|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Apatzer |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Bob, in regards to your document creation suppositions. I hate to break this to you but It would be nearly impossible to create a modern document that could fully "fool" carbon dating techniques. Radiocarbon dating relies on measuring the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in organic materials, which reflects the atmospheric conditions at the time of the material's formation. Modern calibration methods, such as tree-ring data and advanced isotopic analysis, provide highly accurate historical baselines for comparison. Any attempt to artificially manipulate this ratio would likely be detectable due to inconsistencies with known calibration curves and other cross-referenced dating methods. However nearly impossible isn't impossible. So I'll say the senerio is highly unlikely and highly improbable of fooling close scientific scrutiny for very long. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 10:35 Don't worry, mate! I know you say these things only because you love me and want what's best for me. So perhaps I need to explain the logic of my fraudulent document step-by-step. As you say, C14 dating measures the C14/C12 ratio in the sample. This ratio depends on two factors:- 1. The C14/C12 ratio at the time of the carbon absorption, and 2. The time since that absorption, since C14 decays but C12 doesn't. So far I think we are on the same page. My fraud involves creating an artifact with a C14/C12 ratio which mimics something which had absorbed C14 from the atmosphere 5,000 years ago, and undergone 'normal' decay since then. The tree-ring data you mention and some other methods provide an excellent baseline for the historical C14 atmospheric concentration over time, once corrected for decay since that time. This is important because that concentration has varied over time for various reasons such as vulcanism and other biological/geological events. As you say, calibration is essential. What I posit as my fraud is not a difficult thing to do. It would involve:- 1. determining what the C14/C12 ratio of a 5,000 year object would be NOW. This is not difficult; just take a 5,000-yer-old sample used precisely for this calibration purpose and measure it. Even easier, take the data for the most common calibration for 5,000 years ago straight off the tables. 2. Determine what atmospheric concentration, if applied to a living critter NOW, would result in that same C14 concentration in its hide. This won't be the same as the concentration 5,000 years ago, because the genuine ancient object would have lost almost half its C14 through decay since then (half-life 5,700 years); so a slight bit over half that ancient concentration would be a fair starting point. 3. Provide an enclosed biome with that reduced C14 concentration. That's not hard, because 'old' carbon such as found in coal is completely depleted of C14, so add as much CO2 from burning coal as you need to reach the required concentration. 4. To cover your bets, and if you have the resources, provide similar biomes, some with slightly more 'old' CO2 and some with slightly less. 5. Raise a couple of goats within these biomes, complete with the food they eat, so they are effectively living entirely in a reduced C14 regime. 6. When the goats are old enough to provide vellum, slaughter them and use a sample of their skins to measure the C14/C12 ratio of each. Because of their diet, they will all have been ingesting approximately half the C14 that was present in the atmosphere 5,000 years ago, which (allowing for decay in the real world) would mean that they all closely match what such a critter would have now after approximately one C14 half-life. 7. Whichever skin gives closest to the C14 ratio currently found in the 5,000-year calibration reference, use that skin. Do the same with any organics in the ink, etc. So you see that I'm not 'artificially manipulating' the ratio; I am planning the activity so that ratio arises directly from the conditions the animal lives in. Nor would there be any inconsistency with known calibration curves, because the whole exercise adopts not just these same calibration curves, but the actual data that informs them. Of course there will be other aspects of the scheme that would be detectable as inconsistent with a truly ancient date. One obvious one is that the genetic makeup of a modern goat would be distinguishable from a wild or semi-domesticated goat from 5,000 years ago. (You didn't spot that gap, but that's fine; I'd been thinking about faking such documents for a while to write 'Bones', but you haven't had the time.) This could be overcome by using wild goats from the region, or perhaps just met head-on by saying that the vellum used to write the document was from a 'divinely supplied goat from the end-times, as further proof of when those end-times will come'. Since I'm already using Modern English, anachronisms like this will only entrench the idea that the document is genuinely prophetic. <So I'll say the senerio is highly unlikely and highly improbable of fooling close scientific scrutiny for very long.