Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Soliton
Nice try. If you had actually read the peer-reviewed articles, you would have found that the chemical characteristics of the image on the shroud itself are both chemically and physically different from the characteristics of *any* painted-on image.

In particular, the image on the Shroud is basically caramelized fiber resulting from the chemical interaction of the linen in the Shroud with various gases coming from a newly-dead body.

You didn't read the peer-reviewed scientific journals, did you?

Cheers!

21 posted on 08/09/2008 9:57:35 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: grey_whiskers

Peer review doesn’t validate findings, just that scientific method was used properly.

Iron oxide and tempera were found on the cloth. Please note that the guy who claims that all three labs were wrong when they carbon 14 dated the shroud to the middle ages didn’t do a new carbon dating test but went to vanillin analysis. He was obviously looking for a method that would allow that (not prove) the shroud was first century.


24 posted on 08/09/2008 10:18:35 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers
This whole new argument rests on the allegation that the dating was accurate but based on a patch.

Here are peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion.

"The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop's scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.

The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.

The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples." http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

The samples were taken from non-patch areas and exhibited the 3 to 1 herringbone consistant with the main body of the cloth.

It looks like another example of Liars for God in action.

25 posted on 08/09/2008 10:36:49 AM PDT by Soliton (> 100)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson