Shroud of Turin

[litespeed]

A Bad Day For Science

 

Very bad day indeed. This was only one TV special, and the counter claims have yet to surface in detail. However, it seems apparently the international team of investigators flubbed the C14 sample selection process. BIG TIME.

 

So big, in fact, I am confident a large portion of humanity will plausibly conclude it was a set up job. The area selected for sample seems to be a patch including threads from the shroud as well as threads of dyed cotton and glue type materials in the patch. In addition, the area chosen for sample is clearly anoumolous in electro eluminescent photographs, and should never have been chosen in the first place.

 

I don't know how old the cloth is, but neither does anyone else. It is clear, however, science has taken one hell of a big hit on this one.

[Moontanman]

A Bad Day For Science

 

Very bad day indeed. This was only one TV special, and the counter claims have yet to surface in detail. However, it seems apparently the international team of investigators flubbed the C14 sample selection process. BIG TIME.

 

So big, in fact, I am confident a large portion of humanity will plausibly conclude it was a set up job. The area selected for sample seems to be a patch including threads from the shroud as well as threads of dyed cotton and glue type materials in the patch. In addition, the area chosen for sample is clearly anoumolous in electro eluminescent photographs, and should never have been chosen in the first place.

 

I don't know how old the cloth is, but neither does anyone else. It is clear, however, science has taken one hell of a big hit on this one.

 

What TV channel was this on? The 700 club channel? You have any links or other evidence to support this claim?

[CraigD]

Very bad day indeed. This was only one TV special, and the counter claims have yet to surface in detail.

Litespeed, do you have a reference for this TV special?

 

You appear to be referring the radiocarbon 14 dating that the Holy See (the jurisdiction of the Pope) permitted 3 labs to perform in 1988. Allegations that the sample, which was selected by the Holy See from the corner of the shroud, was poorly or even intentionally fraudulently selected were raised even before the analysis was completed and published, including some by the researchers performing the analysis.

 

In short, this controversy is about 20 years old.

However, it seems apparently the international team of investigators flubbed the C14 sample selection process. BIG TIME.

The sample tested was not selected by a team of investigators, but by church authorities. Samples from multiple areas, expecially the image-bearing areas, were requested both before and after the 1988 tests, but the request denied.

I don't know how old the cloth is, but neither does anyone else. It is clear, however, science has taken one hell of a big hit on this one.

I recommend you read more broadly on the subject, Litespeed, rather than forming an opinion solely based on a TV special. It’s wikipedia article has a good overview, and provides a reasonable collection of references for further study.

 

Many TV documentaries – not knowing the one you saw, I can’t comment on it specifically – are very poor quality, bordering on fiction. I don’t think many experts, scientific or Ecclesiastical, believe any person’s or institution’s reputation has been damaged by any recent controversy about the shroud.

[Essay]

A Good Day For Science

 

Very good day indeed.

...it seems ...apparently... the international team of investigators flubbed the C14 sample selection process. BIG TIME.

 

A GOOD day because science has figured out this "flub."

This, if characterized correctly, is just the process of science:

...observation, checking, refinement, new or different observations, ...double checking....

 

... It is clear, however, science has taken one hell of a big hit on this one.

Maybe it's a bad day for those who supported the results now in question, but it's a good day for science ...to find out this new information.

===

 

Our library subscribed to this tiny little journal, and it made for a neat read while on a break.

 

I know I've heard about this patch problem, but I thought they had samples from other "uncompromised" places as well.

Although... considering the poor thing went through a fire and got a bit mouldy at times, I can see they might still have a problem dating it with C14.

 

Just look thru the index and by reading the article titles, you can get an idea of what they were finding.

 

Index to Shroud Spectrum International

The first issue of Shroud Spectrum International appeared in December, 1981; the last, #42, was published in December, 1993. Spectrum was the only peer-reviewed journal in the world exclusively devoted to scientific/scholarly studies of the Shroud. Articles were by European and American authors of international repute, experts in various fields of sindonic research. As a rule, the lead article in each Spectrum was contributed by one of these researchers.

 

...AND Please, can someone edit "Turn" in the title to read ...Turin

update: Hey, Thanks!

~

 

p.s. Be sure to browse the contents for the Special Issue 2002:

...at the end of the above index.

[litespeed]

The show was on Discovery last night. Discovery Channel :: TV Listings :: Unwrapping the Shroud: New Evidence

 

All the following are from the show. I have not done enough research on the subject to make a final determination on my part. That is why I simply stated in my post it was a bad day for science. Which it was in every way. The following are simply my recollection from the show. The C14 tests were conducted in 1988, I believe.

