|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Lord Shiva However our of respect for you. I will read it more carefully tomorrow. I just got home and I'm tired. Until then have a good night. |
||||||||||||||
|
Thanks No rush. |
||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva 1. Did the original chemist who handled the samples distributed to the three testing sites. Find that his control sample had contamination in it in the form of cotton fibers? Yes, or no? AI, says both yes and no depending on how the question is worded. If you ask AI , if cotton fibers had been found to be in the samples, you get a detailed explanation of yes... See below Raymond Rogers stated that he found cotton fibers in the radiocarbon dating samples of the Shroud of Turin because his analysis revealed that this area contained a mixture of cotton and linen, along with a gum/dye coating. He concluded that this section was part of a medieval repair, not the original cloth, and was dyed to match the surrounding linen. This discovery led him to argue that the 1988 carbon dating results were invalid for determining the Shroud's age. Who is Raymond Rogers: en.m.wikipedia.org www.patternsofevidence.com Raymond Rogers was an American chemist and Director of Chemical Research for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). He led the chemical analysis of the Shroud and later challenged the 1988 carbon dating results, arguing that the sample used came from a medieval repair patch, not the original cloth. His findings, published in Thermochimica Acta in 2005, included evidence of cotton fibers and dyes in the tested area, which differed chemically from the rest of the Shroud, suggesting it was much older than the medieval period. Rogers himself said that the shroud should be redated. Is there any other evidence that the dates are not accurate because of contamination? Yes there is. 1. The samples used in the three Labs were destroyed in the process of dating them. There is no way of knowing how much contamination was present. 2. The three tests had a variance from one another that is statistically significant pointing to something not being right. While it is normal for there to be variance. This variance was noted to be significantly more than expected or usual. 3. Pollen samples contradict the dates given. 4. (Waxs) Exray a non evasive method that is particularly good at examining textiles also contradicts the dates given. 5. The Hungarian manuscript that has an illustration depicting unique characteristics only attributed to the shroud of Turin who provenance is Known. Also contradicts the dates. 6. Raymond Rogers, the chemist who handled the original samples, found contamination and said the results should not be trusted. That's a lot of evidence to ignore!!! pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov there is also evidence suggesting that the carbon dating results of the Shroud of Turin may have been skewed due to repairs. Some researchers argue that the 1988 samples included threads from medieval repairs, specifically "invisible reweaving," which combined original fibers with newer material. This could explain the dating to AD 1260–1390, instead of an earlier period. Answer to the first question is a resounding Yes. 2. Under close examination (that was published) had the shroud of Turin been found to have been repaired by French reweaving? Yes or No? YES. Yes. Published studies, including those by Ray Rogers and others, provide evidence supporting the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin underwent "French invisible reweaving" in the 16th century to repair damaged areas. This technique could explain discrepancies in carbon-14 dating results, as samples for testing were taken from repaired sections. guypowell.com Also worth noting is Raymond Rogers was not part of the devout Christian subset of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) While his personal religious beliefs are not extensively documented, he is described as a scientist focused on evidence rather than religious motivations. , there is published data suggesting that the Shroud of Turin's radiocarbon sample may have been taken from a repaired area using techniques such as "French reweaving." Studies argue that this repair, potentially involving invisible mending, could have introduced newer material, skewing the 1988 radiocarbon dating results to a medieval age. Experts like Benford and Marino, and others, have presented evidence of chemical and structural differences in the tested area compared to the rest of the cloth. www.academia.edu shroud.com www.shroud.com There is no credible evidence to suggest that The paper proposing that Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) was poorly researched! It is more evidence (that does need further verification by other methods) even though this method has sparked debate it does not appear to be widely criticized as poorly researched. The study, conducted by Italian scientists, concluded that the Shroud's linen dates back approximately 2,000 years, aligning with the time of Christ. However, researchers acknowledged their findings are experimental and require independent verification. Critics have pointed out the need for further testing and emphasized discrepancies with earlier radiocarbon dating but have not broadly dismissed the study as methodologically flawed. Also it was peer reviewed. When research is described as "peer-reviewed," it means that it has been evaluated by independent experts in the same field before publication. These reviewers assess the study's methodology, data analysis, conclusions, and overall quality to ensure it meets scientific standards126. Peer review lends credibility to research by acting as a filter to prevent flawed or unsupported claims from being published34. While it does not guarantee absolute accuracy, it significantly enhances the reliability and authenticity of the findings, making it a cornerstone of scientific integrity. So if it hasn't been brought up in the peer review process that the paper was poorly researched. I guess we will have to take the word of a random posters in Quoara because that better aligns with our biased opinions and suppositions. Right 👍 😎 👍. Right I'm not saying that the Should of Turin is authentic. I am saying that the evidence suggests that it is. And that still doesn't mean it is the burial shroud of Jesus Christ. It only can be said to be consistent with it being. More analysis is needed. Like it or not The Shroud of Turin is widely regarded as one of the most scientifically scrutinized artifacts in history. It has undergone extensive analysis. |