> Sure there will be 'inconsistencies', but the document itself boasts that these inconsistencies are proof of it being miraculous. Haven't you noticed that the evidence for the shroud also contains such 'inconsistencies'? The aim is not to provide an entirely consistent story, but to NOT provide anything that can't be explained away; which is why I DELIBERATELY include some obvious anachronisms (e.g., Modern English), so as to allow a precedent for more unforeseen anachronisms to be waved through. Just like Trump tells so many obvious lies and self-contradictions that his followers no longer register more lies and self-contradictions. It becomes 'normal'. Isn't that what some people are doing with the 'inexplicable aspects' in the shroud investigation? |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett In my fantasy world the method of detection is foolproof. Because mimicked levels of C14 are not in a state of decay similar to carbon atom's formed from organics. In other words you may get the number of molecules correct but not the state of decay I. each one. You can't mimic the state of decay, sry |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz I have fifty years' experience in designing and building things that started on paper and then worked in the real world. No deaths yet; not even a partial collapse causing damage or loss severe enough to get me sued for negligence. And Murphy was an engineer. He understood one thing that most non-engineers don't. A designer spends most of his time NOT figuring out how something would work, but thinking of how it might fail and then preventing that mode of failure. Yes, failures still happen from time to time, but how many times has a bridge collapsed under you without external disturbance? To say that "Things that work on paper rarely work in practice" is not accurate. <You can't mimic the state of decay, sry> You might have to explain what you mean by 'state of decay'. C14 testing doesn't measure a 'state of decay', but a ratio of C14 to C12. Anything beyond that is not a measurement, but an interpretation. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett the carbon-14 dating system measures the rate of decay through techniques that detect beta particles emitted during radioactive decay. Methods like gas proportional counting and liquid scintillation counting directly measure these emissions, while accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) determines the ratio of carbon isotopes, bypassing direct decay measurement. So i. essence it is multiple methods of measuring that when combined with base samples and calibration, give a range that is interpreted as a date. You are not going to be to both manipulate the numbers of carbon 14 atom's and thier state of decay. radioactive isotope of carbon decays at a predictable rate. It is radiating beta particles. If you're not completely familiar with the intricacies of this process, trying to produce a paper that dates to 5,000 years old would be quite dubious at best. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 17:00 What you are talking about is not a 'state of decay', but the way the PROCESS of decay is measured, or the PROPORTION of 'undecayed' carbon in the sample. You are quite right to say that the measurement is of the RATIO of carbon isotopes, not a 'state of decay'. You continue to miss the point; I'm NOT trying to change the rate of decay, nor the proportion of C14 that decays in any particular length of time. Instead, I am arranging circumstances so that the INITIAL concentration of C14 is lower than 'normal'. Thus any measurement of that INITIAL ratio would suggest and correspond to a 'normal' sample that has already undergone a period of natural decay. I have proposed a method of producing the same proportion of C14 NOW (by a change in initial conditions) as a 'natural' sample from 5,000 years ago. Allow me to draw an analogy. Start with a bucket of water with a small hole in the bottom. You know the rate at which water pours out, and you know that it rained so heavily last night that it would have filled all the buckets. So you can figure out how long ago the rain stopped by measuring how little water is left in the buckets. What I'm proposing is that someone fills an identical bucket two minutes ago, but pours out half the water, just enough to match the water level in the other buckets before putting it beside them. It would look like all the buckets had been out through the rain and left there since. <If you're not completely familiar with the intricacies of this process,> I have a reasonably good grasp of the 'intricacies' involved, thanks. Do you have a grasp of the fact that fossil fuels contain almost no C14? That organics fed carbon from sources poor in C14 contain less C14 in their tissues, and therefore the assessment of age needs to be adjusted? And that if the circumstances of their initial accumulation of carbon are not known, that adjustment can't be made? Instead, an estimate based on expectations is made instead? And that the process I've so laboriously outlined previously is specially designed to mislead expectations? <You are not going to be to both manipulate the numbers of carbon 14 atom's and thier state of decay.> I read this to mean that I won't be able to manipulate both the RATIO of C14 and the RATE of decay. 1. I have outline quite clearly how I would 'manipulate' the ratio of C14. I would do this by growing the goat in an environment with greatly reduced C14. This is how nature itself 'manipulates' C14 concentrations in living organisms in different environments, and why calibration with items of known age from a similar environment are required. Nothing difficult there! 