Each attempt to reproduce the images presumed that the carbon dating was correct. When it became obvious, to some, that the cloth was very much older, some skeptics modified their stance. Robert Carroll, in his popular, thorough and well written Skeptics Dictionary, wrote, “Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old . . . but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. (1)
Wilson commented along the same lines, “However, it [new evidence about the age of the cloth] doesn’t impact my theory much at all. A handy place for some profiteering villain to grab a good burial shroud for purposes of forgery, is from a tomb in Palestine. . . . a BC date won’t necessarily toss the Shadow Theory.” (2)
Others were seemingly unaware that serious research was being published in the recondite, specialized, peer-reviewed journals of science; articles that proved that the carbon dating was invalid and articles that characterized the chemistry and physical attributes of the images.