“Shroud of Turin `Fact or Fiction’ from `2004 – 2014′ You Decide”

#AceHistory2Research says Second Face on the Shroud of Turin `Fact or Fiction’ according to the latest news’

Institute of Physics ^ | April 13, 2004 | Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo 

Posted on 04/13/2004 2:52:34 PM PDT by shroudie

The most definitive evidence yet that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake-relic. This is big stuff, published on a highly respected scientific organizations website, the Institute of Physics, a 37,000 member organization of physicists. Their journal is an ethical journal of peer-reviewed scientific studies.Русский: Спас Отпечаток лика Христа на Туринск...

The Washington Times, BBC, the Observer, the Telegraph of London, ABC Australia, the Chicago Sun-Times and several outlets have picked up the story in the last few hours. In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous. It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, it can almost certainly be inferred that it is Jesus. If that is so, it buries the extra-liberal revisionism of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who argue that Jesus was not buried.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products?

The story at the link is quite technical. I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image.

From the extract: “Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing . . . was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations.

2014:


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: clothofturinmedievalhoaxoneborneveryminuteshroudofturin


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last


It is my opinion that this is near-definative evidence that the Shroud is genuine.
1 posted on 04/13/2004 2:52:37 PM PDT by shroudie

To: shroudie
It is my opinion that this is near-definitive evidence that the Shroud is genuine.Agreed.No one has come up with anything remotely capable of explaining how a painter from the Middle Ages could have faked this kind of double image, or that needed this kind of enhancement to see. The other remarkable features of the shroud were sufficient IMHO, but this seems to seal the case.However, I expect to see near hysterical denials that it is of Jesus Christ. Such a thing would have implications that are simply unacceptable to many people.
2 posted on 04/13/2004 3:04:14 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)

To: shroudie
Good find. The nice thing about IoP is that you can download the journal articles at no charge for 30 days from the date of publication (beyond that you’ll have pay a hefty fee for the download).
3 posted on 04/13/2004 3:07:48 PM PDT by NewHampshireDuo

To: shroudie
I’m not a physicist, but as I read the original article, I think it’s relatively neutral as to whether or not the shroud is genuine. One interesting thing it does highlight, however, is that this image analysis discovered differences between the front and back side images that seem to suggest they do not correspond with one another very closely. If anything, I would think that would cast additional doubt on the shroud.But again, I’m not a physicist…
4 posted on 04/13/2004 3:11:09 PM PDT by LandOfLincolnGOP

To: EternalHope
However, I expect to see near hysterical denials that it is of Jesus Christ. Such a thing would have implications that are simply unacceptable to many people. What I find especially humorous is that many hysterical denials will come from Fundamentalists decrying “false idols”. What a world, what a world…”And as a man was being buried, lo, a marauding band was seen and the man was cast into the grave of Eli’sha; and as soon as the man touched the bones of Eli’sha, he revived, and stood on his feet.” — 2 Kg 13:21 (RSV)
5 posted on 04/13/2004 3:15:24 PM PDT by polemikos (Ecce Agnus Dei)

To: EternalHope
> No one has come up with anything remotely capable of explaining how a painter from the Middle Ages could have faked this kind of double imageHmmm. How about this: the painter painted both sides?Not exactly challenging… just paint one side, hold up to the light, paint the other side. Easy.
6 posted on 04/13/2004 3:15:30 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: EternalHope
> I expect to see near hysterical denials that it is of Jesus Christ.What I find funny is that any scientist who looks at the evidence and says, “Nah, it’s a fake,” will be hysterically described as being in hysterical denial.
7 posted on 04/13/2004 3:18:34 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: shroudie
It has been recently discoved that there are also two faces on the shroud of Kerry.Jag
8 posted on 04/13/2004 3:20:31 PM PDT by JaguarXKE

To: LandOfLincolnGOP
Much of the current thinking in the Shroud skunkworks is that the correspondance is within the tolerance ranges of gaseous diffusion of heavy amines. Other possibilities, without regard to miraculous causation, would include an ionizing radiation or corona discharge — though some physicists have real problems with this.The differences, such as the nose on the reverse side which doesn’t show the same extension as the front, are probably completely due to chemical reaction differences, image inhibition by bloodstains, and diffusion of amine reactants if the catalyst or the reactant is gaseous.I am not a physicist either, but I know what sort of scientist Fanti is and I know what sort of scientist Ray Roger, UCLA fellow and former head of the bomb explosives group for the Los Alamos Laboratory, is, and they agree emphatically that this rules out forgery or any form of artistic or crafty technique.Fanti’s words are clear: “It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features.”In fact, the skunkworks group has been working with the double superficiality of the images for some time now. It is hard to imagine how this could be mechanically or artistically produced.

