (unless I'm doing it wrong, maybe someone else can check, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I am going out on a limb when I say that Nickell is better at researching things than you. It has been his job for several decades. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, which of the four main leaders of STURP served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild? Nickell doesn't mention names but implies they all did, which leaves his statement hanging for lack of detail about even one of the four. Which is why I asked for more research on this, thanks, I hope you dig into it a bit. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Nickell is a reliable source, which is all that is needed. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]