Skip to comments.Modern-day 'Indiana Jones' links Shroud to 1st century
Posted on 03/25/2016 10:10:59 AM PDT by Swordmaker
NEW YORK An archaeological discovery that appears to place the origin of the Shroud of Turin in first century A.D. conflicts with three independent scientifically conducted radiocarbon 14 tests that estimated a date range of A.D. 1260-1390.
The shroud is believed by many scholars to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.
Philip E. Dayvault, a former FBI special agent and physical-science technician who has been studying the Shroud of Turin since 1973, ventured to Turkey on an Indiana Jones-like expedition in 2002. While there, he discovered a small mosaic in a faraway museum maintained by Muslim curators that appears to provide physical corroboration for the existence of the Shroud back in the first century
The mosaic, known as the ISA Tile, substantiates the salient points of the synthesized 1,700 year-old Legend of King Abgar V. The legend allegedly chronicles how the Shroud of Turin went from Jerusalem to Turkey before arriving in Turin, Italy, where the Catholic Church preserves it in the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
And in 2007 he found divine encoded images of the shroud in the frescos of the Sistine Chapel.
Not sure why in 2016 he’s spreading the word of a discovery made 14 years ago, especially considering the number of books, blogs, and press releases he’s made in the intervening period.
Just goes to show that a picture is worth one thousand words!
Those other three tests have been debunked so thoroughly they are about at the level of global warming...
The KERATIN: A 1st Century Tile w which may be the tile that was placed over the gate of the City of Edessa representing the Shroud of Turin's face.
Thanks to NYer for the heads up.
The latest Shroud of Turin Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ShroudPingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Shroud Ping List, Freepmail me
Have you contacted or researched the Shroud Project group in Richmond VA?
Not sure why in 2016 hes spreading the word of a discovery made 14 years ago, especially considering the number of books, blogs, and press releases hes made in the intervening period.
Usually it’s the leftwing media like Time magazine that will come up with a new expose that Jesus was actually married to Mary Magdalene, that his tomb has been found and he’s in it, that the new Gospel of XYZ demonstrates that women were the head of the church when he died, etc. etc. etc.
Except to those that deny the truth before them. True by all the standards of the day, and true today.
Exactly - the samples were taken from a repaired section at the edge. Subsequent tests showed RC dating of first century.
For those who don't know, the C-14 tests failed from the very beginning when the agreed on original sampling protocols,which called for eight samples from eight different locations on the Shroudwere tossed out literally at the last minute, and only one sample was taken from only one location on the Shroud, a location which all of the members of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) had agreed should not be among the sampled areas due to it being physically and chemically different from the main body of the Shroud in testing done at that time.
That sample taken was then cut into five sub-samples, which were labeled A through E according to the distance from the edge of the Shroud. The sub-samples were then distributed to the three C-14 labs. The University of Arizona C-14 Lab, as the most experienced of the three labs, was sent samples A & E; Zurich, Switzerland, was sent Sample B: Sample C was retained as a control exemplar: and Oxford University in London received Sample D. The second error was that the sub-samples were sent to the labs as complete cloth samples, instead of being unwoven and submitted as unidentifiable threads, making it easy to identify the Shroud sample from control samples due to the distinctive weave. Had they merely submitted all samples as a pile of threads, no sample bias could have been possible. but by submitting pieces of the cloth for both target and controls, all three labs knew which was which, ruining all semblance of unbiased testing.
When the results were reported, the controlling organization, Oxford University, impermissibly AVERAGED all the results together in their reports and ignored a huge red flag that not a single individual sub-sample's result's degree of confidence overlapped the degree of confidence in the results of the returned test results. Had this been any other test subject, it would have made the scientists running the test question their test sample's homogeneity. In fact, the University of Arizona also impermissibly averaged their Sample A and E results in which were so far away from each other that statistically they could NOT have come from the same test subject! Those two samples returned dates of 1260 AD and 1390 AD each with a degree of confidence of plus or minus 25 years.
For these two samples to have come from a homogeneous sample, the degrees of confidence should overlap. Yet to do that, the test would have to report much closer dating. In this instance, the closest possible dates of these samples would be 1285 and 1365, leaving a gap of 80 years. The degree of confidence would have to be plus of minus 65 or more years!