Shroudie

9 posted on 04/13/2004 3:31:34 PM PDT by shroudie

To: orionblamblam
The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud
Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Meccanica, Università di Padova,
Via Venezia 1, 35137 Padova, Italy
E-mail: giulio.fanti@unipd.it
Received 13 October 2003, accepted for publication 12 March 2004
Published 13 April 2004Abstract. Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing, developed ad hoc, was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations. Body features were identified by template matching. The face and probably also the hands are visible on the back of the Turin Shroud, but not features related to the dorsal image. Keywords: image processing, very low signal-to-noise ratio, fast Fourier transform, convolution, Turin ShroudURL: stacks.iop.org/1464-4258/6/491
DOI: 10.1088/1464-4258/6/6/001
PII: S1464-4258(04)70555-3The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin ShroudSo, basically, these guys are stating that after running photographs of the back of the Turin cloth through lots of image processing filters and doing a bit of tweaking, they were able to discern faint blurs that bled through from the other side.

That convinces me! It must be Jesus!

10 posted on 04/13/2004 3:38:27 PM PDT by happydogdesign

To: orionblamblam
Right, except he had to paint it without paint or pigment or dyes or colorants of any kind. He would have needed a microscope and a single fiber paintbrush thinner than a human hair. The color is within a thin carbohydrate film that is 180 to 600 nanometers thick on fibers that average 13 microns in diameter (human hair is 100 microns). It is superficial to the topmost crown fibers on both sides of the cloth. There are no visible concentrations of paint on the Shroud. Period.Shroudie
11 posted on 04/13/2004 3:40:03 PM PDT by shroudie

To: orionblamblam
What I find funny is that any scientist who looks at the evidence and says, “Nah, it’s a fake,” will be hysterically described as being in hysterical denial.To say it’s a fake without any idea of HOW it could be faked is simply denial. Thus far, no one has any idea how the image could have been faked.
12 posted on 04/13/2004 3:41:08 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)

To: happydogdesign
There you go again. Nothing bled through. There is no image between the superficial layers. We’ve been through this before, haven’t we.Shroudie
13 posted on 04/13/2004 3:43:25 PM PDT by shroudie

To: shroudie
Sorry, shroudie, I keep forgetting that one should assume a miraculous, supernatural theory is true, then work backwards to prove it’s validity by ignoring or discrediting those nasty secular humanist scientific techniques and inconvenient historical records. But we minions of Satan are always planting those nasty doubts to test the faithful. Rock on! I have to go plant some more dinosaur bones to plague the creation science folks!CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Shroud of TurinPBS “Secrets of the Dead” Buries the Truth About Turin Shroud
14 posted on 04/13/2004 4:00:00 PM PDT by happydogdesign

To: shroudie
You know, we haven’t entertained the theory that Happy is actually Joe Nickell, trolling around Shroud threads. Could be.
15 posted on 04/13/2004 4:10:03 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: LandOfLincolnGOP
You need to read more carefully, because on page 500-501 the authors state:
“It should be noted that the image of the face, bs, is found in the same position as the corresponding one on the front, in all its detail, and on the same scale, with non-detectable relative rotation within the range of measurement uncertainty (3% for the scale factor, 3 degrees for relative rotations).”In other words, no significant difference in image position with respect to front and back surfaces.
16 posted on 04/13/2004 4:12:32 PM PDT by Kirkwood

To: happydogdesign
Hmmmm dead links. I guess you don’t want readers to see that your sources are an article that was written in 1908 and copyrighted in 1912, since superceded in the Catholic Encyclopedia in 1968 (still outdated but nowhere nearly as biased as the one YOU like to cite).And that the other is to Joe Nickell, PhD in Art and English, no science to his name, a professional “debunker” with a book to sell… more on that later, Happy.
17 posted on 04/13/2004 4:15:51 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: orionblamblam
NO ONE believes that the image was painted – even those who do not believe it is a true death shroud acknowledge it could not have been painted.
18 posted on 04/13/2004 4:17:42 PM PDT by Kirkwood