2. I don't need nor want to manipulate the rate of decay. In fact, there is negligible decay in the short period of time from production of the document to 'discovery'; All that is needed is for people to assume the same half-life for the document C14 as applies to all other C14. Once the concentration of C14 in the document matches the target concentration as set out in my detailed steps previously posted, (i.e., that which would apply to a 'natural' 5,000-year item tested today), the rest is the inevitable consequence of the Laws of Physics without further interference. For yodelling in the dark, mate! Is it THAT difficult to follow? Trying to do as I have outlined would not be in the least bit difficult, technically. All it requires is the money to set up the conditions and the competent labour to do it, and the equipment and expertise to monitor the progress of the preparations and the choice of the final vellum. A few hundred thousand dollars would give a CIA-grade result! If you say my scheme wouldn't work, please point out which step in the process I have outlined is flawed, and why. Whether or not anyone is taken in by this fraud would depend on whether or not they see the deliberate anachronisms as 'proof of fraud' or 'proof of its miraculous character'. Just like so many other relics. Shiva understands these things quite well. Your comments, Shiva? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer 09:21 One thing I love about Frank’s posts is how his citations so often flatly refute the crazy arguments he makes. I like to avoid that. I tried to point out that the image technique was closely approximated, but not the image itself. Bob has listed a LOT of issues with the image, starting with the jaw line, but encompassing many things we would not expect from a wrapped corpse. Maybe I should peruse the link again. I didn’t think I had mischaracterized it. The repair thread running through the sample patch could have been expected to subtract a couple centuries off the C14 age, but not a thousand years. So if the shroud WAS 11th century instead of 13th, the Hungarian document could easily have referenced the same shroud instead of a suspiciously similar one. I’m also fixated on no herringbone (chevron) weave in 1st century linen, even though 2:2 patterns are found in softer textiles, especially silk. I still lean towards a forgery as opposed to a genuine burial cloth given the thorn and blood smear placement, as though trying to convince us. Common middle eastern procedure is to wash the corpse before wrapping. The wounds on Jesus should have fully congealed after this, leaving not much blood to discolor expensive, precious linen. I didn’t read this, I just juxtaposed recollection of a recent WWII movie where a dead soldier’s comrades cleansed his corpse before wrapping to disguise themselves as a medic team instead of regular infantry, in the hopes Wehrmacht soldiers might think twice about using them for target practice. In a completely unrelated story, I have been reading about the WWII Italian Campaign, about which I formerly knew absolutely nothing. It turns out the Italians opposed the Allies until Sicily was lost (the largest amphibious assault ever—two divisions bigger than Normandy). Then the Italian government arrested Mussolini and surrendered. The Nazis had always been treating the Italians poorly, and they were more than happy to side with the Americans afterwards. So Italy switched sides. Only a third of the invasion was US soldiers, most were Canadian, New Zealanders, Aussies, and various North African groups and others. The Germans lost around 4000 troops in Sicily, same as the Allies forces, but the Italians lost many thousands there. And the bombing of Italy was ferocious, but when we stopped Italians met US troops with flowers and wines, welcoming the Allies as liberators. Many Italians had immigrant relatives in the US, or had lived in the US themselves. The relations were far closer than they had been among the Germans, who tended to steal and destroy Italian goods and infrastructure. Finally, the thing I wanted to mention but got sidetracked—when a special mountain division scaled a cliff during the night Germans thought was impassible, one group surrendered but a soldier in that group shot and killed a popular officer, a captain I recall. After that when the Germans surrendered they tended to all get killed anyway. I read the France book first, this campaign occurred a year earlier. Malmady wasn’t mentioned, so I have to figure out yet when that happened. |
|||||||||||||||
|
State of Decay You can't mimic the state of decay, sry>> Beg to differ. These are nuclear processes. So C14 atoms don’t age any differently now than they did 2000 or 40,000 years ago. A carbon is a carbon is a carbon. They are utterly indistinguishable. The rate is no faster or slower from ancient C14 as it is for modern. Before Bob posted the DNA argument occurred to me. What Bob didn’t mention is that DNA itself does not age well. Unlike atoms, molecules of this complexity can reveal age characteristics, as the DNA crinkles and breaks over time. This is why we can recover DNA from Neanderthal less than 50,000 years old, but not from dinosaurs. I think we have managed some plant DNA into the low millions, preserved in very special circumstances. DNA can, however, be artificially aged, using processes similar to those required to age the vellum. Careful application of heat, UV, pressure, chemical reactants, etc. Put another way, if you had an ounce of C14 produced today, and an ounce extracted from organic carbon 5000 years old, both ounces of pure C14 would decay at identical rates, and no chemist or nuclear physicist could distinguish between the two ounces. I trust this is clear. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer 17:00 You are right about many things, but off on this one. These rate of decay is NOT measured. As Bob noted, the ratio of isotopes is measured, not the decay rate. The decay rate is already known. We then look up the age from tables of index artifacts, dendrochronology, and so forth. The theory posits a certain atmospheric concentration, but we know there are fluctuations. Volcanic emissions are dwarfed by 20th century fossil fuel emissions liberating gigatons of depleted C14. So future archaeologists will require twentieth century table adjustments. Above ground nuclear tests in the 1950s boosted atmospheric C14, as cosmic spallation is a weak source of nitrogen transmutation. Ice ages also pull down atmospheric CO2, which is partly why Earth chills so much. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Ancient People |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 21:46 I make use of this point in 'Legends of Erde' when the Erdan archaeologists try to date the scraps of paper left behind by the 'Creators'. Because these papers came from Earth, which has a thinner atmosphere than Erde and therefore a higher C14 ratio, their C14/C12 ratio is higher than ambient Erdan organics. This proves the Creators to be from another planet. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett So we will agree to disagree. I don't feel like mudding the water by going down a thought experiment rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the OP. I have outlined why your methods are technically detectable. We don't have to agree 👍👍 |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva It is the isotope's residual proportion of beta particles (an effective of decay/halflife) carbon-14 decay is measured indirectly. Methods like liquid scintillation counting (LSC) and gas proportional counting (GPC) detect the beta particles emitted during carbon-14 decay to estimate its concentration in a sample. |
|||||||||||||||
|
- Andy Stumpf (Retired Navy SEAL) |
|||||||||||||||
|
1. Calibration and Cross-Checking: Modern radiocarbon dating is calibrated against tree rings, ice cores, and other historical data to account for fluctuations in atmospheric carbon-14 levels. Any discrepancies caused by "artificial manipulation" would "likely" the be detected! 2. Contamination Detection: Laboratories are well-equipped to identify contamination or ""inconsistencies in isotopic ratios"" (because carbon 14 decays at a predictable rate!, which would raise red flags causing further scrutiny!!! 3. Complementary Methods: Radiocarbon dating is often cross-verified with other dating techniques like dendrochronology or stratigraphy, making it harder for a fake to go undetected! So if any red flags get picked up they will use other methods. 4. Unknown unknowns! There are techniques being developed and other techniques being perfected all the time. You can't account for what you don't know! This is why murderers get caught. While it is not outside the realm of possibility that you are able to forge a document that on the surface dates to 5,000 years ago. It is highly unlikely and highly improbable to fool close scientific scrutiny for any extended period of time. But congratulations on hijacking the conversation. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
P.S I feel what he wrote in that post isn't entirely accurate and it needed to be put into context. And in response I get mostly suppositions, summary dismissals based on conjecture and opinions. And fantasy variations from very overactive imaginations. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Did you? Did that ever cross your mind? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Antiquities Market Carbon tests on paintings or antiquities artifacts are pretty rare. Statues of course cannot be carbon dated, but ship timbers can. How long before the Piltdown hoax was discovered? Washington Irving just made up a yarn medieval people thought the world was flat, which I was taught in school and is STILL widely believed. Here it is 800 years later and some folks are still convinced the by the Shroud of Turin hoax. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Greenhouse Food So vellum is out, but hemp and paper stock could be produced this way. Unless we feed goats greenhouse depleted produce. These greenhouses already exist, so a potential forger is out only the cost of a goat and whatever it takes to raise a goat to slaughter. I mean, if he is building the greenhouse for hoaxing, sure—but most forgers would make do with what they have available. The current practice is to wash authentic material dating to the time and place to be forged. That stock is very hard to beat. Here is a forgery on papyrus discovered by Turin researchers, based partly on provenance suspicions and the reputation of the dealer: www.thehistoryblog.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