What it has been learned is that the three C-14 labs accurately and professionally tested what they were given. . . samples of an area of the Shroud of Turin that had been extremely skillfully patched by reweaving cotton threads into the existing Linen threads of the original material sometime in the late 16th or early 17th centuries using a technique called "French Invisible Reweaving" in which the newer threads, dyed to match, are actually twisted end-to-end into the original threads and then continue the original weave pattern. This technique was developed in the 15th Century to repair valuable wall hangings, tapestries, and arrases. The corner of the Shroud where the C-14 sample was taken was one of the two most handled corners of the Shroud, the two that were used to hang the Shroud multiple times for exhibition and indeed was right next to a much less skillful patch.
In 2003, Raymond N. Rogers, a pyrologist Chemist, intending to falsify the patch theory, obtained some threads and microphotographs of Sub-sample C, the control sample retained from the original C-14 main sample for testing. To his shock, he found that instead of falsifying the hypothesis, he confirmed it when he discovered that one side of the sample was composed of dyed cotton threads while the other side was flaxen linen threads and that the two were skillfully interwoven. The photomicrograph showed a distinct demarkation between the two and chemical tests showed a distinctive difference in makeup. The threads he obtained could be un-twisted at the joins. The Cotton threads are slightly thinner than the Linen threads. The Cotton threads have a coating of dye, a fixative of gum arabic to retain the dye, and were retted with another processes using an aluminum compound which was not present in the Linen, all of which accounts for the physical and chemical differences noted by the 1978 STURP scientists.
These findings were published in a peer reviewed scientific Journal. Two other, independent researchers, using different approaches, one coming from a statistical, mathematical model, the other working with other thread samples also confirmed the patch hypothesis, and Falsified the 1988 C-14 tests .
When the statistical examination of the raw data was analyzed, it was found that as the samples were tested, each one reported a date that was younger the closer one got to the edge of the Shroud. The photomicrograph of the Sample shows a subtle diagonal difference between left and right indicating that the majority of older material is greater the farther from the edge of the Cloth. This greater amount of older material is proportional to the older ages reported by each sub-sample in each test, the farther the sub-sample was from the edge. I.E., Subsample A was reported as the youngest, with the creation date of 1390 while sub-sample E came back with the oldest dating at 1260. The percentages of new threads to old varied from 60% to 40% with sub-sample A at the edge, to 40% to 60% at sample E.
Harry Gove, the inventor of the C-14 test used on the Shroud, when asked what the age of the original Linen would have had to have been if the Cotton was 16th-17th Century to skew the tested age to 1350 with an averaged 50% mix. He did some calculations using the standard formulas, and came up with 1st Century, plus of minus 100 years.
aluminum in the cotton threads
SC, that’s what I was trying to remember about metal being in the Shroud when I asked you the other day. I was off on the wrong track.
( Lost in the wilderness again:<} )
The assumption that this IS the tile that hung over the gate of Edessa is just that, an assumption. Yes, there are several identifying marks that are extremely similar to the Face on the Shroud of Turin, notably the swelling under the left eye, the representation of the blood trace on the forehead and in the hair, and the owlish eyes. But there are others that are missing, such as the forked beard, the line from the fold across the neck, and there is a distinct ear showing while the Shroud shows none (that may be an artistic license for realism).
We need a lot more provenance before making any conclusions about this intriguing tile.
It's Alum. Hydrated potassium aluminum sulfate (potassium alum) with the formula KAl(SO4)2·12H2O.
It was used in the dyeing process.
Thanks for posting the detailed explanation! (I’m working so did not have time to track it down and post.)
No, I haven't. Are they doing anything new or different?
I thought these were determined to be flawed and invalid tests.
I attended one of their presentations (by a scholar at the center) down in Chesapeake VA (south of Norfolk) on March 11.
Excellent info, good details.
I have not been in Richmond itself for many years, so I have no experience at the Abby itself.
Those radiocarbon test were made on the place on the shroud that were handled by the monks/priests holding it up each week. The corners were also contaminated by repairs made in that same period.
The (single) radiocarbon test strip was NOT redundant - made from different areas of the shroud and was not taken from a clean area, and it was NOT duplicated by other labs. Only by the single test from the single contaminated location. Kind of like trying to determine the age of your 120,000 car by sampling the oil - 2000 miles after it has been changed.
The test did verify the shroud was handled in the Middle Ages. It did NOT verify the Shroud was woven in the Middle Ages.
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.