To: Alamo-Girl; HiTech RedNeck; Don Joe; Young Werther; RightWhale; SMEDLEYBUTLER; mjp; M. Thatcher; …
Shroud of Turin PING!If you want to be included or deleted from the Shroud of Turin Ping List, please Freepmail me.Swordmaker
19 posted on 04/13/2004 10:16:28 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: happydogdesign; shroudie
Amusing that the “credulous” shroudie is the one providing technical analysis and scientific documentation, and the “realist” debunker must make do with sarcasm, innuendo and intentionally ignoring established facts…
20 posted on 04/13/2004 10:28:30 PM PDT by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS — yesterday’s news.)

To: shroudie
I would have said that it is extremely easy to make a fake with these features, since by the 21st c. we are so clever…and then, if it is just a matter of some sugars and starches, let these brilliant physicists of ours replicate it. Can someone not make a linen as linens were made, dry it in the sun, cover a dead critter for a few hours and see what they get? If it’s gaseous diffusion of heavy amines it should happen with the usual reliability of natural phenomena.This chemical explanation is fine with me but can they demonstrate it?
21 posted on 04/13/2004 11:34:22 PM PDT by Graymatter

To: happydogdesign
Thanks for the links. The second one, dating from April 9, 2004 was VERY interesting!
22 posted on 04/14/2004 5:35:24 AM PDT by Netizen

To: EternalHope
> To say it’s a fake without any idea of HOW it could be faked is simply denial.Incorrect. Here’s the logic:Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.Theory refuted; it’s a fake. Exactly how the image got there is another matter; but the evidence shows it to *not* be the shroud of Jesus
23 posted on 04/14/2004 10:35:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam

To: shroudie
> The color is within a thin carbohydrate film that is 180 to 600 nanometers thick on fibers that average 13 microns in diameterHeck, that’s *easy.* Paint the image on a sheet of paper, place cloth on paper, press. SHAZAM! Instant Shroud, ready to recieve income.
24 posted on 04/14/2004 10:37:02 AM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.Guess you’re not up to date on the carbon dating actually used.The sample used was from a corner the Catholic Church felt was not essential to the shroud. It had been contaminated in a fire, and restored in a way that invalidated its use for carbon dating purposes. In addition, it was subsequently shown that the individual fibers in the shroud had grown a biological “sheath” that was not removed prior to testing, and added new biomass to the original material. Since this new growth was obviously younger than the shroud itself, it undoubtedly changed the tested age of the sample.Attempts have been made to mathematically correct for these problems. You may choose to dispute the math, but the correction results in a first century date for the shroud.
25 posted on 04/14/2004 10:52:29 AM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)

To: orionblamblam
In regards to the carbon 14 testing which has been completely discredited: M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, in collaboration with number of textile experts, identified clear evidence of medieval mending on the Shroud. A patch was expertly sewn to or rewoven into the fabric to repair a damaged edge. It was from this patch—quite likely nothing more than a piece of medieval cloth—that the samples were taken. From documenting photographs of the sample areas, the textile experts identified enough newer thread to permit Ronald Hatfield, of the prestigious radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic, to estimate that the true date of the cloth is much older—perhaps even 1st century.Independently, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory have explored the chemical nature of the sample area. They have confirmed the finding of Benford and Marino. Ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis show that the area from which the samples were taken was chemically unlike the rest of the cloth. Chemical analysis reveals the presence of Madder root dye and an aluminum oxide mordant (a reagent that fixes dyes to textiles) not found elsewhere on Shroud. Medieval artisans often dyed threads in this manner when mending damaged tapestries. This was simply to make the repairs less noticeable. The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way.This photograph, by Vern Miller, was taken before the samples carbon 14 testing were cut from the Shroud. It was taken with a heavily-filtered ultraviolet lighting (black light) that did not emit any visible light at all. All of the light you see in the photograph was produced by the fluorescence of chemical compounds on the Shroud. Any variations in color and brightness are a direct result of the chemical composition.The dark brown region across the bottom of the picture is the mended area. The place from which the carbon 14 samples were cut is in the dark brown area just above the tiny triangular white spot located on the bottom edge. (The tiny white triangle is where a small sample was trimmed from the Shroud in 1973 by Gilbert Raes).Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for it. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin.This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.
26 posted on 04/14/2004 11:35:41 AM PDT by shroudie

To: EternalHope
> . It had been contaminated in a fireExcept, of course, fire does not invalidate carbon dating.> and added new biomassThis is another red herring. The mass of “biosheath” required to throw off the dating by the required amount would exceed the mass of the shroud itself.The carbon dating may be off by a few dacades, tops. That’s why, when it’s presented, it’s always presented with error bars.