||||||||||||||
|
Rogers Before quoting the random Quora guy—indeed even before finding the quote—I had followed the same procedure. I looked up WAXS myself, and noted the ONLY reference to it regarded the dating of unmolested linens stores at constant temperature, and all the tests included reference to the Turin shroud. I only reproduced the Quora quote because it matches my own experience. I wanted to find out how WAXS works, and was greeted with mumbo-jumbo. C14 is very clear and straightforward. Nuclear decay is not affected by heat (outside the heat of stellar cores), cold, pressure, height, darkness… For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate nuclear isotopes in a static environment such as presented by the 3:1 chevron linen in Turin. Cosmic ray spallation of nitrogen gas trapped in the fibers could throw off the count, as could medieval dye left on the fibers, or magical reweaving incorporating modern thread. Researchers know from exactly where the samples were taken, and were well aware of the potential for this argument prior to taking the sample. Why would reweavers have redone a portion of the shroud not subject to any damage? When was this undocumented reweaving supposed to have occurred? Why couldn’t God protect the relic the way He has the inerrancy of scripture? So many questions, so few answers. I accept it is safest, theologically, to simply go with the well established C14 dates, acknowledging the cotton fibers represent a source of contamination potentially “modernizing” the date yielded by as much as two centuries, as previously noted. If one lab dropped a cotton fiber (I think the Tucson lab had the earliest result?) this would explain BOTH the discord between the dates as well as the Hungarian manuscript mention. Even one century is an enormous difference. One century ago in the US horseless carriages were just beginning to make their way into markets. Laptops and tablets and voice activated phone transcription was utterly unknown. But if the Hungarian manuscript IS referencing the shroud (and based on the unique features I will concede it isn’t referencing a similar forgery) plenty of time would have passed between when it was first brought to Italy and its deposit in Turin. I also note that modern weavers of chevron linen can’t match the invisible repair technique purported to have been used on the undamaged section of shroud from which the samples were gathered. How blessed were these medieval artisans no modern forger can match their craft? The person commissioning the repair just chanced upon the most highly skilled fabricators in the kingdom without ever noting the fact of it? I would not mind another C14 test. We can conduct analysis on nanograms now, versus 1988 tech micrograms. A nanogram is a millionth of that mass. It is down to the pollen scale. But I believe the church itself recognizes the validity of the original tests, and thus sees no need for any retest. They have their answer. The relic serves its purpose as a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus. It certainly doesn’t have to be genuine, to be real. Real is anything comprised of either electromagnetic matter, or non electromagnetic matter. Thus even a counterfeit bill is “real,” even if it isn’t genuine. So the antonym of real is imaginary. If it exists only in your mind, it isn’t real. So let us take the most talented reweaver in Christendom and have them replace a fiber from a portion of the shroud all agree wasn’t tampered with by invisible medieval craftsman of such consummate skill they deceived 1988 sample collectors, and test that fiber with the updated equipment. Then out of the woodwork will crawl “experts” insisting the entire shroud was removed without shaking loose 1st century pollen—miraculously. My failure in writing this is that it comes across as sarcastic. That is some defect of my character. I would erase this all and redo it, but fear I would only make it worse, as that has been my experience in times past. So just know that aspect wasn’t intentional. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 12:31 1. <For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate nuclear isotopes in a static environment such as presented by the 3:1 chevron linen in Turin.> An impressive allusion. You know the classics! 2. <If one lab dropped a cotton fiber (I think the Tucson lab had the earliest result?) this would explain BOTH the discord between the dates as well as the Hungarian manuscript mention.> It's good to see a more nuanced approach than a simple 'fake/genuine' division. 3. <The relic serves its purpose as a reminder of the sacrifice of Jesus.> This was the thrust of how the Pope spoke about the shroud. It's also the purpose of icons in general, whether in the Western Church or the East; to act as a focus for contemplation. An icon does not need to be ancient in itself, it needs only to evoke an awareness. That's a key aspect to the 'religious' mind that the 'scientific' mind simply can't understand. 4. <My failure in writing this is that it comes across as sarcastic. That is some defect of my character.> Yes, but it's one of your more likable features. If you had any friends they would call it 'satirical wit'. |
||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva And that may be the case. I hate to break it to you. But everyone has biases some on a subconscious level that isn't even perceived by the person who has biases. However to say that since you can claim (without evidence) that they are biased. Then elany evidence they produce is null and void. Isn't science. They should be judged on the merit of the evidence that they presented!!! You also have biases and look for evidence that feeds your preconceived notions and your brain on auto pilot filters out much of the evidence that you are biased against! The brain ignores things automatically. It's job is to keep you alive. It is up to the spirit to override that biological computer and search for whatever the truth is. But a very few do. So, I challenge you to prove your claim (that AI quoted with evidence!!! ) The (WAXS) method "The Wide-Angle X-Ray Scattering" (WAXS) method was first developed as part of X-ray crystallography research. Its origins date back to the early 20th century, when X-ray diffraction techniques were established for studying crystalline materials. WAXS, as a specialized application, has been widely used in polymer science and material characterization for decades, though its use for dating historical objects is a more recent development, emerging prominently in the 21st century. It is mainly used to date textiles, therefore it has limited usage! And the people who wrote the peer reviewed papers, stated that other methods should also be used. And that more testing needs to be performed. Some things (WAXS) has dated. 1. The WAXS method has analyzed at least four historical linen fabrics. These include: The Turin Shroud (1260–1390 AD by radiocarbon dating, potentially 2000 years old by WAXS)1. 2. A medieval fabric from Fayyum, Egypt (544–605 AD)1. 3. A linen sample from the Siege of Masada, Israel (55–74 AD)1. 4. An ancient Egyptian fabric (3500–3000 BC) There just arnt that many textiles in need of dating. (The science of (WAXS) is sound and has not been discredited even through peer review! Your biases are making you see what you want to see. <So many questions, so few answers. I accept it is safest, theologically, to simply go with the well established C14 dates, acknowledging the cotton fibers represent a source of contamination potentially “modernizing” the date yielded by as much as two centuries, as previously noted. If one lab dropped a cotton fiber (I think the Tucson lab had the earliest result?) this would explain BOTH the discord between the dates as well as the Hungarian manuscript mention. Even one century is an enormous difference. One century ago in the US horseless carriages were just beginning to make their way into markets. Laptops and tablets and voice activated phone transcription was utterly unknown. But if the Hungarian manuscript IS referencing the shroud (and based on the unique features I will concede it isn’t referencing a similar forgery) plenty of time would have passed between when it was first brought to Italy and its deposit in Turin> All of the above is based on opinions and suppositions. There are answers to the questions, just not answers you want to hear! Theology has nothing to do with the scientific evidence provided! Either the evidence is correct or it's not. If it isn't then I expect a refutation based on science. Not suppositions about what may have contaminated or how much, that you couldn't possibly know and since the samples were destroyed in the process no one knows. That's why Rogers said that the dates should be redone and the one's acquired can't be trusted. And HE was the chemist who handled it! FFS <I also note that modern weavers of chevron linen can’t match the invisible repair technique purported to have been used on the undamaged section of shroud from which the samples were gathered. How blessed were these medieval artisans no modern forger can match their craft? The person commissioning the repair just chanced upon the most highly skilled fabricators in the kingdom without ever noting the fact of it?> More suppositions without evidence! I provided detailed evidence of the evaluation of not only Rogers, who found not only cotton fibers but pigmentation. youtu.be I also provided evidence that the Shroud had been repaired. As well as several other things that contradict the dates given including the fact that the variance of the dates were also a red flag. And what I get in reply to that evidence is a BUNCH of What if's and suppositions! Your message only comes across as sarcastic because of your biases and suppositions display through your writing of stories. I'm not impressed, sorry. If you're going to debunk the evidence I presented. It's gonna take more to convince me that ... Because you say so. The Chemist who handled the samples reluctantly went back to examine them. And found actual real world evidence of pigmentation, gums, and cotton fibers!!! That are not part of the shroud. I guess they just got there by magic and only in the control sample, and not the samples that were destroyed in testing.. 👍👍 If they escaped notice of the sample collector, the chemist who prepared them and all three Labs who handled them. Must be magical then. How very scientific! |
||||||||||||||
|