 

!) The error was not discovered by any scientists. Instead a mom and pop from Columbus Ohio did it. Using project data and photographs they noticed anamolies in electrofloescence or some such that show analmolies at the test site.

 

Viewing the available close-up photos they noticed the weave did not match the weave in the rest of the cloth. Several fabric experts agreed the area looked re-woven.

 

2) Mon and pop proposed "French Re-Weaving" contaminated the older linen cloth with 16th centure cotton patch matterial.They presented their study to some place in Italy, which really really POd off one of the 1970's investigators who immediatle recoverred various materials he had on hand from the 1970's and earlier project.

 

3) This POd guy said mom and pop were correct. Cotton fibers were interwoven with the larger linnen base. Further, he found evidence of pigment and gum binders.

 

4) All of the C14 samples had back-up sliced saved. He acquired samples from one or more of them. The exact same problems were evident.

 

5) He sent some fibers from the actual backup C14 sample(s) to Los Alimos to confirm that cotton was present, as well as pigments and gum binders used to match the cotton to the linnen.

 

6) He seemed really really POd at the scientists who took the sample. He came pretty close to calling them deliberate sabateurs because the site choosen was clearly anamolous on the 1970's photo analysis of various types.

 

Additional info critical of the tests is available here from a partisan source.

 

The Story behind the Shroud of Turin Carbon Dating Debacle

[litespeed]

Another bad development for Shroud sceptics. The original longish sample was divided into four sections. Sections 1 and 4 were sent to a single American Lab. Sections 2 and 3 were sent to separate labs in Europe. Four separate dates were found within a range of about 200 years 1300 to 1500, I believe.

 

This spread range came from the two samples sent to the US that were cut from the two ends of the larger sample. The other two had intermediate dates and were cut from between the two samples sent to the US. The images of the larger sample prior to cutting into four pieces, seems to show the re-weave was not parrallel to the length of the sample.

 

Finally, it seems the dates actually delivered are consistent with a mix of first century base matterial, and 16th century patch matterial in the quantities estimated from examination of larger sample photograps. About 50-50 overall linen/cotton.

[litespeed]

ESSAY

 

I attempted to add UPDATE but was unsuccessful. I therefor ask the admistrator to do so. Please.....

[CraigD]

The controversy around dating the making of the Shroud of Turin is, I think, much more ecclesiastical (having to do with churches) than scientific. I think it’s symptomatic and emblematic of the collision of two great religious traditions: one that hold that religious objects of veneration are important for their symbolic value, and thus need not be authentic; and another that holds that they are important for their magical/miraculous value, and thus must be authentic.

 

According to the first tradition, it’s unimportant that the Shroud is an actual piece of 1st century burial linen, a 14th century religious artwork, or even a purposeful forgery. It reminds its religionists of the story of the Passion of Christ, an key uplifting and inspirational story in the Christian religious tradition. What matters is the authenticity of the appreciation of the story by the worshiper – a person taking the lesson to heart and as a result living a more moral life after viewing a bogus relic is better than a person viewing an authentic relic with acrimony, cynicism, and other un-pious feelings. Proponents of this tradition downplay the importance and may even impede scientific investigations of relics such as the shroud, because they feel the very idea of such investigation is and encourages incorrect religious thinking.

 

The “symbolic” and “magical” traditions are strongly related to the major division (or schism) of the Christian religions, Catholicism and other orthodox religions from protestantism and other non-authority-respecting traditions, such as Gnosticism.

 

By 1389, the official position of the Catholic church is well documented as regarding the Shroud as neither a 1st century burial wrapping nor a purposeful fraud, but as one of many work of celebratory art reproducing the shroud described in the church’s many traditional Easter stories. A Bishop of that year is believed to have written to Avignonian Pope Clement VII knowledge of the artist who made and admitted to making the Shroud, and alarm that priests in his diocese were making knowingly false claim that the Shroud - which is described as being much brighter, as if freshly blood-stained, then – was a true relic, and the Pope not banned its ceremonial display, but commanded that the priest displaying it issue a loud and clear disclaimer that it was only a representation, of, not the actual burial shroud of Christ (source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Shroud of Turin), a position the Holy See maintains to this day. Their position is complicated, however, in that as custodians of their religion, they don’t want to discourage peoples sense of mystery and awe concerning their stories and traditions, so are motivated not to issue such a clear disclaimer as was the rule in the 600 years ago.