The carbon dating still stands.

27 posted on 04/14/2004 12:20:23 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
Maybe this chart will help.
Chemical Differences Carbon 14 Sample Area Main Part of the Shroud of Turin
aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud) Virtually none
Madder-root dye (alizarin and
purpurin)
Found Not found
a gum medium  (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant Found Not present
Lignin at fiber growth nodes Very little Significant
vanillin in lignin Found Not found
ultraviolet
fluorescence
significant less
cotton fiber in thread Found Not found
spliced fibers Found Not found

The photograph shown in a previous posting, according to Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud — in Turin — and studied the object for more than 27 years, “shows the fluorescence of the area of the radiocarbon sample. It proves that the radiocarbon sample did not have the same chemical composition as the rest of the cloth. This is a fact – not an interpretation. . . Notice that the entire area above the Raes sample [the tiny white triangle on the bottom edge] and along the seam is darker than the main part of the cloth. It does not fluoresce. . .Its chemical composition is different from the Shroud. That is exactly the area sampled for the 1988 dating fiasco. . . The radiocarbon sample was invalid. No strange, magical events are needed to explain the invalid date. I do not know what the real date is, but I know the sample used in 1988 did not yield a valid date. The poor preparation for sampling in 1988, the poor verification of the sample, the failure to follow written protocols, and the unrealistic claims made about “unreliable” radiocarbon dating have done great damage.”

The carbon 14 testing, sadly attested to in Nature Magazine in 1989, joins the ranks of junk science. It wasn’t the labs that failed. It was the gross incompetence of the sample selection process.

28 posted on 04/14/2004 12:41:38 PM PDT by shroudie

To: orionblamblam
The carbon dating still stands.The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail. To sum up the current state of the scientific investigation, the carbon dating does NOT still stand.As additional information you might consider the book, The Blood and the Shroud, by Ian Wilson, published in 1998. To quote The Washington Post (sorry ’bout that), “Wilson’s outstanding study must surely be the most complete yet undertaken of the subject.” Although it is the most recent book I have personally read on the subject, you can probably find more up to date info. However, it is quite readable and answers most of the non-radiocarbon dating questions quite well.The recent discoveries (repairs at the site of sample used for radiocarbon dating, 1st century stitching methodology, image on the back) are obviously not addressed in the book.Since you raised the radiocarbon dating question, I should re-emphasize the two points I made in my earlier post: fire and biocontamination. Both are addressed in the above referenced book, and both have the potential to skew the results substantially more than you might realize.1. The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud, binding carbon items from the atmosphere at the time of the fire.

2. The biological “sheath” was quite thick, resulting in enough biomass to skew the results substantially.

These two points are separate from the repairs made to the cloth at the site of the sample, which is sufficient to invalidate the radiocarbon testing all by itself.

29 posted on 04/14/2004 1:03:17 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)

To: orionblamblam
Incorrect. Here’s the logic:
Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.
Theory refuted; it’s a fake.
I would agree… IF they had tested the Shroud and not a 16th Century PATCH.It has now been almost conclusively proven that the Carbon 14 testng was done on material that had been patched in the 16th Century, probaby 1535 or 1552. The C14 sample was taken from an area of the Shroud that was SIGNIFICANTLY different from the rest of the Shroud..The following table is borrowed from shroudie’s Shroud Story website and shows the results of the tests comparing the C14 sample piece with the Shroud itself:
Chemical Differences Carbon 14 Sample Area Main Part of the Shroud of Turin
aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud) Virtually none
Madder-root dye (alizarin and
purpurin)
Found Not found
a gum medium  (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant Found Not present
Lignin at fiber growth nodes Very little Significant
vanillin in lignin Found Not found
ultraviolet
fluorescence
significant less
cotton fiber in thread Found Not found
spliced fibers Found Not found

