Posted on 07/21/2019 6:56:03 AM PDT by Kaslin
Important news about the Shroud of Turin, believed by millions to be the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ, has been flagrantly under-reported.
Nevertheless, the lack of mainstream media interest does not diminish landmark new research contesting the results of the controversial 1988 radiocarbon test that dated the Shroud between the years 1260 and 1390.
Immediately after those dates were cited three decades ago, and to this day, the Shroud has been tainted, maligned, disparaged and denigrated while wedded to the descriptions “not authentic,” a “forgery” or “medieval hoax.”
Meanwhile, the medieval date range is still continuously questioned and debunked by scientists and experts. The chief complaint is that the three small Shroud test samples were cut from the same outer edge on a piece of the cloth long thought to have been added later in the Middle Ages. This would have been part of a repair or reweave on a corner that had become worn and frayed due to frequent handling when the Shroud was held up for public exhibition. In fact, this theory was proven correct in 2005 by American chemist Raymond N. Rogers.
Thankfully now there is a new chapter in the 1988 dating debate. Raw data and documents from the original test that were “unavailable” (many scientists and researchers would say deliberately “hidden”) were obtained in 2017 by Tristan Casabianca, a French researcher.
In March, after two years of tests and analysis, Casabianca and his team of scientists published their results in the scholarly journal Archaeometry.
This month, in an interview with the French publication L'Homme Nouveau (Google translates into English), Casabianca discusses how he obtained the documents, his team’s methodology, and conclusion. Here is an excerpt:
“In 1989, the results of the shroud dating were published in the prestigious journal Nature: between 1260 and 1390 with 95% certainty. But for thirty years, researchers have asked the laboratories for raw data. These have always refused to provide them. In 2017, I submitted a legal request to the British Museum, which supervised the laboratories. Thus, I had access to hundreds of unpublished pages, which include these raw data. With my team, we conducted their analysis. Our statistical analysis shows that the 1988 carbon 14 dating was unreliable: the tested samples are obviously heterogeneous, [showing many different dates], and there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the sheet, are representative of the whole fabric. It is therefore impossible to conclude that the shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages.”
Here is why Casabianca’s conclusions are important to someone like me.
Since the 1990s, I have been a proponent of the study of the Shroud of Turin — a 14.5- by-3.5-foot linen cloth, and indeed believe it is the authentic burial Shroud of Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile, the Shroud continues to be the most studied and analyzed artifact in the world, with its numerous unexplained properties continuing to baffle modern science. Chief among the mysteries is what “caused” a linear, front to back, anatomically correct, blood-stained image of a tortured, crucified man — with bodily markings that perfectly align with all the Biblical accounts of Christ’s suffering and death — to appear on the cloth.
The Shroud also possesses photographic-negative properties first discovered in 1898, that on the “positive image” clearly show every gruesome, agonizing, torment endured by the “man.”
Additionally, the Shroud displays three-dimensional “distance information” resembling a topographical map but within the cloth’s two-dimensional image of the man.
Furthermore, the image depth measures only two micro-fibers with no variation (such consistency is a feat impossible with human hands). And more unusual, the image does not penetrate the cloth but sits on top.
I could go into vast detail about many more fascinating facts, but the big takeaway is that the more you learn about the Shroud’s mysteries, the more you believe in its authenticity.
Shroud scientists and other experts who have never accepted the 1290 – 1360 date range are applauding Casabianca as his team who are calling for rigorous new testing to end the absurd notion that the Shroud is a medieval hoax.
Not only did those dates defy logic because of circumstantial evidence such as art, artifacts, and coins that mirror the Shroud face as early as AD 692, but the 1988 tests diminished the conclusions of the equally famous 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project known as STURP. As the first and last comprehensive research project authorized by the Vatican, STURP employed 40 esteemed scientists using 1970s-state-of-the-art equipment and given access to the Shroud for 120 hours. Here is the concluding paragraph from STURP's final October 1981 report:
“Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery. We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The bloodstains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.”
