R
Rubee
Guest
Maybe they do? 
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jesus Christ bombshell: Shroud of Turin NOT a hoax! - after review of original 1988 Carbon-14 test data
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Yes, Iâm sure the journalists who write these âbombshellâ articles for the popular press are all in the front pews of daily MassâŚ
R
Rubee
Guest
Ah, so you imagine journalists are the ones âgetting all wound up over the potential authenticity of the Shroud of Turinâ? Interesting.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I donât know where youâre going with this, but Iâm not finding this conversation productive. Muting now, bye.
R
Rubee
Guest
Iâm not going anywhere with anything. Iâve responded to your posts politely and clearly. Have a nice day.
Last edited:
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
Firstly, no method is 100% accurate.Actually, GiftofMercy, thereâs not a big problem with the method.
Do you know how RadioCarbon dating works? It uses an organic constituent , in this case Radiocarbon. This method is good up to approximately 50 thousand years ago. Carbon 14 will decay. it has a half life of 5,700 years approximately. Thats why it is only good for about 50 K years. (very simplified )
Now as far as contaminants for this method, they can be organic and artificial. They have to be removed to get an accurate date. We would not want to destroy the Shroud by the use of some treatments used to remove the contaminants.
The next issue is that there is a big presumption that the
material to be dated has only undergone radioactive decay, and not other methods of decay or alteration due to its interaction with its environment.
This issue makes carbon dating an object like the shroud that has been handled and around in the environment for centuries, problematic.
If we were dating a fossil, a piece of wood from a boat, etc, we would date something we find insitu usually, it has been buried or stowed away in that one place and untouched hopefully since it came to rest there.
This is not the case with the Shroud.
We need a more robust method of dating , because we do not want to destroy this potential relic.
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
That makes sense, GiftofMercy. No, I wouldnât want the Lordâs burial cloth destroyed either. But would not mind if they found representative portions and took pieces (where thereâs no blood).
G
GiftofMercy
Guest
I am glad potential relics like these and miracles like the Eucharist turning to flesh and blood are very limited in the opportunities to sample them in the name of science.
Our methods are advancing at good rates, Perhaps in a few hundred years there will be some awesome method that doesnât destroy these samples.
Our methods are advancing at good rates, Perhaps in a few hundred years there will be some awesome method that doesnât destroy these samples.
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
mmm I wonder what @undead_rat has to say about this topic.
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Itâs more a bout belief than authenticity. I believe it is a holy reminder of Jesus. That is all I need!
S
skelly
Guest
Blessed are those who have not seen yet believe.
Last edited:
O
on_the_hill
Guest
Proving that the test was done wrong doesnât prove anything about the authenticity.
O
observer333
Guest
But what about all the other other tests & evidence that proves the authenticity!!??
Such as the other âShroudâ - the sudarium of oviedo:
Such as the other âShroudâ - the sudarium of oviedo:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Itâs been a while since I commented here but I have seen so many rather distorted views of Tristan Casabiancaâs recent research that I think a it of clarification for the confused might be worthwhile. I agree with BartholomewB that observer333 is overstating his case - none of the alleged evidence in favour of the Shroudâs authenticity is unassailable - and also that the new paper is more of a tweak than a revelation.
The radiocarbon date achieved by the three laboratories coordinated by the British Museum in 1988 has been attacked on many grounds, but remains robust. Nevertheless, irregularities in procedure, the statistical methods employed to expound the raw data, and the inaccessibility of the raw data itself have all led to hopeful accusations of incompetence, and the possibility that the medieval date can be rejected on those grounds.
It has to be said that this is not an especially popular approach, even among authenticists, especially scientist authenticists, who generally accept that the radiocarbon findings were fairly solid, but based on samples which were not representative of the Shroudâs true age, being mixtures of ancient and modern thread, or with enhanced radioactivity due to natural or supernatural causes.
Whether the reluctance of the various institutions involved to release the raw paperwork of the 1988 investigations was due to a conspiracy of silence, or merely an unwillingness to get involved in vituperation is debatable, but it seems that vast quantities were eventually deposited at the British Museum, which released them to Tristan Casabianca in July and September 2017. Over 700 pages were made available, of which scarcely any seem to have suggested anything untoward. Casabiancaâs analysis of those few he found worthy of comment add very little intelligible to what we knew already, and although his statistical analysis produces slightly different results from those already published, this is due to a different choice of method rather than evidence of malfeasance.