So we have a C14 Sample that is:CHEMICALLY different from the body of the Shroud in that it contained Rose Madder-root Dye, Aluminum Oxide (bauxite), Gum coating on the fibers as a mordant (a chemical to “bite” into the linen to allow dyes to adhere), and Vanillin (a decomposition product of lignin that disappears over time), and other chemicals not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

PHYSICALLY different because the patch fluoresces significantly under an ultra-violet light while the rest of the Shroud material fluoresces dimly, The C14 Sample shows significant differences as a TEXTILE in that the threads of the patch were spun in an “S” (counter-clockwise) twist while the entire rest of the Shroud was spun with a “Z” twist. In addition, the average thread size of the C14 Sample is “significantly” (statistically) smaller than the average thread size of the Shroud. The fibers composing the threads of the patch include WOOL and European COTTON which is found NOWHERE ELSE on the Shroud. Finally, the linen of the C14 sample was “retted” using a completely different process from the rest of the Shroud.

The location where C14 sample was taken.

Diagram of the cutting of the sample for distribution
to the three laboratories.
Photos linked from The 1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon Tests Reconsidered
Paper by Bryan J. Walsh, Shroud of Turin Center, Richmond, VA

The samples provided to the Zurich C14 Lab (top) and the Oxford lab.
Note the obvious changes in thread directionality and tone in
the samples from left side to right side, and the subtle variation between
the direction changes. This has been determined to be an area of “invisible
reweaving” where the 16th Century linen patch material is interwoven
with the original shroud material.

This color photo of the one of the Arizona lab’s samples
(the only lab to get two samples) shows a distinct change
in thread quality in the lower right. Note the subtle change
in direction of the “woof” (horizontal) threads.
Sample photos borrowed from
Catholic Counter-Reformation WebsiteBryan J. Walsh’ statistical analysis of the C14 tests performed by the three laboratories show that given the accepted accuracy of the tests, the test results and the reported ages of the 11 tests (three labs Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich, four samples cut into 11 sub-samples (A-4, O-3, Z-4) for testing) COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM THE SAME HOMOGENOUS POPULATION! In other words, the test results varied so greatly that statistically they could not have come from the same sample! Yet we know they did.

Plotting the age variances in the samples show that the age reported is inverse linear proportion to the distance from the edge of the Shroud toward the center. At the time the statistical analysis was done, the evidence of a patch had not been found.

The distances used were:

                 Laboratory                                    Distance (in mm)

Oxford                                50.0  (the approx. distance from the edge of Shroud cloth to center of Oxford sample)

Zurich                                64.0  (the Oxford value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)

Arizona                              76.0   (the Zurich value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)

A regression analysis was then conducted which compared the subsample radiocarbon dates with the corresponding distance from the edge of the Shroud linen. It was determined that there was statistically significant (P>98.8%, r2=0.49) inverse linear relationship between the date measured and the distance from the sample to the edge of the cloth. This finding indicated that there was an apparent gradient of radiocarbon measured on the Shroud sample with higher levels of14C measured at increasing distance from the edge of the Shroud linen based on the sample measured. This is illustrated on the following chart:

The data and statistical analysis by Walsh is equally valid if it is not distance from the edge of the cloth but rather proportion of patch to original material in a diagonal change across the flawed sample that results in the statistically anomolous results. This is proof that the samples, although cut from the Shroud, and then further cut from the same sample WERE NOT HOMOGINOUS… and in fact were made up of OLD shroud linen intermixed with NEW patch linen.Ergo, the test was flawed from the beginning. It is akin to finding a note on a piece of paper scotch taped to the flyleaf of a book, taking that page, including the scotch taped piece and testing it to find the age of the book. The sample was corrupted by additional anachronistic material, the results are wrong.

30 posted on 04/14/2004 1:11:27 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: shroudie
Check out my C14 reply just above on this thread. I have borrowed a chart from your website. Thanks.Swordmaker
31 posted on 04/14/2004 1:12:58 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: Swordmaker
Great post!
32 posted on 04/14/2004 1:31:38 PM PDT by shroudie

To: shroudie
I just visited your website. Quite impressive!The last time I read anything extensive on the shroud was five years ago, with occassional articles since then as updates. It is obvious: I am quite out of date!
33 posted on 04/14/2004 1:39:27 PM PDT by EternalHope (Boycott everything French forever. Including their vassal nations.)

