There is historical evidence that the shroud is much older than the dates arrived at by carbon dating. We’ll see that this is so. We’ll also see scientific evidence that says the same thing. So, do we have an anomaly? If so, do we now have an explanation. The fact that three laboratories did the testing does not remove the possibility of an anomaly. The presumption in carbon dating is that all anomalies will eventually be explained, scientifically. But the fire contamination suggestion by Dawkins is old news. It never panned out. Neither did many other suggestions. Finally, one explanation did stick. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal and that was the paper that Molly from Alaska was seeking.
The paper was written by the late Raymond Rogers (1927-2005), a retired chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Interestingly he was not trying to dispute the carbon dating but to refute yet another “crazy” suggestion why the carbon dating might be wrong.