Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aslan10
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
“…radio-carbon testing dated the shroud to a date of 1260-1390 CE, with 95% confidence…”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_14_dating_of_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Read on in that link. It was well reported that the sampling that they took was on a patched in piece, not the original cloth. This had been repaired at one time, and that’s the sampling that was taken from the cloth.

The sample was part of a later repair

Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[36][37][38][39] It is hypothesised that the sampled area was a medieval repair which was conducted by “invisible reweaving”. Since the C14 dating at least four articles have been published in scholarly sources contending that the samples used for the dating test may not have been representative of the whole shroud.
 
Read the title of the paper again.

GKC
GK Rogers claimed in his own paper that he received thread taken from the center of the C14 sample.I cannot recall who did it or gave them to him but that hardly proves chain of custody or what he was examining. I am not a scientist as I am sure you know,but that closeup of the sample being cut was enough evidence for me. Peer reviewed papers are for peers.I usually just scroll down to the conclusions.

“I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating.” Raymond Rogers When did he do this? Was if after they cut it into three? It was not documented as far as I know.This contradicts Heimbergers conclusion that the threads came from a reserve piece, Rogers clearly states in his paper they came from the samples before they were distributed for testing.
 
GK Rogers claimed in his own paper that he received thread taken from the center of the C14 sample.I cannot recall who did it or gave them to him but that hardly proves chain of custody or what he was examining. I am not a scientist as I am sure you know,but that closeup of the sample being cut was enough evidence for me. Peer reviewed papers are for peers.I usually just scroll down to the conclusions.
Your powers of observation are impressive

Heimberger lays out the provenance and chain of custody and origin of Rogers’ samples. Identifies areas that are doubtful, draws conclusions. Has pretty pictures, too.

Peer reviewed papers are for people who can appreciate them, I agree. Makes folk such as ourselves more than a little shy of drawing conclusions based on our own naive observation of stuff. Or should. Which is why I own several houses full of books. If I want to know something, I want to know it. The Shroud never made the cut for the first team; haven’t thought seriously about it for years. But I built an informed opinion, when i was intersted… Makes me feel more comfortable.

Bet I order a few Shroud titles next. Nothing is on order, currently. Which will mess up my important reading.

So it goes.

GKC
 
Your powers of observation are impressive

Heimberger lays out the provenance and chain of custody and origin of Rogers’ samples. Identifies areas that are doubtful, draws conclusions. Has pretty pictures, too.

Peer reviewed papers are for people who can appreciate them, I agree. Makes folk such as ourselves more than a little shy of drawing conclusions based on our own naive observation of stuff. Or should. Which is why I own several houses full of books. If I want to know something, I want to know it. The Shroud never made the cut for the first team; haven’t thought seriously about it for years. But I built an informed opinion, when i was intersted… Makes me feel more comfortable.

Bet I order a few Shroud titles next. Nothing is on order, currently. Which will mess up my important reading.

So it goes.

GKC
Sorry but Heimberger contradicted Rogers own words. He claims the C14 threads came from a reserve but Rogers in his paper claims they were removed from the C14 sample before it was distributed .No chain of custody no validity.You have to prove what you are testing.
 
Sorry but Heimberger contradicted Rogers own words. He claims the C14 threads came from a reserve but Rogers in his paper claims they were removed from the C14 sample before it was distributed .
You’ve read Heimberger’s paper now?

And the themochimica acta paper?

GKC
 
umm. just the conclusion 😉
Sorry, I edited mine. Since it has a point as to your statement above, I added Rogers paper.

If you read only the conclusion, I conclude you do not read enough.

Knowing things is good, especially in discussions like this. Reading things is a good way to know things. True, you have to read a lot, but that’s how it is.

GKC
 
So if Jesus blood was on the cloth why would the vatican have it vacuumed restored cleaned and a new backing cloth added?