To: EternalHope
> The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail.The info in the post starts from the position that the shroud is 2k years old, and works backwards from there to “prove” it. It provides zero evidence to refute the medieval age of the shroud.> The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud,Irrelevant. Chemistry has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.> binding carbon items from the atmosphere

Nope. Fire does not do that to any recognizable degree.

The biological “sheath” was quite thick

As pointed out, it’d have to be several times the mass of the shroud itself. If that were the case, the face would be invisible under the much.

34 posted on 04/14/2004 1:41:26 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
Ben Witherington, a well-known, very conservative and respected biblical scholar, wrote that the carbon 14 tests are now significantly disputed. He cited the same material as presented by EternalHope. Until recently, that was the going hypothesis. You are right in saying that the mass of bioplastic would need to be significant. You said more by mass but actual calculations say by as much as 60% because the bioplastic has a moving average age.The scorching proposal that high temperatures from a fire in 1532, which damaged and nearly destroyed the Shroud, enhanced the mix of radioactive carbon 14 and stable carbon 12 isotopes in the cloth is dubious but not completely eliminated. But experiments to test this idea have not been promising. Any change caused by the fire would likely be too trivial to be significant.The data was not refuted until recently, and in the best of scientific method, not until a complete analysis could be completed. Even Harry Gove, inventor of AMS carbon 14 tools, was open to the possibility pending full investigation.The evidence by numerous researchers including Bryan Walsh, M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory is now complete. Ron Hatfield of Beta Analytic has even estimated from the composite data that a 1st century date is a reasonable estimate.Is the cloth really first century? I think so. Other evidence suggests it is. New carbon 14 testing would be a good solution, but it is one that I don’t think the Turin authorities are about to entertain in the foreseeable future.

I really do believe that it is a burial cloth of a first century crucifixion victim. And if it is, it is easy and reasonable to infer that it is Jesus’ burial cloth. It completely agrees with the biblical narratives of the Passion. Its fuzzy history is better than most history we have for an object such as the Shroud. I am convinced, and not lightly so.

The fact is there may be some bioplastic material and there may be some ion transfer due to the fire, but they are probably a minor factor. The reality is that the radiocarbon dating labs did not test the Shroud but a medieval patch.

Shroudie

35 posted on 04/14/2004 2:20:38 PM PDT by shroudie

To: shroudie
> The scorching proposal that high temperatures from a fire in 1532, which damaged and nearly destroyed the Shroud, enhanced the mix of radioactive carbon 14 and stable carbon 12 isotopes in the cloth is dubious …It’ silly, is what it is. Fire does not effect isotopic ratios of carbon.> I really do believe that it is a burial cloth of a first century crucifixion victim.Then that victim was an alien, because the shroud does not conform to human geometry when actual attempts to fold replicas around humans or humaniform manikens have been attempted. It just doesn’t work.
36 posted on 04/14/2004 2:56:02 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
Then that victim was an alien, because the shroud does not conform to human geometry when actual attempts to fold replicas around humans or humaniform manikens have been attempted. It just doesn’t work.Besides, it had to be an alien. Who else would glow-in-the-dark inside a shroud?
37 posted on 04/14/2004 3:11:09 PM PDT by Alex Murphy

To: orionblamblam
You wrote: “It’ silly, is what it is. Fire does not effect isotopic ratios of carbon.”You meant heat, right? In a fire, definate contamination from movement of gaseous products can change the overall molecular level mixture. The heat does not change isotopic ratios of carbon; on that point you are right. But what is the point. It is trivial and not the cause of the carbon 14 error.As for alien: hmm. Do you know how the image was formed? As we do not know, and as we do not presume a contact mechanism, I don’t know how we can simply say it does not conform. The image does definately appear to be collimated. I don’t know how the image was formed, and like you I agree that it does not conform to human geometry — but only for contact mechanisms. I am quite certain it was not faked.
38 posted on 04/14/2004 3:13:52 PM PDT by shroudie

To: shroudie
> In a fire, definate contamination from movement of gaseous products can change the overall molecular level mixture.Errrr…. no. A piece of linen on fire still only has it’s own carbon. Fire does nothign to it, with the exception of turning some of it to carbon dioxide, and this is doen at an equal ratio regardless of isotope. Any carbon dioxide in the air nearby *remains* carbon dioxide at any fire temperature likely to be found Way Back Then.> Do you know how the image was formed?Artificially seems by far the most likely explanation.> I am quite certain it was not faked.