The Wife of Jesus is Real |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 14:30 Which is precisely why my hypothetical fraud DIDN'T use standard animal feed, but depleted feed. As you say, "These greenhouses already exist, so a potential forger is out only the cost of a goat and whatever it takes to raise a goat to slaughter." Interesting article about the papyrus. It was not C14 dating which indicated forgery, but other details. C14 ages are among the easiest to fake, if you have the time and resources; and the most easily contaminated if scrupulous care is not taken. Palaeography and textual nuances take much more expertise to get right. The Donation of Constantine was determined fake because of the vocabulary being anachronistic. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 14:37 You little pixie! What you mean is that the document titled 'Gospel of Jesus' Wife' is not a modern forgery. Does that mean that Jesus had a wife? Your posted article includes... "Over the past two years, extensive testing of the papyrus and the carbon ink, as well as analysis of the handwriting and grammar, all indicate that the existing material fragment dates to between the sixth and ninth centuries CE [ Common Era]. None of the testing has produced any evidence that the fragment is a modern fabrication or forgery." So yes, the 'Gospel is a document written over a thousand years ago. That doesn't mean that what it says is 'gospel truth'! I make a similar point in 'Bones'... “I can only rely on what the experts tell me, Helen. And they tell me that the Dalla Document has been subjected to every test known to the relevant sciences and appears to be a genuine first-century document.” “Will it be accepted into the official list of New Testament books?” Hillman pressed. “Oh, no! You misunderstand me!” Sim waved away the suggestion. “When I say that it's a genuine first-century document, that only means that it appears to be a document written in the first century. It doesn't mean that everything it says is true. Lots of gossip, propaganda and misrepresentations were written in those days, just as in our own. The accuracy of what the text says can only be assessed by comparing it with other evidence such as other writers, physical evidence, and so on." The 'Wife's Gospel' was written in or after the sixth century, and only a few lines survive. So we can't assess its genre, sources or anything else, except that somebody wrote it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
:) Also, I raise baby chicks in my greenhouse, but if I raised them C14 depleted greenhouse grain they would date like living fossils. I only meant most farmers who raise livestock in greenhouses (they help keep the plants warm, but baby chicks do kick up a lot of dust and when they get big enough can fly up peck the leaves off all your plants) feed them regular feed. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva I am hoping that you will be willing to answer some simple questions. 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? 2. Under close examination (that was published) had the shroud of Turin been found to have been repaired by French reweaving? Yes or No? 3. Was the X-ray dating procedure which was peer reviewed. A reliable method for testing purposes. Yes or no, if no then why not? You blow off and ignore anything that doesn't jive with your preconceived notions, and in that ability you rival Trump supporters at it. Because they do the exact same thing. As you well know |
|||||||||||||||
|
AI Responds Linen from a Nubian tomb This linen was excavated in 1964 and could be dated to the 11th to 12th centuries AD. Linen from an Egyptian mummy This linen was associated with a mummy from Thebes and was dated to 110 BC–75 AD. Threads from a cope These threads were removed from the cope of St. Louis d'Anjou and were dated to 1290–1310 AD. The three control samples were given to three internationally recognized radiocarbon laboratories for dating: The University of Arizona in Tucson, The Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule in Zurich, and The University of Oxford. The laboratories communicated their results to the British Museum, which published the results in Nature. The study concluded that the linen of the Shroud of Turin was likely from 1260–1390 CE. End quote. No cotton would have been in either of these three control samples. Wiki: Despite some technical concerns that have been raised about radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, no radiocarbon-dating expert has asserted that the dating is substantially unreliable. 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.[37] The remaining sample, measuring 81 mm × 16 mm (3.19 in × 0.63 in) and weighing 300 mg, was first divided in two equal parts, one of which was preserved in a sealed container, in the custody of the Vatican, in case of future need. The other half was cut into three segments, and packaged for the labs in a separate room by Tite and the archbishop. LS: So if they chose poorly, two experts were involved. I am inclined to think the cotton fibers may have been present in the original cloth.] Wiki: As part of the testing process in 1988, Derbyshire laboratory in the UK assisted the Oxford University radiocarbon acceleration unit by identifying foreign material removed from the samples before they were processed.