I don’t think it was ever proven conclusively that human blood is on the cloth.
. In the early 1980s, Baima Bollone and colleagues reported that the bloodstains of the Shroud were of the blood type AB (11, 12). it is often mentioned that human DNA has been found in the bloodstains. In the 1990s, Garza-Valdes reported . Results from the Garza-Valdes studies indicated that the blood on the Shroud had belonged to a human, and more specifically, a male .

google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=BVgkVdqFEcT1atC-gNAE&url=https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNGmgGcsoZxR5s11B_SWz9rGOU7qjg&sig2=gjcxWY-hP61wA9lSaL3IdA
 
Scientific finding of pollen from Israel on the Shroud from 2015 years ago proving the Shroud was in Jerusalem when Jesus died and was used in an actual funeral!
24/5/2012

According to university researchers the pollen found in the Turin Shroud corresponds to that of flowers used for funerals in Asia Minor 2000 years ago
MARCO TOSATTI
ROME
In a recent conference held in Valencia, on the Holy Shroud, the work of one Marzia Boi, a university researcher at the University of the Balearic Islands stood out in particular. Boi is an expert in Palynology, which is the science that studies pollen.

As history lovers may already know, the fabric of the Holy Shroud is covered in pollen and Boi’s report clearly highlights that the pollen is proof that the shroud, which is kept in Turin, was a winding-sheet and was used according to rituals common in the Middle East over a thousand years ago. We have therefore taken the liberty of drawing the following conclusion (which we would like to point out was never made by the researcher herself): this discovery is strong proof against the theory of the shroud being a medieval fake. It seems somewhat incredible (and it would be a true scientific miracle) that a medieval forger would have known what ointments and oils were used in Jewish funeral rites in I century AD and that this same forger would have put together aromas and ointments in the knowledge that a few centuries later tools that had not yet been invented might reveal his work.

Marzia Boi wrote in her report in Valencia: “ The pollen traces on the Holy Shroud which have so far been linked to the geographic origin of the relic reveal what oils and ointments were put both on the body and on the sheet. These discoveries have an ethno-cultural meaning linked to ancient funeral practices. These non-perishable particles capture the image of a 2000-year-old funeral rite and thanks to them it was possible to discover what plants were used in the preparation of the body that was kept in the sheet. The oils allowed the pollens, as fortuitous ingredients, to be absorbed and hidden in the shroud’s fabric like invisible evidence of an extraordinary historical event.” According to Jewish custom the dead bodies and the winding sheets were treated with oils and perfumed ointments following a meticulous ritual.

Boi’s research analyses published work concerning the pollen residues on the Holy Shroud. Max Frei, the great Swiss expert on the subject, left a wealth of documentation. The analysis, carried out with more advanced tools than those available over thirty years ago, has made it possible for Boi to rectify some mistakes in pollen-identifications. Among these, an particularly important discovery was made: “I can see that what was believed to be Anemone pollen, actually comes from Pistacia. I identify pollen from Ridolfia Segetum as coming from a plant called Helichrysum which is part of the Asteraceae family.”

She also made another discovery. The pollen which had originally been identified as Gundelia Tourneforti (tumbleweed) pollen, is actually not. Gundelia Tourneforti is one of the 23,000 species in the world belonging to the Asteraceae family and it grows in the mountain-deserts across Asia Minor. In 1999 two great Jewish experts, Danin e Baruch, in their book “Flora of the Shroud”, confirmed that the pollen on the shroud came mainly from the Gundelia species and suggested that the Crown of Thorns might have been made with the leaves of this plant.

Marzia Boi disagrees. Her examination with the electron microscope yielded a different result: the main pollen residue comes neither from Ridolfia, nor Gundelia, but from Helichrysum (29.1%). Cistaceae pollen (8.2%), Apiaceae pollen (4.2%) and Pistacia pollen (0.6%) are also present on the shroud in smaller quantities. “All the plants mentioned here are entomophilous, that is, their pollen is carried by insects rather than air. This shows that there must have been direct contact with either the plants or the materials used for the funeral. The list of pollens reveals traces of the most common plants used in ancient funerals. The pollens identified clarify that the holy shroud was rubbed with oils and ointments, just as the body contained within it did.” There used to be a balm made from Pistacia leaves, fruits and bark that was also used as an ointment. However, a high quality oil was once produced from the Helichrysum and this oil was used to protect both body and shroud.

“The use of this oil in ancient funeral rites is documented in various countries, from Arabia to Greece.”