 

The difficult position the Holy See finds itself in over the Shroud explains somewhat their reluctance to provide test samples from more locations on it for further carbon dating – it is not that they are unsympathetic to the desire for more scientific data, but that they see the interest in the outcome of such scientific study by non-scientific religionists as religiously incorrect, and potentially harmful to their faith.

 

Many protestant Christians, however, do not recognize the authority and religious principles of the Catholic and orthodox churches, so follow the magical tradition of religious relics.

 

I think the “symbolic” tradition is better than the “magical” one in promoting the goals of religion for the betterment of individuals and society.

[litespeed]

CraigD - You wrote: " ... The controversy around dating the making of the Shroud of Turin is, I think, much more ecclesiastical (having to do with churches) than scientific."

 

RESPONSE: This is bull feathers. The controversy is archaological. Period. Specifically, what the hell IS this thing. Now archaology has flubbed up in a way that damages the scientific discipline itself. BIG TIME. This was one of the most important Carbon Datings of all time. It was anticipated by hundreds of millions of people, and the conclusions were spread through news headlines and editorials around the world. FRAUD.

 

The only remaining scientific duty regarding this scientific catastrophy is wheter it was mear incompetance of historic magnitude, or actually an act of deliberate venality. There is no good spin on this fiaso.

[Moontanman]

CraigD - You wrote: " ... The controversy around dating the making of the Shroud of Turin is, I think, much more ecclesiastical (having to do with churches) than scientific."

 

RESPONSE: This is bull feathers. The controversy is archaological. Period. Specifically, what the hell IS this thing. Now archaology has flubbed up in a way that damages the scientific discipline itself. BIG TIME. This was one of the most important Carbon Datings of all time. It was anticipated by hundreds of millions of people, and the conclusions were spread through news headlines and editorials around the world. FRAUD.

 

The only remaining scientific duty regarding this scientific catastrophe is wheter it was mear incompetance of historic magnitude, or actually an act of deliberate venality. There is no good spin on this fiaso.

 

The shroud can be physically traced back to a time when fake religious artifacts were practically being hawked on every street corner. There is even reason to think at one time there were several of these shrouds competing with each other. These fake artifacts were big business, I think it's also important to note the bible doesn't mention and image being burned in to the burial cloth. I feel sure if it was important it would have been mentioned. For all practical purposes trying to prove this thing to be genuine or fake is a fools errand. those who want to believe are going to do so, those that do not are not going to do so. It's just another meaningless artifact like the holy grail or the spear that pierced Christs side, it's immaterial to the message of Christ and since at the time very few people knew the eventual importance of Christ it seems unlikely any of these things would have been kept. Such artifacts didn't become important to religion until way after the fact and still serve no real purpose in Christs message. Only religion makes these things important due the need of religion to convince it's followers of a magical connection between them and Christ to show how important they are instead of Christs message. No matter when the shroud dates to it will always be suspect.

[litespeed]

PS

 

Religious authorities who granted destructive testing have been rewarded, for 20 years, with relentless accusations of FRAUD. Big Fat Chance they will invite further ridicule.

 

Now the church is in the best possible position. First, it now seems clear the guy on the cloth was, infact, crucified through the palms (thumbs retracted out of site), suffered injuries on the back and head consistent with scourging and 'crown of thorns' trauma, and was covered with blood and hemoglobin consistent with such an execution.

 

Further, they have an apparently flubbed C14 dating that calls into question the capacity or veracity of the scientific community to be trusted yet once again. Finally, the actual samples subjected to C14 testing, which is NOT in contention (only the sample) seems consistent with comingling of first and sixteenth century fiber mixings.

 

I am very much looking forward to the counter argurments. First, convincing evidence cotton fibers were not present in the samples. Second, convincing aruements the claims of cotton fibers are spurious in some way.

 

I will resign the game in either case.

[litespeed]

Moontan

 

Your task, should you decide to take it, is to reproduce one of the manifold fake shrouds.

 

In this case, I do not require said fake to be made on first century linen. Something that was undoubtedly in plentiful supply during the 'fake middle ages era" some thousand years later. I do, however, require real blood and hemaglobin stains. Such were definitively discovered by the 1970's investigation. It might even have been listed as Type A, but I release you from that particular.

 

PS: I don't claim the image is Jesus of Nazarth.