Barrie Schwortz, a world-renowned Shroud expert who was a STURP photographer and later founded Shroud.com, the most visited Shroud site, told me what happened in 1988:
“As soon as the dating results were leaked to the press, the world of the Shroud came to a complete and sudden halt. Many researchers took this as the final word and disengaged completely. The years of hard work by the STURP team and the many papers they published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature was immediately disregarded and ultimately, forgotten. These were indeed the bleak years of Shroud research.”
But now the Shroud is experiencing a renaissance.
Besides Casabianca’s breakthrough research, there are two new Shroud museums, a site for Shroud evangelization, a famous collection of Shroud photography now available online, much Shroud activity, and generally a renewed interest in the cloth.
I am proud to be a part of this movement by helping lead a team of Shroud experts to raise the $2.5 million needed to showcase the cloth’s mysteries in a unique exhibition at the popular and prestigious Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C.
Of course, the Shroud will not be present at the museum because it does not travel. Since 1578, it has been housed in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy — except during the Second World War when it was hidden from Hitler — but the Shroud will be there in spirit!
After the funds are raised, our team will assist the museum in producing the world’s most high-tech, creative exhibit, utilizing state-of-the-art display technology. The Shroud’s unexplained properties will be brought to life, leaving visitors spellbound.
Targeted for early January 2021, the exhibition will be open in time for the presidential inauguration at the U.S. Capitol, only three blocks from the museum.
The Museum of the Bible’s planned exhibit is part of a great Shroud awakening. Why do I believe that this is happening? The answer is the same as I have.
Sounds like you’re a lot closer than you think you are - but “the struggle is real”. /hat-tip
Lots of Damascus type blades are being made today out of various pig iron, mixing carbon at smelting, no vanadium. . . They get the same results as the old Damascus Blades. It’s just a careful mixing of types of steel in the forging that results in a good strong blade. The old Damascus blades still had edge problems. The etching had nothing to do with the toughness, although the quenching after heat-treatment would harden the blade. Another probable myth was they were quenched in human slaves. . . The so-called slave swords.
The damascene technique was purely from the forge folding and hammer welding.
Indeed, I struggle nearly daily. I describe my state as a spiritual analog to to a medical condition called blind sight, where one has no consciousness of visual perception, but can navigate an unfamiliar cluttered room without bumping into anything or tripping. They act like they can see, but don’t.
Thanks.
Interesting points. Will have to follow that up. That "health guide" business DOES sound dodgy.
My bias is that it is not a supernatural relic. When the Shroud news first broke, I thought "Gee, wouldn't it be great if . . ."
That turned out to be a big "IF" as the more I read about it, including scientists with an agenda skewing the readings, it became evident this relic carried so much religious baggage that it would never be even-handedly inspected.
One of these days, someone, somewhere is going to be able to reproduce the effects and all the Shroudies will assume the fetal position.
I will be elated if it is conclusively proven to be real. "Conclusively" is the operative word.
You haven’t shown any scientists skewing any readings. You’ve posted claims of NON-scientist, know-nothings challenging real peer-reviewed science from their non-investigation ignorance. I’ve shot them down, showing their backgrounds and lack of education to even be in the same room with the people they attack, yet you continue to post their twaddling assertions they have made without any facts to back them up. Now you besmirch the real scientists by claiming they have SKEWED their findings, findings that were peer-reviewed and checked by other non-involved scientists. YOU IGNORE that many of these scientists are JEWS, non-Christians, Atheists, themselves. . . But you ASSUME they have an agenda.
Raymond Rogers, the chemist who found the original C14 test was absolutely invalid due to it dating a PATCH did his test with the intent to prove the hypothesis false. To his surprise, he could not prove it false but instead proved the hypothesis to be true, when he found the surviving sample C, to be composed of TWO DIFFERENT MATERIALS, one side original Flaxen Linen, and the other side, French Cotton, of two different ages. That is no longer in dispute. It has been confirmed by multiple other scientists. . . But the skeptics STILL ignore it. THEY don’t like real science, just as YOU don’t like real science and claim the real scientists have some “agenda” other than finding the facts.
YOU want it to be what YOU want it to be, not what it is.