WAXS Why can’t WAXS date anything besides textiles? Does it date the linen or cotton harvest date, the thread date, or the weave date? A microbiologist friend of mine spins and knits wool. She has both a drop spindle and a spinning wheel, but prefers the drop spindle because it is easier to use, takes up less space, and gives her yarn more of a natural, handmade look and feel as opposed to a machine result. She may spin yarn months or even a few years after it is harvested. She will dye it using dyes that are months or years old. How do yarn dyes impact WAXS dates? How should I know, given I have no idea how to derive an age date by shining a light, nor why the light reveals manufacturing dates on textiles but not ceramics or other organic like sticks, teeth, or bones. At least with thermoluminescence and electron spin resonance we have an inkling about the procedures and limitations. So there is this technique one guy claims works and no one yet refutes. I’m skeptical of anything like that until a bunch of different people get concordant results. Fleishmann and Pons had remarkable success with cold catalytic hydrogen fusion no one wrote peer reviewed papers against, until no one else could replicate their results. (Everyone was right to be suspicious). We know the linen came from the Middle East (most likely). Here is an idea. Teutonic Knights stuffed the shroud in an ancient tomb, perhaps rubbing it on the walls to artificially age it. There it picked up first century pollen. They may even have encouraged an unknowing confederate to “find” the linen for them, to lend credibility from someone not in on the initial gag. “Margaret de Charny sold the Shroud of Turin to the royal house of Savoy in 1453 in exchange for two castles. She was excommunicated as punishment for selling the [relic].” I didn’t see what the knights got for the shroud. They might have simply used it to inspire another crusade. Yes, lots of speculation. The hard data is the c14 dates, and further speculation regarding how those dates might be contaminated. I am convinced MOST researchers would have preverr3d the shroud date to the first century, as that would have been both the most interesting and most entertaining result. This 12th/13th century business is highly disappointing. I think we all agree on that. “The 2022 [WAXS] study's results bolstered the hypothesis that the Shroud of Turin truly is from the time of Christ, although the researchers made no conclusion regarding the shroud's authenticity as a relic and also noted that further testing is needed to confirm their conclusions.” Key takeaway: more study. “The Shroud would have needed to be kept at a temperature of around 68–72.5°F with 55–75% relative humidity for over 1,300 years.” Pure speculation the shroud was kept in such conditions for 1300 years. Then it was subject to a wide variety of conditions the subsequent 700 years. That is one more reason for my lack of confidence in the WAXS result, beyond the removal of carbon contamination prior to the definitive 88 C14 tests, you’re speculating suffered the same amount of contamination in each sample. I don’t have to speculate—I have the hard numbers. |
||||||||||||||
|
And I'm not speculating, the chemist found contamination. I didn't speculate on how much may or may not have been in any one of the 4 different samples. you did going as far in one post to say that there were no cotton fibers! You don't know how WAXS works? It would seem counter intuitive that a form of light would allow a person to see someone's bones or metals in their body. Lot's of things are counter intuitive. Or that magnetism exchange's virtual photon's. Here's another idea. I'm going to stop wasting my time now. I could imagine ways (like you) on why my position is correct. But Im not gonna speculate. So the final verdict may be in your mind. As for me. The jury is still out. |
||||||||||||||
|
Hard Numbers No, I do not recall saying in one post there were no cotton fibers. I posted how a repair conducted some time in the past 700 years would decrease the calculated age, but the estimate given for the few added fibers (apparent NOT associated with any repair—but possibly a backing?) would have decreased the calculated age by at most roughly two centuries. This was the estimate given by the lab that made the C14 measurement. And that is a long ways from the first century. We disagree about the shroud, and I will absolutely change my mind if new C14 tests yield entirely different results, provided they are conducted as carefully as the 88 tests. In the past quarter century we’ve vastly improved C14, so we require a tiny fraction of the milligrams required for the 88 testing. I suspect the church s satisfied they already have the right answer, so no test will be forthcoming. |
||||||||||||||
|
Discussion |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
LS |
||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 10-Jan-25, 00:25 |
Gee! Agree, but its still nice to hear something new. Next crazy conjecture please! |
||||||||||||||
|
We do not know the science behind or even the possibility of resurrection however I have concluded that the image on the shroud was produced by that event. It is up to science to determine how the image was produced. Science is working on it (since) 1978. The image has 3 dimensional information imbedded in it. It wasn't produced by any dye, pigment or burning and is only a couple of microns deep. One hair on your head is 20 microns thick. The image is also in the negative. It is a very mysterious object. |
||||||||||||||
|
Ah I wish to emphasize how much more fascinating the shroud would be if it truly dated from the first century, instead of the 13th. Above I erroneously stated the Tuscon (sp?) lab came up with the oldest date. It was the youngest, the Oxford the oldest. The same mysterious power permitting invisible reweaving of the damaged shroud (which failed to prevent the initial damage) also failed the C14 test. There is a movie about a boy cloned from shroud DNA, but because he has no mother he falls to be imbued with a soul. Instead of a second coming the boy develops into an antichrist. There are multiple approaches coming close to revealing how the image was formed. It could have been something simple we’ve just overlooked. I find it curious whatever technique was used wasn’t far more prevalent in the 13th century for shadow casting many other relics. When you e seen one sliver of the one true cross you’ve seen them all. Make no mistake, the uniqueness of the image absolutely hearkens to something special. Bob’s approach is absolutely the best. The shroud serves as an emblem, it doesn’t have to be “authentic.” Science lacks