[46] Edward Hall of the Oxford team noticed two or three "minute" fibers which looked "out of place",[46] and those "minute" fibers were identified as cotton by Peter South (textile expert of the Derbyshire laboratory) who said: "It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply became bound in when the linen fabric was woven. It may not have taken us long to identify the strange material, but it was unique amongst the many and varied jobs we undertake.” LS: Notable is that even the noble French linen used a plain as opposed to 3:1 chevron weave. Of course, that was 500 years after the hoax shroud. Nature: 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. That is critical. Why conduct invisible weave repair on an undamaged section of shroud? So the cotton threads don’t seem to be a relevant issue, especially given they were only a few of the provided fibers—I explained earlier modern thread mixed with the sample would have increased the date two centuries at best. 2. << 2. Under close examination (that was published) had the shroud of Turin been found to have been repaired by French reweaving? Yes or No?>> I believe sections may have been repaired—careless to have let the shroud be subject to such damage. I reject the notion the sample sections were taken from any repair portion, as they were removed from undamaged cloth. If the cloth had sor some time been wrapped in cotton cloth, that could explain the fiber contamination. Again, the results would not be that wildly impacted. It is possible the Tucson lab removed more modern cotton fiber than the Zurich, thus accounting for lack of result overlap. However, I’m not even leaning towards cotton fiber contamination. It would be interesting to know where those came from. Radiocarbon: 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. 3. Was the X-ray dating procedure which was peer reviewed a reliable method for testing purposes. Yes or no, if no then why not? MDPI: On a sample of the Turin Shroud (TS), we applied a new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degradation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS). The X-ray dating method was applied to a sample of the TS consisting of a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image, near the so-called Raes sample). The size of the linen sample was about 0.5 mm × 1 mm. We obtained one-dimensional integrated WAXS data profiles for the TS sample, which were fully compatible with the analogous measurements obtained on a linen sample whose dating, according to historical records, is 55–74 AD, Siege of Masada (Israel). The degree of natural aging of the cellulose that constitutes the linen of the investigated sample, obtained by X-ray analysis, showed that the TS fabric is much older than the seven centuries proposed by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. The experimental results are compatible with the hypothesis that the TS is a 2000-year-old relic, as supposed by Christian tradition, under the condition that it was kept at suitable levels of average secular temperature—20.0–22.5 °C—and correlated relative humidity—75–55%—for 13 centuries of unknown history, in addition to the seven centuries of known history in Europe. To make the present result compatible with that of the 1988 radiocarbon test, the TS should have been conserved during its hypothetical seven centuries of life at a secular room temperature very close to the maximum values registered on the earth. LS: No. They measured adjacent to the repair section. So why didn’t they get the same result as the C14 folks? IF the cloth had not been subjected to extreme heat charring a portion of it, the X-ray date might be more reliable. But the extensive handling and fact the cloth was subjected to many changing conditions over its 800 year existence was bound to yield older X-ray dates. I am also highly suspicious of the result. Too convenient they just happened to achieve the desired result. This is a new technique not widely tested—I don’t trust it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
From Quora on WAXS In other words, the person proposing the method is the one who is also making an extraordinary claim for it. What’s worse, the paper proposing that WAXS proves the authenticity of the Shroud is poorly researched. It makes the claim: “The Turin Shroud (TS) is the most-studied archaeological object in the world.” However, its references for this are not independent assessments of what are the most studied objects, but previous summaries of research on the Shroud. The claim itself lacks credibility: there is actually no register of ‘most investigated’, and, at the more general level, Googling for the most investigated archaeological objects will take you to lists that include the Rosetta Stone, Machu Picchu and King Tut’s Tomb. The Turin Shroud never features on these lists, and for a good reason: archaeologists generally consider it to be a medieval forgery. Even the WAXS Turin paper can only claim that there is a correlation between linen dated by WAXS and by C14 in particular controlled conditions. So, what are we left with? A serious, undeclared, conflict of interest in the research paper. A poorly researched paper that reveals all too readily that the researchers have a vested interest in the Shroud being authentic. Treatment of WAXS as though it were a proven method and Carbon 14 as though it were in some way suspect. No account of why C14 dating should be suspect in this case. Nobody should imagine that a single study using an essentially untried, untested method by enthusiasts with no track record can invalidate three separate, independent tests by accredited laboratories using the most accurate material method for historic dating. To think otherwise is to buy into the conspiracy theory. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
