Just do another carbon dating on the Shroud already! What do you think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RealisticCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One thing that drew me to studying Guiseppe’s video for so long was simply the notion that the Shroud is an object worthy of veneration.

When you look at the Shroud, you look at a representation of Christ’s face; or, in other words, it forms a prayerful meditation on the Holy Face of Jesus. With respect to Guiseppe’s very well presented argument, I think you see a deeply scientific prayer of a very devout gentleman, who honestly cares about his work.

Whether true or not, the suggested insights definitely reveal a lot of possibilities one normally wouldn’t have considered, so you might want to hold on to your hat when watching it. I myself try to be open-minded about such matters, so I found it fascinating. However, if you are of the more traditional mindset, then please know I equally respect the more established views as well.

Ad Jesu Per Mariam,
Totus Tuus,

🙂

Wm
 
Last edited:
Finn said:
That’s really interesting - thanks. Have you come across any commentary or articles on this, other than the paywalled journal itself?
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a pretty “fresh” discovery, they will for sure try to develop something more in this field of study, i’ve seen that Giulio Fanti is involved too. My friends from Polish Centre of Sindonology have sent me this document. They agree that it’s indeed a great discovery and that the results are really interesting.

Have you read this document?
 
Last edited:
Gigas97 said:
Femtosecond pulse laser processing concentrates a huge quantity of light energy in extremely short pulses of a few tens to hundreds of femtoseconds

This means that the source of the image is probably an extremely huge source of light energy (probably resurrection). If this will be proven true, forgery theories will bite the dust.
Click to expand...
Except that someone will immediately posit that precisely that kind of energy release occurred due to some heretofore unknown natural phenomenon.

“For him who believes, no proof is necessary. For him who does not, no proof suffices”… 🤷‍♂️
 
Sure, i mean, it’s obvious that dead bodies do release laser-like light waves 🤣 didn’t you know?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I have researched. Every objection being neatly met with contradictory facts is part of why I am skeptical. First it’s a patch that was tested, then it’s dye from a later century that contaminated the results. The literature is full these stories.

Replicas have been made using techniques available in 1200. Different features are achieved with different methods. While the exact combination of methods is not known, there is no one feature that defies explanation.
 
There can be no more Carbon dating done on the Shroud. Not with the technologies currently available to us.
The reason is that the Shroud is kept in a special container that contains an inert gas that would completely trow off the results.
It has been documented.
It is sad that the people who took the samples for the test that was carried out did not heed the warnings of the team that had studied the Shroud photographically and had warned that the results would not be correct.
They knew that the Shroud had been repaired in the Middle Ages and that there could be contamination. Also the Shroud was in fire, hence the repairs. Guess what happens in fire? Materials that are scorched change their composition since they out-gas the elements that have lower melting point and CO2 that is produced by the fire impregnates the fabric.
Not a good start for a “scientific” experiment. Too many variables.
But alas so many “scientists” in the end prove themselves to be fools.
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
This is an interesting read. All about how the proportions are off if the Shroud is supposed to be an actual human…

Secular Web Kiosk: The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud — Because If It's Real the Brain of Jesus Was the Size of a Protohuman's!
Click to expand...
For this criticism to be valid, the cynics have to wrap a corpse in a linen sheet and then have it produce a negative image with perfect focus/exposure, and that image must not have the same distortions that they supposedly see in the Shroud’s image.
 
runningdude said:
Replicas have been made using techniques available in 1200. Different features are achieved with different methods. While the exact combination of methods is not known, there is no one feature that defies explanation.
Click to expand...
The Shroud’s image has certain x-ray features which have not been duplicated. Its image is made up of a premature aging of the surface of its linen fibers. That has not been duplicated. Its image is of a human corpse that was executed by crucifixion, and that has not been duplicated either. The Shroud’s blood is human blood, and there is no image underneath those blood stains. In the removal of the bloody corpse from the burial shroud, the linen fibers were not torn at all by the coagulated blood stains.
 
Last edited:
There is also literature contradicting everything you’ve just said. The whole thing is clouded by conflicting stories.
 
The items that I quoted have been confirmed by peer-reviewed scientific investigation. Sure, you may quote McCrone’s discredited theories, or Joe Nickell’s, or Hugh Farey’s, cynics who have not conducted any scientific examination of the Shroud or had their work peer-reviewed. McCrone had never even seen the actual linen, and his “research” was self-published.

I think that it is important to remember that a great many persons have an agenda to discredit the Shroud. Atheists, Jews, Moslems, Bahai’s, etc. don’t like the idea of a miraculous image of Jesus on His burial linen. They generally are not forthcoming as to their prejudices. On the contrary, the STURP scientists did not have this agenda. Most of them thought that they would have the mystery of the image figured out on the first day. That did not happen, but skeptics continue to falsely allege a religious bias to the STURP members.
 
