Posted on 02/27/2008 5:07:26 AM PST by Sopater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims its findings were wrong. The head of the world-renowned laboratory admitted that carbon dating tests may be inaccurate.
Prof. Christopher Ramsey, director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting contamination skewed the results. Though he stressed he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were shown to be "a thousand years wrong," he insisted he was keeping an open mind, The Telegraph reported Monday.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the 8-foot linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ. The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
Researchers concluded the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390 and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages. Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, then Cardinal of Turin, conceded the relic was probably a hoax.
Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates. The results, due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud broadcast on BBC 2 Easter Saturday.
Carbon dating is inaccurate? No way. I’ll bet a 5,000 year old living snail to the contrary!
Hehehe.. first thing to come to mind when reading this - “We want another recount!”
Keep dating that “shroud” until the desired results come about.
Truncated version of earlier report.
Fresh tests on Shroud of Turin
"The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate."
So what would you do, if only for conversation’s sake, they dated it unequivocally to 33 AD? And validated even more of it as coming from Palestine?
Just asking.
Really?
First thing that came to my mind was some new movement within the Islamic dating scene.
So what if it is, so what if it isn’t.
The dating of the shroud changes nothing.
There is no convincing those that don’t want to be, and there is no convincing necessary for those that believe.
Evangelical Christian here who also suspects the shroud is real.
The carbon dating test was indeed inaccurate, but NOT because carbon dating tests are inaccurate.
The CD test on the Shroud accurately dated a 13th century repair. The linen type and weave of the repair area is different from the rest of the Shroud.
It would really not affect me in one way or the other. I don’t worship relics, I worship the Risen Savior.
I have always found the shroud and the mystery behind it to be fascinating. But even if it could be proven beyond a shadow of doubt to actually be Christ’s burial shroud, it would not be grounds to worship it...just makes it more interesting.
If anyone wants to actually learn something about radiocarbon dating, rather than just pontificating from the cheap seats, here are some good links:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
If there is any truth to the claims of malfeasence by the earlier researchers, the otherworldly hatred that screamed "crucify him" is still alive and well.
Get thee a book titled “Turin Shroud” by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. They make the apparently totally outrageous claim that the Shroud is a hoax, but is a marvel in itself as it is the world’s first photograph - and of a corpse at that. Even more outrageous - it was made by DaVinci since he was the only one technically competent at that time.
I’m into alternative histories and the ridiculous claims made on the book’s jacket made me read it.
Dammit, some of it makes sense (photogrph/hoax) and, pointed out some interesting measurements. They replicated the creation of a shroud-like image. Something akin to writing a “secret code” with lemon juice that only could be read when the paper was heated. Evidently capturing an image was known in classical times but they couldn’t keep the image from fading. According to the authors, DaVinci found a way.
They also claim that the image is about an inch longer on the back than on the front, that the head is proportionally out of whack with the body (the head was “pasted” on, as in a double exposure), and that the absence of an image of the top of the head (the image is “hinged”) proves that it was not an image burned by a transfigurational flash of energy as some propose.
Whether you believe in the Shroud or not, it is a fascinating read and does, if nothing else, prompt some serious questions about the measurements/proportions.
At the end, they make the request that some college photography department replicate their tests - that has yet to be done and to my mind, would prove if these writers are nuts or are on to something.
A “photograph” hundreds of years before Daguerreotype? Hmmmm.
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.