I have this bridge…

39 posted on 04/14/2004 4:30:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
Look, if you want to believe it is a fake, go ahead. You said earlier that it was painted. Fine. The fact that there is no paint in the images makes this highly suspect. But believe what you want. But do get your facts straight if you wish to try to convince others. And, do a bit of reading on the carbon 14 problems.http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htmhttp://shroudstory.com/faq-fakery.htmhttp://shroudstory.com/faq-chemistry.htmShroudie
40 posted on 04/14/2004 5:49:59 PM PDT by shroudie (http://shroudstory.com)

To: shroudie; orionblamblam
Shroudie, this guy is not looking for an answer… he has it. He chooses to ignore the evidence right in front of his face and prefers to continue to attack already discounted and discarded theories just as Joe Nickell does.My post should have layed out the evidence so that anyone on FreeRepublic can see it plainly. The C14 samples are pictured and the OBVIOUS change in material from one side to the other can be plainly seen. The FACTS have been laid out for him as well as others but he CHOOSES not to look. Therefore his position is willfull and fearful. He does not WANT to see the facts in front of his face, so he WILL not.He is afraid that the facts might invalidate his world view because he cannot refute them. Since he can’t refute the latest “Flawed Sample” proof, he falls back on the “Fire Changed Carbon” or “Bioplastic Coating” theories that CAN be refuted and ignores any attempt to agree with him about the old theories and point out the newly proved fact.You warn him about the elephant in the corner of the room and he says “What elephant?” looking everywhere but at the elephant infested corner.This mind is not only closed, it is hermetically sealed.
41 posted on 04/14/2004 9:57:59 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: orionblamblam
In a fire, definate contamination from movement of gaseous products can change the overall molecular level mixture.Errrr…. no. A piece of linen on fire still only has it’s own carbon.Errr, Orionblamblam, were you aware the fire under discussion was not JUST the shroud burning all by itself, but included a wooden cathedral, the silver chased reliquary, the draperies draped over the reliquary, books, wooden statues ALL of which contributed carbon from their medieval grown source plants in the form of soot that COULD have infused the linen of the Shroud. With sufficient heat, carbon from those sources could be included with the sample that was later Carbon 14 tested.That being said, there IS NO EVIDENCE on the Shroud of soot from those sources and certainly not in sufficient quantity to skew the C14 date by 1200 years.At the submicroscopic level there is evidence of the Bio-plastic coating on individual fibers of the Shroud’s threads. However, it TOO is insufficient in quantity to skew the date that much. Both soot and germ poop together are insufficient to skew the date by that much.Both of these theories of why the Carbon 14 dates were so out of sync with the other scholarship are irrelevant!

WE KNOW WHY THE C14 DATA IS WRONG.

The impeccable work done by the three C14 laboratories was doomed to failure from the moment the agreed testing protocols were discarded (literally at the last moment) in favor of taking the sample from the ONE area on the Shroud almost all scientists involved in the project agreed should be avoided. The labs were given samples that were not exemplar with the main Shroud material in that it contained added a large percentage of contemporary FRENCH linen rewoven into the Shroud linen in either 1535 or 1552 by the Nuns of Poor Clare when they were repairing damage done to the Shroud over the years.

It is so obvious you can even SEE the change from one type of linen to the other in the pretest photos of the actual tested samples in Reply 30 which presents a summary of the evidence.

Orionblamblam, why don’t you open your eyes and your mind and look at the evidence instead of just beating a dead horse. [shroudie, I know what I said in my last post… but I had to try… :^) ]

42 posted on 04/14/2004 10:28:54 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: Swordmaker
I fully understand. If he wishes to believe as he does, that is fine with me. If he wishes to shape reality to his “faithview” that is also fine. I don’t respect his total misrepresentation of evidence to others.
43 posted on 04/15/2004 4:24:41 AM PDT by shroudie (http://shroudstory.com)

To: shroudie
You and I agree. That is why I continue to counter those who continually spout the Joe Nickell line of completely outdated “factoids” and why I maintain the Shroud of Turin Ping list.So many people claim to be of a “scientific mind” yet have theirs completely closed… and in fact have latched onto one of the scientists like McCrone who have completely misrepresented what they have found and ignoring EVERYTHING else. Scientific dogma is worse than any Religious dogma around because the practitioners claim to be open-minded.
44 posted on 04/15/2004 8:31:48 AM PDT by Swordmaker (This tagline shut down for renovations and repairs. Re-open June of 2001.)