[litespeed]

Hell, this is so easy I will do it for you. I simply stipulate the shroud DID cover a guy who was crucified shortly after his death, some time prior to, say, 1532. I do strongly suggest, however, that you do not go any further then that :).

[C1ay]

Your task, should you decide to take it, is to reproduce one of the manifold fake shrouds.

 

And what would that prove or disprove about the actual Shroud of Turin? Instead of trying to shift some meaningless burden of proof to others why don't you actually provide some scientific evidence, measurable, testable, verifiable, repeatable evidence that science as a whole took some kind of big hit over this one incident involving some questionable artifact? Are you up to the task?

[Moontanman]

Moontan

 

Your task, should you decide to take it, is to reproduce one of the manifold fake shrouds.

 

In this case, I do not require said fake to be made on first century linen. Something that was undoubtedly in plentiful supply during the 'fake middle ages era" some thousand years later. I do, however, require real blood and hemaglobin stains. Such were definitively discovered by the 1970's investigation. It might even have been listed as Type A, but I release you from that particular.

 

PS: I don't claim the image is Jesus of Nazarth.

 

 

No problem, all it takes is a clay mask of a face, a little blood (that remains a contested part by the way) and a little bit of heat. Get real dude, this thing could have been faked a hundred different ways. what's important is would anyone really change their belief system based on results of any test and is it really important to the message of the religion to start with.

[litespeed]

Clay, clay, clay - You wrote: "And what would that prove or disprove about the actual Shroud of Turin? ]

 

RESPONCE: I am assuming you refer to my cadaver posit. If I got a crucified guy, wrapped him in a shroud, then examined the result, I could compare that with the Turin relic. I suspect it would look a lot like the shroud.

 

You ask for evidence. I will present what is already readily available. If you are too lazy to google it, I will do so later. (On second thought, its not worth it)

 

1) That the shroud covered a crucified guy is pretty well conclusive. The 1970's study found blood, and more importantly hemoglobin (invisible to the naked eye).

 

2) Further, a forensic pathologist studied the 1970's photographs, xrays, various false light photography and conculded the same thing. One of his concerns was whether the palms could support a body, since thats where the shroud wounds are located.

 

So he build a cross and, using leather gloves, crucified his son. He concluded the palms would support a body. Further, a nail through the palm would sever such and such a nerve or ligament, resulting in the thumb retracting under the palm, such as is shown on the photographic evidence. The then studied the blood evidence, and concluded it was consistent with scourging on the back, puncture wounds on the head, among other specifics.

 

3) The image displays a 3d icharacter when subjected to sattelite imaging technology. This does not happen with drawings or even facial photographs. It is something otherwise never encountered. But no one has ever experimented with a newly crucified cadaver.

 

4) Existing C14 dating suggest the main fabric is from the first century. This is derivative evidence extrapolated from the actual samples that dated to 1300 to 1500 or so. Those samples included approximately 50 percent cotton patch materials (assumed 1500 or 1600 date), with 50 percent primary linnen from the primary cloth. None of this proves to me this is the shroud that covered Jesus of Nazareth. I doubt anything could ever do that, or show the man rose out from under the cloth in a resurection.

 

What I find consternating is the apparent willfull need to reject this archaological item out of hand. First there was no really good image. Then it was the really good image was forged by an artist, forger or other some such.

 

All those arguements were addressed in the 1970's study that found no forged image, but did find blood and hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is ivisible to the naked eye. Then we get foresic opinion the image of a guy who was actually crucified, based on blood and wound patterns that are not in dispute. This became weirdly, and unacountable moot with the 1988 C14 dates. Those dates did not in any way diminish any of the early evidence, only that the shroud was not first century.

 

Now we find the C14 evidence actually seems consistent with first century. What in the hell is the problem with all this! Why the fervor AGAINST this artifact. I wonder this because there still is NO WAY to prove this is the shroud of Jesus's crucifiction.

 

The only reason I can come up with for this hostility is a hostility to the people who DO believe it is Jesus's shroud. And an implacible need to undermine that belief. It seems childish as hell to me...

[litespeed]

FINALLY

 

This shroud in no way can compromise a non-thiest belief. That is true even IF the shroud covered a guy crucified in the first century with a crown of thorns. Accordingly, I can only come to the conclusion all this hostility is political in nature. Specifically, the closer science comes to verifing the above, the more likely there will be additional Christians to threaten the non-theists political consituency. And, not implausibly, to threaten their civil rights or worse. BUT IT AINT SCIENCE

 

YUK