any means whatsoever to tie the image to Jesus, and the image bears little resemblance to any ugly hook-nosed Dead Sea pedestrian. I think Isaiah described Immanuel as homely. It was effeminate renaissance artists who depicted Jesus as a flaxen, long haired, sculpted body builder. And this Teutonic knight portrayed in the shroud bears little resemblance to any tribal judean circa 30 CE. That’s my critique. If you hold thin skin up to a bright light you can peer a bit inside. That there are wavelengths that penetrate like radio passes through walls is now well understood. But tuning light to resonate a fabric age? I need to know a whole lot more. We all know how homeopathy works. It is purely sympathetic magic, the earliest form involving distilled water “memory.” Water doesn’t remember, and homeopathy is pure scam. Walgreens sells tiny vials of distilled water marked up about ten thousand times. |
||||||||||||||
|
Sympathetic Magic I replied, “no.” Pretty quick she asked, “how about now?” Voodoo dolls might be a more apt analogy than trinitite glass in this instance. Even if no one is claiming the shroud possesses the healing power of homeopathic distilled water. Count on Frank to find a conspiracy theory for us. |
||||||||||||||
|
The AI on Waxing WAXS (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering) fabric dating works by analyzing the degradation patterns in the crystalline structure of cellulose fibers within a fabric sample, using X-rays to measure how the fibers have deteriorated over time, allowing researchers to estimate the fabric's age based on the observed changes in its crystallite size and degree of crystallinity; essentially, the more degraded the cellulose structure appears in the WAXS pattern, the older the fabric is considered to be. Key points about WAXS fabric dating: How it works: When X-rays interact with the cellulose fibers in a fabric sample, they scatter at different angles depending on the arrangement of the cellulose molecules. By analyzing the scattering pattern (diffraction pattern) at wide angles, researchers can determine the size and organization of the crystalline regions within the fibers. Degradation process: As fabric ages, the cellulose chains break down, leading to smaller crystallite sizes and a decrease in the degree of crystallinity, which can be observed in the WAXS pattern as changes in peak intensity and position. Comparison to known samples: To accurately date a fabric, researchers compare its WAXS pattern to a database of patterns from fabrics of known age, allowing them to estimate the age of the unknown sample. Limitations: Environmental factors: Environmental conditions like temperature and humidity can significantly impact the degradation rate of cellulose, making it crucial to consider these factors when interpreting WAXS data. Sample preparation: Proper sample preparation is essential to ensure accurate results, as contamination or damage to the fabric can affect the WAXS pattern. Not a definitive method: While WAXS can provide valuable information about fabric age, it is often used in conjunction with other dating techniques like radiocarbon dating for more precise results. From Wiki: no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is substantially unreliable.[6] In 2019, an editor of Nature (the journal in which the radiocarbon dating study was published) stated that "Nothing published so far on the shroud [...] offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong. Samples were taken on April 21, 1988, in the Cathedral by Franco Testore, an expert on weaves and fabrics, and by Giovanni Riggi, a representative of the maker of bio-equipment "Numana". Testore performed the weighting operations while Riggi made the actual cut. Also present were Cardinal Ballestrero, four priests, archdiocese spokesperson Luigi Gonella, photographers, a camera operator, Michael Tite of the British Museum, and the labs' representatives. As a precautionary measure, a piece twice as big as the one required by the protocol was cut from the Shroud; it measured 81 mm × 21 mm (3.19 in × 0.83 in). An outer strip showing coloured filaments of uncertain origin was discarded. So very great care was taken in the initial sample selection, further enhanced by the labs themselves in the cleaning and preparation. On 12 December 2003, [Raymond] Rogers received samples of both warp and weft threads that Luigi Gonella claimed to have taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. The actual provenance of these threads is uncertain, as Gonella was not authorized to take or retain genuine shroud material, but Gonella told Rogers that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. [Wasn’t the WAXS performed on these fibers?] The official report of the dating process, written by the people who performed the sampling, states that the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud. [My apologies if I already quoted this, but worth repeating all the same.] In 2010, statisticians Marco Riani and Anthony C. Atkinson wrote in a scientific paper that the statistical analysis of the raw dates obtained from the three laboratories for the radiocarbon test suggests the presence of contamination in some of the samples. They conclude that: "The effect is not large over the sampled region; … our estimate of the change is about two centuries." [This next section is especially relevant!] In December 2010, Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A. Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon-dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F. Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material. End quote. There is more, but the above is really compelling, and I am satisfied we have our answer, at least until a further C14 test disputes the current result. I’m just not buying questionable WAXS on threads of disputable provenance over original shroud C14 samples, regardless how marvelous the image might be. So powerful was the shekina glory it transmuted nitrogen in the fibers into sufficient C14 to throw off dating a thousand years… |