To: Swordmaker
Reuters is now carrying the story. Of course they mention the carbon 14 testing and ignore the findings that dispute it. I guess they don’t read National Geographic. But the main point of the story is the challenge the second face poses to skeptics and debunkers. Overall a plus.http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=scienceNews&storyID=4835816&section=newsExpect another explosion of data soon when Rogers’ peer-reviewed article appears (so as not to suggest that I am stating anything out of school, National Geographic has announced it).
45 posted on 04/15/2004 8:52:06 AM PDT by shroudie (http://shroudstory.com)

To: Swordmaker
> the fire under discussion was not JUST the shroud burning all by itself, but included a wooden cathedral, the silver chased reliquary, the draperies draped over the reliquary, books, wooden statues ALL of which contributed carbonThey could contribute carbon only in two forms:
1: Carbon dioxide, which would not stick;
2: Soot, which would be cleaned off.The mass of any soot that *could* become “infused” into the linen is far less than the mass of the linen itself.> With sufficient heat, carbon from those sources could be included with the sample that was later Carbon 14 tested.Only if the heat was sufficient to turn the linen itself to ash.

why don’t you open your eyes and your mind and look at the evidence instead of just beating a dead horse

The “dead horse” here is the idea that a shroud that appeared in the middle ages, an era of a thriving market in religious forgeries, was somehow the One True Shroud Of the Theoretical Jesus.

46 posted on 04/15/2004 1:22:20 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: Swordmaker
> Since he can’t refute the latest “Flawed Sample” proofIt’s hardly proof. There are patches that MIGHT be more recent. But even if so… how much more recent?The obvious conclusion to draw from any such thing as the shroud is Forgery. Forgeries are far more common than True Miracles; consequently, it is up to the believers in miracles to provide their evidence that the shroud is anything more than clever art. So far, that has not been done.Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century… taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments…Occam’s Razor.
47 posted on 04/15/2004 1:27:45 PM PDT by orionblamblam

To: orionblamblam
The obvious conclusion to draw from any such thing as the shroud is Forgery. Forgeries are far more common than True Miracles; consequently, it is up to the believers in miracles to provide their evidence that the shroud is anything more than clever art. So far, that has not been done.Actually, it is not up to anyone to prove to you that it is real. There is ample evidence that it is not been proven to be a fake and no evidence that it is. There is significant evidence to make a strong case that it is a first century burial cloth. As for miracles, we need only concentrate here on the formation of the images. Much work is being done to show that they might be the result of a perfectly natural phenomenon. Of course, if they are miraculously induced images it is unlikely that science could prove that.Hell, for all we know, the shroud could well be 1st century… taken from a burial, sold to an artist, who then painted on it. Given that there is no blood on the shroud but there is iron oxide and other pigments…Good stretch in thinking. (Oh, did you miss the point about their being blood and no concentrations of pigments or iron oxide to form an image). Now for that to be so we must assume that the cloth was separated from the body it contained. We must, of course, consider Jewish attitudes regarding blood. Now you might develop your theory a bit more to think that Romans unwrapped the body or maybe they had some of their Syrian slaves do it.Occam’s Razor you say. Are you for real?theortical Jesus ??? I guess if you put no stock in history you probably put no stock in science either. Maybe this explains where you are coming from.
48 posted on 04/15/2004 1:55:15 PM PDT by shroudie (http://shroudstory.com)

To: shroudie
The lengths to which atheists and agnostics will go to deny that this is Christ is laughable. If the image is on both sides, then that is compelling evidence. I’m anxious to see what comes of this.
49 posted on 04/15/2004 2:19:39 PM PDT by plain talk

To: polemikos
I am one “fundamental” ( I prefer evangelical) who believes that the Shroud of Turin is the Genuine Grave Cloth of Jesus Christ.And that the image thereon was a result of the Physics of the Resurrection.
50 posted on 04/15/2004 2:41:19 PM PDT by happygrl (this war is for all the marbles…)

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last


Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Courtesy of: FP

Ace Related News :

Read More at: Source 

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

#acehistory2research, #acehistorynews, #history2research, #chicago-sun-times, #christianity, #institute-of-physics, #jesus, #john-dominic-crossan, #marcus-borg, #middle-ages, #turin-shroud, #washington-times