The single, albeit minor, difference between what appears to have been found among the papers released by the British Museum and what was published in the Nature paper of 1988 is whether the Tucson laboratory tested four or eight small pieces of cloth. The Nature paper says four, but some of the new data suggests eight, although it is not clear enough to be definitive. Either way, it makes very little difference to the overall conclusion.
The essential thrust of the Casabianca paper is that the three laboratories results demonstrated a small statistical inhomogeneity. This was noticed by the authors of the 1988 Nature paper, and accounted for in terms of an over-optimistically small assessment of error by the laboratories. Another interpretation is that the samples really do differ in age by fifty years or so. Neither interpretation affects an overall conclusion that the Shroud is medieval.
ContinuedâŚ
The radiocarbon date achieved by the three laboratories coordinated by the British Museum in 1988 has been attacked on many grounds, but remains robust. Nevertheless, irregularities in procedure, the statistical methods employed to expound the raw data, and the inaccessibility of the raw data itself have all led to hopeful accusations of incompetence, and the possibility that the medieval date can be rejected on those grounds.
It has to be said that this is not an especially popular approach, even among authenticists, especially scientist authenticists, who generally accept that the radiocarbon findings were fairly solid, but based on samples which were not representative of the Shroudâs true age, being mixtures of ancient and modern thread, or with enhanced radioactivity due to natural or supernatural causes.
Whether the reluctance of the various institutions involved to release the raw paperwork of the 1988 investigations was due to a conspiracy of silence, or merely an unwillingness to get involved in vituperation is debatable, but it seems that vast quantities were eventually deposited at the British Museum, which released them to Tristan Casabianca in July and September 2017. Over 700 pages were made available, of which scarcely any seem to have suggested anything untoward. Casabiancaâs analysis of those few he found worthy of comment add very little intelligible to what we knew already, and although his statistical analysis produces slightly different results from those already published, this is due to a different choice of method rather than evidence of malfeasance.
The single, albeit minor, difference between what appears to have been found among the papers released by the British Museum and what was published in the Nature paper of 1988 is whether the Tucson laboratory tested four or eight small pieces of cloth. The Nature paper says four, but some of the new data suggests eight, although it is not clear enough to be definitive. Either way, it makes very little difference to the overall conclusion.
The essential thrust of the Casabianca paper is that the three laboratories results demonstrated a small statistical inhomogeneity. This was noticed by the authors of the 1988 Nature paper, and accounted for in terms of an over-optimistically small assessment of error by the laboratories. Another interpretation is that the samples really do differ in age by fifty years or so. Neither interpretation affects an overall conclusion that the Shroud is medieval.
ContinuedâŚ
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Edmundus1581 asks if the inferred heterogeneity of the samples means that the âapproximate agreement of the samples was coincidental.â Clearly not. Twelve or sixteen individual pieces of cloth were each dated several times, producing over a hundred assessments of the proportion of radiocarbon, every single one of which individually led to a medieval date. Some coincidence.
Observer333 claims that âthe Vanillin test of the fabric showed that it was approx. 2000 years oldâ, but then gives a reference which shows nothing of the kind. Perhaps s/he is hoping nobody will read it.
Rubee also mentions the vanillin, but then mentions âthe matching wounds [âŚ] which were NOT at all the standard punishmentâ. As we know next to nothing about Roman crucifixion practices, it is impossible to say whether Jesusâs particular suffering was unusual or not. Also of course, it is not at all surprising that somebody producing a picture of Jesus would match the description given in the bible.
Rubee also mentions the alleged prutah coins found over the eyes, perhaps unaware of how conclusively the evidence for them has been demonstrated untenable, and a âhistorical record connecting it to Christiansâ, when in fact there is no such thing.
âThere WAS a Christian historian from the time who spoke of the cloth with Christâs image that cured a King and converted him.â Rubee doesnât say what âfrom the timeâ means; it certainly does not mean from the time of Jesus. Either way, the legend of the image of Edessa does not involve a shroud, but a miraculous image of Christâs face made while he was very much alive.