||||||||||||||
|
WAXS was peer reviewed! Everyone is biased! What matters is has the evidence been debunked or contradicted! FFS, what's so damn hard to understand about that? Even the scientist who performed the WAXS said other methods should be used and Thier finding was just one piece of the puzzle. You are merely copying and pasting AI and things that you have previously said. As if AI have never addressed them. That is the source of my agitation. I personally don't believe you took a good unbiased, results and evidence based approach to what I responded with. And that's fine. Carbon 14 dating result of the shroud of Turin, what is the evidence. NOT WHAT I THINK OR WHAT I WANT. What does the evidence say? I'm going to preference this with. I didn't start off with a theory or an opinion and then looked for evidence to support whatever I thought!!! Imagine if all homicide investigations were conducted that way! You would have even more innocent people going to prison than we do already. Look at the evidence and let that tell the story! Not the other way around. If, the carbon dating results were beyond reproach. Why would the Chemist who handled the samples question it enough to reluctantly take another look at the samples? He didn't want to look at them! They had to twist his arm to do it! If he were a biased person he would have jumped at the opportunity or would have done that on his own! He had to be convinced. What did he find? Gums, pigmentation and cotton fibers in the samples that were cut up and distributed to the three Labs! Oh were just going to blow that off as no big deal. Right 👍 👍 Notice that I could have included But didn't... Neutron Absorption Hypothesis: Radiation, possibly emitted during a hypothesized resurrection event, could have altered carbon-14 levels, skewing the dating to a medieval period. Because I can't prove that. Or the fact that there are links to the shroud being in Constantinople when 12:05 because I can't prove that either! The Hungarian manuscript is another thing altogether. You can see it for yourself! There is an illustration depicting unique characteristics of the shroud of Turin and that manuscripts promenade is known it's also been dated to 1190 to 1195. Well beyond any variance of plus or minus given by any of the three laboratories. But I'm guessing the that you didn't even as much as look at it!!! what was your reason in rationale again oh yeah we can have enough pieces of the real cross to build the thousand different crosses and so we're going to just blow it off because of suppositions and opinions without even looking at the evidence why should I even bother continuing to even discuss this? Just keep copying and paste in what you said over and over again like that's going to make you any more right! Also, the variance between the three samples were unusual enough to be listed as statistically significant. Meaning it's abnormal. |
||||||||||||||
|
Yeah that's it's a miracle whoever forged this artifact is beyond a super genius perhaps God forged it. |
||||||||||||||
|
Are you going to trust the results and go ahead with that surgery or are you going to want on the second opinion? |
||||||||||||||
|
Quotation This was not an attack on the method, but on the suggestion the sample selection and process was unreliable. This was not me attacking you, this was the article emphasizing the opinion of the experts involved in the original analysis, and their opinions in the ensuing decades. Three separate teams of highly skilled scientists vs. the one WAXS guy studying threads of unknown provenance from material we know was subject to environmental degradation (fire) and centuries of handling potentially degrading cellulose fibers well beyond their actual age. My attempt was only to explain the foundation for my opinion, not an effort to persuade you to agree. Though I did feel Bob’s insight into relics was something we could agree on, despite iconography being more of a Catholic tradition than anything recognized by Protestant faiths. Some folks feel the need to raise their arms and thrash about on the floor babbling glossolalia, while others prefer to gently kneel on those little benches while praying quietly and inhaling incense swung from thuribles. (New word for me!) I’m not of either persuasion. I remain perfectly content you’re satisfied with the WAXS first century. It just dawned on me with your interpretation of the image WHY you found that result more satisfactory than the C14 result. I’m perfectly fine with your position. If you feel some compelling need to convince me WAXS is superior to C14 we’re going to remain at loggerheads until a fiber from elsewhere in the shroud gets tested to circa 30 anno Domini. I’m not trying to persuade you C14 is superior, only explaining why I’m convinced. |
||||||||||||||
|
Actually, all (or most) homicide investigations ARE conducted that way, which is how so many innocent victims ended up in prison, including the Central Park Five Groper still insists ought to be executed despite their exoneration and the confession of the actual rapist. You’re not Groper—more like the opposite. And sadly, prosecutors often are highly reluctant to release folks they know were falsely convicted, especially if they are black. Also, I didn’t do what you accuse with regards to the shroud, either. The Wiki article is very well researched and thoroughly documented, with the opinions of a slew of experts, including the cardinals and church authorities all involved and hoping for a beautiful result. Hence their initial discard of suspect thread before even submitting a portion for sampling. I’m suspicious of greater bias in the WAXS guy than in the three teams coordinating efforts with church hierarchy. They all wanted a first century result as badly as the WAXS guy, and simply refused to allow themselves to be deceived. We do agree whether the relic is genuine or a clever forgery remains irrelevant overall. I would be delighted by a new C14 test yielding a first century date. I’m just not impressed by the conflicting WAXS result that was apparently conducted on the same radiocarbon fibers. C14 works on organic material no matter environmental factors, whereas WAXS is limited to cellulose fabrics stored at constant temperature and humidity. These conditions were certainly not guaranteed for the shroud. A single fiber tested from another part of the shroud, divided into three portions and measured by three other labs (one or two of which should remain the same) would be really interesting. If the church doesn’t agree then my conclusion is that they have the C14 result they know is right. |