So you were around in 944AD when Archdeacon Gregory gave his sermon in The Hagia Sophia in Constantinople describing the shroud? Or perhaps you were alive in 1352 when Sir Geoffrey de Charney built his chapel in Lirey, France, to put the Shroud on display for the world to know about? Or was in 1898 when Secondo Pia took the first photograph and saw the negative plate that turned out to be an actual positive image? How about in 1932 when Pierre Enri made better photographs and they were published worldwide? Or perhaps it was in 1978 when an interdisciplinary team of scientists were permitted to have unprecedented access to the Shroud for 24 hour a day for 120 hours then published their findings in 1981, again making worldwide headlines about what it was NOT? Perhaps it was when the scientists at the Oxford lab gleefully announced the results of the C14 tests as being 1350 AD to the world. We you there being gleeful, too? Those are all times when the Shroud news could have been considered to have “first broke.” Again, you show your abysmal ignorance of the history of the Shroud with your “first broke” comment.
It is glaringly obvious the “reading” you have done about the Shroud only comes from those already prejudiced toward it not being authentic, those who lie about the motives of the researchers, those who call them pseudo scientists, those who are themselves not scientists, and therefore exceedingly incompetent to make such judgements. YOU prefer the unqualified opinions of English majors, failed magicians, and ex-carnival barkers to the results of research by qualified, peer-reviewed scientists working in their fields of expertise. THAT says a lot about your judgement.
Not a single one of those scientists have ever said that the Shroud is ever going to be proved to be the Shroud of Jesus Christ. In fact, they have to a man and woman, stated categorically, that science cannot prove that the Shroud of Turin is the grave cloth of Jesus Christ.
You’ve made it apparent you do not even understand how science works. . . You don’t, do you?
Science can only prove it is NOT the Shroud of Jesus Christ. . . so these scientists studying the Shroud of Turin have been working to FALSIFY that hypothesis, looking diligently for evidence that it is NOT the Shroud of Jesus, not for proof that it is, because they cannot prove that it is.
Seeing as how you’ve also made it apparent you’ve never bothered to read anything factual I’ve written in these posts, as you keep posting non-factual repetitions of the nonsense spouted by the skeptical idiots such as Nickell, Schaeffersman, and Randi, I doubt you’ve read this far in this post to read this factual statement either.
I have never seen anyone on any Shroud thread whose faith is based on anything about the Shroud being real of not. That is a construct of the skeptics who perpetually invade the threads to throw brickbats at believers in Christ, especially Catholics, not the Shroud, or at those who clothe themselves in the pride of the superiority of their own faith’s purity, a sin in and of itself. For those, I think their Holier-than-thou attitude is being noted where it counts in the “Judge Not, lest ye be judged” category.
I can safely say to the negative responses I’ve received in this thread that “thou dost protest too much”, with a good helping of “how’s your faith these days”. But you keep preaching, brother.
Just wow.
Give it a rest.
I have been looking into any info of the Shroud and have yet to be convinced it is supernatural.
I have also wasted my time arguing with commbative and oh-so-sure Shroudies that I have come to view them in the same vein as liberals and climate enablers, and have no desire to continue wasting my time, with them, or any who self-identify as “swords makers”.
Respond to this as you wish - it is just white noise.
I’m not trying to convince your ignorant, closed mind it’s supernatural. I’ve not said one word that implied that, asshat. I’ve been trying to get you to pay attention to real science and not listen to other ignorant dunderheads who ARE NOT SCIENTISTS, who have never spent a moment doing an iota of legitimate investigation of the actual Shroud, whose only talent is their ability to throw brickbats and obfuscate real investigators results by throwing slurs, smoke, mirrors, and mud trying to see what might stick to the walls of other people who can’t grasp the difference between what they do and factual results from peer-reviewed science. That’s you.
As I said, I sincerely doubted you bother reading any of the facts I posted; you merely dismiss them out of hand, because those facts deny your "experts", Randi, Schafersman, and Nickell liturgy.
A closed mind is a terrible thing to see wasted. Remember, ignorance is curable, stupidity is forever.
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.