The pollen evidence is also flawed, so deeply that the celebrated Israeli botanist Avinoam Danin, who was sufficiently credulous to identify dozens of different flowers all over the cloth, distanced himself entirely from it, saying he was âsorry to state that we cannot use the pollen for any geographical indication.â
In short, I do not know if Prodigal1984âs âdismissal of a TON of evidence as spuriousâ was âcasual or not,â but he is certainly correct that none of it stands up well to serious scrutiny.
Finally, Rubee makes common but significant error in saying: âThe problem was the team that carried out the first part of the process: the sampling. They defied a basic procedure and took ALL samples from one small portion without first ensuring it was representative, then cut it up into three portions and sent it to the three labs.â Actually, as the video taken at the time shows, âthe teamâ (two representatives of the Archbishop of Turin, not of the British Museum or of the the laboratories themselves) spent over an hour examining possible sites under magnification precisely to ensure that the chosen one was representative.
Observer333 claims that âthe Vanillin test of the fabric showed that it was approx. 2000 years oldâ, but then gives a reference which shows nothing of the kind. Perhaps s/he is hoping nobody will read it.
Rubee also mentions the vanillin, but then mentions âthe matching wounds [âŚ] which were NOT at all the standard punishmentâ. As we know next to nothing about Roman crucifixion practices, it is impossible to say whether Jesusâs particular suffering was unusual or not. Also of course, it is not at all surprising that somebody producing a picture of Jesus would match the description given in the bible.
Rubee also mentions the alleged prutah coins found over the eyes, perhaps unaware of how conclusively the evidence for them has been demonstrated untenable, and a âhistorical record connecting it to Christiansâ, when in fact there is no such thing.
âThere WAS a Christian historian from the time who spoke of the cloth with Christâs image that cured a King and converted him.â Rubee doesnât say what âfrom the timeâ means; it certainly does not mean from the time of Jesus. Either way, the legend of the image of Edessa does not involve a shroud, but a miraculous image of Christâs face made while he was very much alive.
The pollen evidence is also flawed, so deeply that the celebrated Israeli botanist Avinoam Danin, who was sufficiently credulous to identify dozens of different flowers all over the cloth, distanced himself entirely from it, saying he was âsorry to state that we cannot use the pollen for any geographical indication.â
In short, I do not know if Prodigal1984âs âdismissal of a TON of evidence as spuriousâ was âcasual or not,â but he is certainly correct that none of it stands up well to serious scrutiny.
Finally, Rubee makes common but significant error in saying: âThe problem was the team that carried out the first part of the process: the sampling. They defied a basic procedure and took ALL samples from one small portion without first ensuring it was representative, then cut it up into three portions and sent it to the three labs.â Actually, as the video taken at the time shows, âthe teamâ (two representatives of the Archbishop of Turin, not of the British Museum or of the the laboratories themselves) spent over an hour examining possible sites under magnification precisely to ensure that the chosen one was representative.
O
observer333
Guest
This is a Catholic site, correct? the level of enthusiasm for this, the most famous and well-studied relic is rather underwhelming, I must say.
Anyway, I donât have time to lay out all of evidence, but I did find this nice summary:
http://www.shroudresearch.net/hprox...earch-on-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf?lbisphpreq=1
As for the Vanillin test, it was just one example of evidence! (like I said I donât have the time or space to list all of the evidence)
Hugh_Farley: âObserver333 claims that âthe Vanillin test of the fabric showed that it was approx. 2000 years oldâ, but then gives a reference which shows nothing of the kind. Perhaps s/he is hoping nobody will read it.â
Here is an FAQ from the site I linked: shroud.com.
Turin shroud âolder than thoughtâ
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Tests in 1988 concluded the cloth was a medieval âhoaxâ
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
http://factsplusfacts.com/resources/Vanililin.htm
Anyway, I donât have time to lay out all of evidence, but I did find this nice summary:
http://www.shroudresearch.net/hprox...earch-on-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf?lbisphpreq=1
As for the Vanillin test, it was just one example of evidence! (like I said I donât have the time or space to list all of the evidence)
Hugh_Farley: âObserver333 claims that âthe Vanillin test of the fabric showed that it was approx. 2000 years oldâ, but then gives a reference which shows nothing of the kind. Perhaps s/he is hoping nobody will read it.â
Here is an FAQ from the site I linked: shroud.com.