Marzia Boi concluded: “Identifying the main pollen traces found on the Shroud captures a snapshot of a funeral rite that followed the customs of Asia Minor, 2000 years ago. They are the components of the most precious oils and ointments of the time and have extraordinarily remained sealed in the fabric… The correct identification of the Helichrysum’s pollen, wrongly believed to be that of the Gundelia flower, confirms and guarantees that the body wrapped up in the sheet was an important figure.”

vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/inquiries-and-interviews/detail/articolo/sacra-sindone-sabana-santa-holy-shroud-torino-turin-15330/
 
Sorry, I edited mine. Since it has a point as to your statement above, I added Rogers paper.

If you read only the conclusion, I conclude you do not read enough.

Knowing things is good, especially in discussions like this. Reading things is a good way to know things. True, you have to read a lot, but that’s how it is.

GKC
GQ,it is pointless to read technical papers I havent a clue about. As far as I am concerned they may as well be writing in a foreign language.

The conclusion is very important because it contains the gist of what the author is trying to prove.

I tend to use logic and look for concrete proven facts not people making up their own methods for dating or proving that something is supernatural.That is not at all scientific.

Reading is a good way to acquire knowledge but it is also can be a means of obfuscation.You present too many supposed facts as concrete and most people will buy into it especially if the author of a paper has a lot of credentials or degrees. Very few people think critically when something as emotionally stirring as a purported supernatural relic is concerned.

Until the C14 tests are done again or adequately refuted I have to go with my gut feeling that it is an artistic representation of the passion of Jesus.
 
GQ,it is pointless to read technical papers I havent a clue about. As far as I am concerned they may as well be writing in a foreign language.

The conclusion is very important because it contains the gist of what the author is trying to prove.

I tend to use logic and look for concrete proven facts not people making up their own methods for dating or proving that something is supernatural.That is not at all scientific.

Reading is a good way to acquire knowledge but it is also can be a means of obfuscation.You present too many supposed facts as concrete and most people will buy into it especially if the author of a paper has a lot of credentials or degrees. Very few people think critically when something as emotionally stirring as a purported supernatural relic is concerned.

Until the C14 tests are done again or adequately refuted I have to go with my gut feeling that it is an artistic representation of the passion of Jesus.
And, of course, your way is a good way to never correct your uninformed opinions. Which is not something of consequence. I have no interest whatsoever in your (or any layman’s) opinion on the Shroud topic. I have my own, formed from years of reading (followed by years of ignoring, and a little more reading). Your studied ignorance of the basic issues,even as to what has been said or alleged, is, like your powers of observation, noteworthy. I leave you to it.

Me, I’m relatively informed on the subject, and cautiously on the side of authenticity, and have no emotional stirrings related to it at all. My first interest in it was similar to my interest in the UFO phenomenon, sea serpents and other types of cryptozoology, mysteries of history, as in Rupert Gould’s classic books, stuff like that. What I cataloged in my library as “weird stuff”. Not an emotional category.

Try Heimberger. It has pictures. They might help.

GKC
 
And, of course, your way is a good way to never correct your uninformed opinions. Which is not something of consequence. I have no interest whatsoever in your (or any layman’s) opinion on the Shroud topic. I have my own, formed from years of reading (followed by years of ignoring, and a little more reading). Your studied ignorance of the basic issues,even as to what has been said or alleged, is, like your powers of observation, noteworthy. I leave you to it.

Me, I’m relatively informed on the subject, and cautiously on the side of authenticity, and have no emotional stirrings related to it at all. My first interest in it was similar to my interest in the UFO phenomenon, sea serpents and other types of cryptozoology, mysteries of history, as in Rupert Gould’s classic books, stuff like that. What I cataloged in my library as “weird stuff”. Not an emotional category.

Try Heimberger. It has pictures. They might help".

A picture can be worth a thousand words. Yep,I am pretty sure the video clip of the sample being excised is authentic. If you can show me on the clip at 18 seconds WHERE the hidden seam is I may reconsider my position. This supposed patch is either a new piece of cloth or a piece removed from another area. I see NO indication of either.

I am also fascinated with UFOs and paranormal activity,but I tend to believe UFOs are demonic manifestations.