||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva My apologies for the curt response. I let my agitation get the best of me sometimes. Sorry for that. I will give your post the proper care and review that it deserves. |
||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva how can they know if the samples used for testing were destroyed in the process of measuring? The samples are destroyed in the process. You can site careful documentation all you want. They didn't test the fiber for other properties that are not present in the main body of the shroud. They cleaned it (not going to detect cotton fibers that way sry) Raymond Rogers found evidence of contamination in the radiocarbon sample area of the Shroud of Turin. His analysis revealed the presence of cotton fibers, a gum/dye/mordant coating, and pigmentation, which were not present in the main body of the Shroud. Either there was contamination or there wasn't. There is no way of knowing what or if or how much may have been present when the three Labs burned the samples to ash. Question for you. Why was the variance between the 3 Labs cited as being unusual? the variance of the radiocarbon dating results from the three laboratories (Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich) was cited as unusually high. Statistical analyses, including the Chi-squared test, showed that the results exceeded the threshold for compatibility at a 95% confidence level (Chi^2 > 5.99 for 3-1 degrees of freedom), indicating significant inter-laboratory heterogeneity. This suggests that the data were not consistent with being repeated measurements of a single age and raised questions about the reliability of the medieval dating. These discrepancies. Along with all the other ones that I have noted that contradict the dating results. Shouldn't just be cast aside. This is verifiable evidence. I agree with the people who made the measurements using WAXS , that it needs more testing. However what you said about WAXS isn't true. <one WAXS guy> Dr. De Caro was only the lead scientist, they had a whole team. <WAXS is limited to cellulose fabrics stored at constant temperature and humidity.> Again this is not true. WAXS (Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering) is a versatile technique used to analyze a variety of materials, including cellulose, under different conditions. While factors like temperature and humidity can influence the structure of cellulose, WAXS is not inherently limited to samples stored under constant conditions. It is widely used to study structural changes in materials subjected to varying environmental and processing parameters. Also, I'm not saying that WAXS is a better method or more reliable. Only that it is a legitimate method used on a variety of textiles. And is only one method. That the results of Thier test (by a team of scientists) was peer-reviewed and nauseum. I'm not willing to accept some guy on Quoara opinion. Or others who give an opinion, without presenting sound scientific evidence that shows the method as unreliable. Also to say something was poorly researched (a paper) is also subjective suppositions and opinions. Either Thier findings were refuted or they weren't. It really is that simple. The evidence that the samples used to carbon date the shroud of Turin, evidence of the contamination is significant. |
||||||||||||||
|
Gentlemen, Do we accept THIS data or THAT? Do we think it is the burial cloth of Jesus or a Medieval forgery? Do we see a carefully-selected sample of the original or bumbling, incompetent inclusion of a later repair? Personally, I find the pollen data very persuasive; how could pollen from the Middle East get onto a mediaeval forgery? Answer:- by being bundled up with the cloak of a Crusader who had been to the Middle East, and pollen was transferred from one cloth to the other. So I'm not dead certain even on that which I find credible. For every one of these either/or questions I can put forward at least a third and often a fourth or fifth alternative. So let's all keep in mind the full range of evidence and possibilities, and eliminate only those which can be ruled out with five-sigma confidence. In the meantime, I need to confess that my religious sensibilities completely disregard any value in relics except as historical, scientific evidence. No plenary remissions granted, no blessed State of Grace conferred, no mystical insight glimpsed. In fact, my religious inclination is to treat the Incarnation as much more than baby Jesus in the Manger. I see the whole Cosmos involved, or as Paul says:- "With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillment—to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ." Thus the whole of the Cosmos is 'taken up into Christ' just as much as Christ was incarnated into the Cosmos. Everything is now both everyday and 'sacred'. A relic is no more (and no less) than an artifact that serves to remind us of this. |
||||||||||||||
|