- Are there any other ways than radiocarbon to date the Shroud?
(here is the part about the VanillinâŚ)
âŚsome compounds like lignin change composition with time. The lignin in the Shroud
does not give the normal microchemical test for vanillin, indicating that it is quite old.
Measurements of the chemical rate for loss of vanillin estimates an age for the Shroud of more than 1300 years, depending on storage conditions.
Turin shroud âolder than thoughtâ
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Tests in 1988 concluded the cloth was a medieval âhoaxâ
The Shroud of Turin is much older than suggested by radiocarbon dating carried out in the 1980s, according to a new study in a peer-reviewed journal.
A research paper published in Thermochimica Acta suggests the shroud is between 1,300 and 3,000 years old.
The author dismisses 1988 carbon-14 dating tests which concluded that the linen sheet was a medieval fake.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm
http://factsplusfacts.com/resources/Vanililin.htm
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Thank you, observer333, for so clearly setting out your agreement with me. âQuite oldâ and âmore than 1300 yearsâ do not equate to âapprox. 2000â in any language. No doubt you have read Ray Rogersâs Thermochimica Acta paper, and how he calculated the rate of loss of vanillin in linen. He used the Arrhenius equation, which is extremely temperature dependent. Rogers, a consummate scientist, freely admits this. âThe major problem in estimating the age of the shroud is the fact that the rate law is exponential; i.e., the maximum diurnal temperature is much more important than is the lowest storage temperature.â However, he goes on only to estimate possible storage temperatures, not the âmuch more importantâ diurnal ones, and then makes the unjustified claim that a âlinen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978.â Having admitted that maximum temperature is much more important than storage temperature, he then attempts to argue away the effects of the 1532 fire, on the grounds that the thermal conductivity of linen is very low. This, as Iâm sure he knew, is a weak argument. Heat travels through a folded material via convection in the interstices between the threads and the air in the folds at least as much as through the cellulose of the material itself. Furthermore, the temperature of molten silver (which, it is claimed, dripped onto the cloth) is about 900ËC, and the rest of the cloth only had to be heated to about one tenth of that for any vanillin to have decomposed in a few minutes.
I have to say that many, if not most, of those who argue for the Shroudâs authenticity rarely have âthe time or the space to lay out all of evidenceâ supporting their case. This is a pity, because, as we can see, any evidence that they do have time to lay out can usually fairly easily be seen not to be as accurate, nor as convincing, as may appear when briefly reported in sensationalist news reports. Non-authenticists, on the other hand, are happy to find both the time and the space to explain clearly and in detail what they think and why they think it.
I have to say that many, if not most, of those who argue for the Shroudâs authenticity rarely have âthe time or the space to lay out all of evidenceâ supporting their case. This is a pity, because, as we can see, any evidence that they do have time to lay out can usually fairly easily be seen not to be as accurate, nor as convincing, as may appear when briefly reported in sensationalist news reports. Non-authenticists, on the other hand, are happy to find both the time and the space to explain clearly and in detail what they think and why they think it.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
Those of us who are nonpartisan observers, who have no ax to grind either for or against the authenticity of the Shroud, do our best to keep up with developments. Whenever new evidence emerges, or even a new interpretation of old evidence, we make the effort, once again, to reassess the balance of probabilities. Reading this thread and weighing, as carefully as I can, the arguments presented on both sides, I think that balance has just shifted toward a later date rather than an earlier one.
B
BartholomewB
Guest
In his post #32 or 33 above, @observer333 linked to a recent NCR feature on the Sudarium of Oviedo, in which the author notes that the AB blood type is found on both relics. What is the significance of this, in your view? What is the probability that the two relics come from the same burial?
Last edited:
R
Rubee
Guest
Its not just the blood type, but the pattern of blood stains on both pieces of cloth match to a ridiculously improbable level if they did not actually touch the same face: Something like 110 similarities in the same spots or something, iirc. Iâm sure all this info is available on shroud.com. I too am wondering about the response, @observer333, but I have no doubt than any impartial person who actually goes through the evidence will come out very convinced or at least not willing to casually say âOh, nothing to see here.â There was only ONE piece of evidence that went against authenticity, against tons that went for, and that one piece is the now invalidated C14 dating.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.