GKC
 
Very few people think critically when something as emotionally stirring as a purported supernatural relic is concerned.
.
Ah! But this cuts both ways.

Very many skeptics are amazingly biased against anything that is remotely supernatural, and they therefore themselves are not thinking critically, but rather are simply seeking to confirm presuppositions.

We can cultivate doubt just as easily as we can cultivate trust.

Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to point that out. 🙂
 
Ah! But this cuts both ways.

Very many skeptics are amazingly biased against anything that is remotely supernatural, and they therefore themselves are not thinking critically, but rather are simply seeking to confirm presuppositions.

We can cultivate doubt just as easily as we can cultivate trust.

Sorry to jump in, but I wanted to point that out. 🙂
Thank you,that was an interesting point.

Like I keep repeating though until the C14 dating is adequately refuted the artifact has been dated.As far as I know there is no other way to determine when it was created. If 3 labs all came to the same conclusion that is good enough for me.

I still think it is an amazing piece and would love to know how the artist created it.
 
40.png
cjforJesus:
You won’t see the reweaving on the video, unless your vision is something that belongs in the Guinness record book. Here, it would help to understand reweaving. You’re on your own.

As to UFOS, among the first books I ever bought, literally, around 60 years ago, was Ruppelt’s REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, based on his work with the Blue Book project. I collected everything from the primitively naive (Adamski, Keyhoe, Edwards) to the earnest seekers (MacDonald) to the rabidly agnostic (Klass). My opinion varied between “rubbish” and the old Scottish verdict of “not proven”. Which latter is the best verdict I think possible on the subject. Demonic manifestations doesn’t even appear on my radar. I am way too much of a skeptic for that.

GKC
 
You won’t see the reweaving on the video, unless your vision is something that belongs in the Guinness record book. Here, it would help to understand reweaving. You’re on your own.

As to UFOS, among the first books I ever bought, literally, around 60 years ago, was Ruppelt’s REPORT ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS, based on his work with the Blue Book project. I collected everything from the primitively naive (Adamski, Keyhoe, Edwards) to the earnest seekers (MacDonald) to the rabidly agnostic (Klass). My opinion varied between “rubbish” and the old Scottish verdict of “not proven”. Which latter is the best verdict I think possible on the subject. Demonic manifestations doesn’t even appear on my radar. I am way too much of a skeptic for that.

GKC
you cannot see it because it is not there. This elaborate alleged invisible patch would either involve a brand new piece of identical herringbone weave that was SIXTEEN HUNDRED years younger than the shroud,or a piece taken from another corner. Both prospects are highly unlikely. If you look closely at the video the sample really was taken from an unrepaired area as the experts who examined it for hours before the cut have claimed.
 
you cannot see it because it is not there. This elaborate alleged invisible patch would either involve a brand new piece of identical herringbone weave that was SIXTEEN HUNDRED years younger than the shroud,or a piece taken from another corner. Both prospects are highly unlikely. If you look closely at the video the sample really was taken from an unrepaired area as the experts who examined it for hours before the cut have claimed.
All of which shows again you know nothing of what is being discussed. But as I said, you’re on your own from this point forward. I’m starting to feel guilty at so many easy target posts I’m running up. And, as we know, trying to eradicate erroneous, ill-informed opinions from the internet is like trying to empty the oceans with a demitasse spoon.

Happy reading.

GKC
 
:D:(😉
All of which shows again you know nothing of what is being discussed. But as I said, you’re on your own from this point forward. I’m starting to feel guilty at so many easy target posts I’m running up. And, as we know, trying to eradicate erroneous, ill-informed opinions from the internet is like trying to empty the oceans with a demitasse spoon.

Happy reading.

GKC
My opinion is not erroneous and does not need to be “eradicated”. I see what I see. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. God bless and take care.
 
:D:(😉

My opinion is not erroneous and does not need to be “eradicated”. I see what I see. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. God bless and take care.
It needs to be better informed, for sure. Since the reweaving is observable via microscopy and micro-photography and from the detection of both linen and cotton strands, from the radiocarbon area. You will understand what this means.

Books are your friend. Best wishes.

GKC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top