C14 Because when they collected the sample they cut it in half. The church kept half, and the other half was divided and sent to the three labs. The three labs did a thorough job cleaning the samples, removing six centuries of dirt, dust, grime, etc. At least one (possibly all three) labs notes the presence of foreign cotton fibers. While I do not know, I suspect some of that fiber was removed by the Oxford (not Tucson) lab. If (as my suspicion holds) the cotton was of more recent origin, variation in the sample amount would account for the few decades difference between Oxford and Tucson. The error bars only overlap on two of the labs, not all three. The difference is attributable to variation in the amount of (potentially) more modern cotton fiber content. Dye and other forgery components would have been washed off in the cleaning procedure. Sodium hypochlorite doesn’t contain any carbon, but does a fine job lifting dye off fabric. I know because my daughter spilled some on my carpet. Every time I look at it I am reminded what a fine job NaOCl does at lifting dye. So clean linen fiber from a section of shroud all the many principle groups concurred was original and free of invisible reweaving. And after examine the unburnt sample, experts still detect no reweave. That is just from textile experts carefully examining the sample section not subject to destructive testing. I propose they test the maverick cotton fiber in the unburnt C14 sample, now that we can test individual strands. AND that they remove a single strand from a different section of the shroud, now that we can reliably carbon date such tiny fragments. Send that sectioned strand to three different labs. I would lay odds we get within a century of the original dates. Would that be close enough to predate the Hungarian account? I need to look at the provenance on that, but I agree with you it is highly unlikely the Hungarian was referencing a different shroud forgery. (Or the actual shroud of which Turin is the forgery—I won’t assume which, but WILL assume Jesus was not encased in two different shrouds.] You are persuading me we should have them do one more test. It has been nearly forty years since the 88 test. How long would the shroud last if we tested a single fiber every forty years? There should be enough to last to the 50,000 C14 limit. |
||||||||||||||
|
Pollen Nope. Your crusader isn’t likely to get coated in specifically thousand year old pollen. That’s why I proposed the forgery was hidden in a tomb rich in first century pollen another person was encouraged to “discover,” like seeding a creek with gold flake to sell mineral rights, which would give great credence to the shroud provenance. All of that was lost centuries ago, so no one now knows the route taken by the shroud to Turin. If God wanted us to have a holy relic, the provenance should have been preserved. And the C14 dates concordant. |
||||||||||||||
|
Church of the Holy Sepulchre I was in a hurry, running past stations of the cross (not in order) with just barely rime to snap a photo. Most of my time in Jerusalem was in the roof of a hotel overlooking the mosque, or outside the city picking up rocks while locals explained how the date of a photograph of the city my cousin had by the construction of buildings within the city. They narrowed it down to within a decade of the 1930s, pretty close to the date we knew. We retook that photo from the mountain of olives, where I gathered more rocks just in case I ever attend the funeral of a Jewish friend. So how do you get first century pollen on a shroud? The pollen would need to be in something very much like a tomb, opened when you might haul in a shroud or shroud covered body, but sealed much of the rest of the time to prevent more modern pollen contamination. This discounts the shroud being recovered from the two popular tombs open from time immemorial. I mean, where is another likely source of first century pollen to contaminate Teutonic knight linen? They can’t have selectively found first century pollen to inoculate their shroud circa 1200 AD. |
||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 15:31 That's another possibility. There is more to this than a 'genuine shroud of Jesus or medieval forgery' choice. We just don't know. |
||||||||||||||
|
Opinion I will always strive to align myself with the truth. Even if it is painful or uncomfortable. I just looked up some information, just to satisfy my curiosity. First-century Jewish religious leaders adhered to specific burial ordinances and regulations. Jewish law required prompt burial, typically within hours of death, to avoid defiling the land (Deuteronomy 21:23). Bodies were washed, anointed with spices, and wrapped in linen before being laid in rock-hewn tombs or simple graves, depending on wealth and status. Criminals were buried in designated dishonorable locations, often under Sanhedrin oversight 5. Above-ground burials, cremation, and public displays of the body were strictly forbidden, emphasizing respect for the deceased and separation from non-Jewish practices Jewish law and traditions emphasized the sanctity of burial spaces, but there is no explicit evidence suggesting that unused tombs had to remain closed. However, Jewish customs required burial grounds to be marked and respected to avoid ritual impurity, and disturbing graves or tombs was strictly prohibited. An imperial decree during Emperor Claudius's reign also imposed severe penalties for tampering with graves, reflecting the importance of preserving burial sites. The shroud (as far as history is concerned) was first seen in France 1354, over 2,000 miles from Israel and 1354 years after 1st century pollen. It is possible, however I believe that it is highly improbable that a medieval forger placed it in a 1st century Tomb. How would they know that the Tomb was of the target age? And how would they have access? It might be possible that a crusader may have had access. But why would a medieval person think to do that? Planting evidence that they didn't know existed or is it simply an accidental thing. That is a lot of coincidences. |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