Last edited:
The fact is that there is no reference to the Shroud prior to the 14th century. While it’s conceivable that it was hidden for 1300 years, considering the importance of relics to the Early and Middle church it seems improbable. Even the Church at the time was dubious, considering the proliferation of relics, to the point that some saints seemed to have had two or more heads.

At this point I think all that can be known of the physical structure of the Shroud has been learned. The Church wisely takes no official position on the Shroud’s origins.
 
niceatheist said:
The fact is that there is no reference to the Shroud prior to the 14th century.
Click to expand...
Prior to the 14th century, the Shroud was not presented to the public as a bloody burial cloth. There is a very strong history in the Orthodox Church of a miraculous image of Jesus on a cloth. If the Mandylion had not been removed from Constantinople prior to the Shroud’s appearance in France, you could legitimately say that the two could not be the same. But that is not the case, and it has been well researched.
 
Actually there are some references, even The Hungarian Pray Manuscript 1192-1195, and it’s much earlier than 14th century.

To look for more historical references i recommend you this Critical Summary page 7 to 47.

EDITED (wrong word used)
 
Last edited:
RealisticCatholic said:
The last carbon dating showed that the piece of cloth originated from the Middle Ages.
. . .the sample was actually from a repair patch to the Shroud after a fire had damaged part of it.
Click to expand...
The Shroud’s 1988 C-14 evidence was mis-interpreted by the British Museum as indicating a date, but that evidence did not pass a proper statistical analysis that is detailed in a 2015 book by Fanti and Malfi.** The C-14 labs were supposed to have shared their Shroud data with a Turin institute for this statistical analysis but did not do so. Instead they violated the written protocol and leaked their erroneous conclusions to the press. Fanti and Malfi conclude that the Shroud’s 1988 C-14 evidence is “scientifically meaningless” [as far as indicating a date is concerned.]

In the 2002 “restoration” the underside of the Shroud was very carefully examined by the leading textile authorities, and they could find no evidence of an “invisible repair.” Furthermore, the Shroud’s C-14 content becomes higher as the part of the sample tested moves away from the Shroud’s edge, and this is the opposite of what one would expect if medieval threads had been woven in. Most other contamination theories have also been disproven.

The one possibility that remains for explaining why the Shroud shows a greater C-14 content than would be expected for a 2000-year-old relic is that. at some point in its life, it was subjected to neutron radiation. Linen fibers are contain about 4% nitrogen. Neutron radiation would have converted some of that nitrogen into radioactive carbon fourteen.

Experiments have shown that the discoloration of the Shroud’s linen fibers could have been caused by proton radiation. Evidence gathered from the Shroud indicates that the corpse it covered was somehow removed without tearing or otherwise damaging its linen fibers. In other words, the corpse vanished into another dimension! That idea is consistent with the ancient legends (Gospels) about the person that is reputed to have been lain to rest in it. Rucker* states that a weak dematerialization of just a small percentage of the corpse’s atoms would have been sufficient to produce the image.
Atoms, of course, also contain neutrons. If there was proton radiation, then neutron radiation would also have been present.

My opinion is that further testing of any kind is not necessary. The Shroud was proven authentic by its 1898 photo negative***, and the 1988 C-14 evidence constitutes proof that Jesus’ corpse vanished from the inside of His sealed tomb just as it is recorded.

**THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Fanti/Malfi, 2015
*TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2015
***THE SHROUD OF CHRIST, Vignon, 1902
 
Last edited:

Life size statue derived from the Shroud…

There have also been many far more credible studies done on other forms of 3D imaging of the head… none have suggested anything “protohuman”…
 
To those speaking re: “our faith shouldn’t be based in this.”

Yes I agree. However, if it’s authentic, then the Shroud is wonderful testimony to, at the very least, the crucifixion of Jesus and potentially even the Resurrection (considering theories to formation of the image).

One individual I highly respect is Fr. Robert Spitzer, S.J., and some of his ministries/Organizations like the Magis Center and CredibleCatholic.com utilize Shroud research to a tremendous extent as a basis to bolster Christian claims regarding Jesus.

So I’m asking about the Shroud because I myself am trying to discern whether bringing up the Shroud is a worthy effort when talking about the historical Jesus. Many research initiatives suggest so. But even on here, many others are saying it’s fake. Why isn’t there a clear answer?
 
In TEST THE SHROUD, 2015, Antonacci devotes a whole chapter to contesting Roger’s “reweaving” theories. I was shocked by this analysis, but it does make sense. Textile experts carefully examined the underside of the Shroud during the 2002 “restoration” and could find no evidence of any “reweaving” on the sample corner or anywhere else.
In my opinion the theory that neutron radiation enhanced the Shroud’s C-14 content is the right one.

https://www.researchgate.net/public..._of_Radiocarbon_by_Neutron_Radiation_on_Linen
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top