Shroud of Turin: New Test Concludes 1988 ‘Medieval Hoax’ Dating Was a Fraud

Townhall.com ^ | July 21, 2019 | Myrah Kahn Adams

[grey_whiskers]

That thing gets replicated all the time. But there will always be some "eminent scientist" willing to tell you what you want to hear because there is money in doing so.

As if there's no money to be made trashing Christianity and attempting to destroy faith.

You're so full of shit it staggers the human mind.

[infool7]

I’m afraid you have been misled.

We are not likely going to

come to an an understanding on this but

perhaps you and I can find

common ground somewhere else

in what I posted.

Are there any points you

agree with or none at all

whatsoever?

7

[grey_whiskers]

Why do you think Myrah felt the need to misrepresent the findings?

She didn't misrepresent. There's a lot of backstory behind the testing. Including the samples being all taken from the same area where it had previously been agreed NOT to take samples from.

Including some of the testers having an agenda to disprove the Shroud going in, and chortling about the results.

Including the results (supposedly from the same homogeneous sample) giving results for the age outside of each others 95% confidence error bars.

But by all means, keep on trolling.

[grey_whiskers]

Here's a clue. Stop libeling.

[semimojo]

Even with your supposed "backstory", which was strangely not provided in the article, I don't see any evidence of fraud.

Even if your story is sound, she's specifically referencing the Casabianca's study which in no way alleged fraud.

Stop defending disingenuous click bait artists.

[grey_whiskers]

Stop talking through your hat.

[Swordmaker]

We've always known it was fake. The fake shroud is one piece. The ancients starting using such as the fabric became scarce. But prior to that they used two pieces: one for the head and one for the body. The latter is what our Lord had.

John 20:6-7: Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Sigh. That’s what is says in an ENGLISH translation of the original Greek, but the original Luke 23:53 in GREEK in which it was written uses the word at least once of Syndon, meaning a SHEET, origin, a sail, a large linen cloth, or a SHROUD, which was bought by Joseph of Arimathea as part of the grave cloths.

ΚΑΤΑ ΛΟΥΚΑΝ 23:53-56 SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) 53 καὶ [a]καθελὼν ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι, καὶ ἔθηκεν [b]αὐτὸν ἐν μνήματι λαξευτῷ οὗ οὐκ ἦν [c]οὐδεὶς οὔπω κείμενος. 54 καὶ ἡμέρα ἦν [d]παρασκευῆς, καὶ σάββατον ἐπέφωσκεν. 55 κατακολουθήσασαι δὲ [e]αἱ γυναῖκες, αἵτινες ἦσαν συνεληλυθυῖαι [f]ἐκ τῆς Γαλιλαίας αὐτῷ, ἐθεάσαντο τὸ μνημεῖον καὶ ὡς ἐτέθη τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, 56 ὑποστρέψασαι δὲ ἡτοίμασαν ἀρώματα καὶ μύρα.

Καὶ τὸ μὲν σάββατον ἡσύχασαν κατὰ τὴν ἐντολήν,

Mark, Matthew, and Luke refer to a Syndon in their Gospels in the original Greek:

Matthew 27:59 N-DFS
GRK: αὐτὸ ἐν σινδόνι καθαρᾷ

Mark 15:46 N-AFS
GRK: καὶ ἀγοράσας
σινδόνα καθελὼν αὐτὸν Luke 23:53 N-DFS
GRK: ἐνετύλιξεν αὐτὸ σινδόνι καὶ ἔθηκεν

Strong’s Concordance defines Syndon as follows, using the authoritative Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:

Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 4616: σινδόνι— σινδών, σινδονος, ἡ (of uncertain origin; Sanskritsindhu (Egyptian,sehenti or 'sent'; cf. Vanicek, Fremdwörter under the word); the Sept. for סָדִין, Judges 14:12; Proverbs 29:42 (), fine cloth (Latin sindon), i. e.:

1. linen cloth, especially that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped: Matthew 27:59; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53 (cf. Herodotus 2, 86 who says of the Egyptians, κατειλισσουσι πᾶν τό σῶμα σινδονος βυσσινης (see Wilkinson's note in Rawlinson's Herod. 3rd edition, the passage cited)).

“About his head” refers to the binding used around his face, tied under his jaw, up and over the crown, to keep the mouth closed in death. This is written in the Mishnah—the written record of Jewish customs and interpretations of the Rabbis that ruled day-to-day interactions of the Jewish people—describing the proper Jewish burial methods and would have been used “in the manner of the Jews,” the same rules that decreed that Jesus had to be in the ground before the beginning of the Sabbath (Sundown), and buried on the day of his death. Jesus was not buried in a cultural vacuum. Other bindings, “strips of cloth,” would have been used to tie His wrists and ankles to keep His limbs from flopping akimbo. Again, this is according to the Jewish Mishnah.

In the same 1st Century Jewish cemetery in Jerusalem, the remnants of at least one full size shroud has been excavated. These remains were available due to an earthquake in the 1st Century which caused destruction which prevented re-entry to the cemetery to gather the bones into a central ossuary with the bones of their ancestors.

As for the “napkin” cited in some English translations of the New Testaments, that is not found in any of the original Greek Gospels. Instead the word is Sudarion, a SWEAT CLOTH, sometimes translated as a handkerchief, but that too is a mistranslation. Sweat Cloth is the correct translation, a cloth used to keep sweat out of the eyes of workers, usually rolled into a kerchief and then tied around the forehead. The Gospel of John in Greek actual says in Greek that the sweat cloth that had been around His face, not a napkin, was laying, still rolled and tied, away from the rest of the burial cloths.

ΚΑΤΑ ΙΩΑΝΝΗΝ 20:6-7
SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT)

6 ἔρχεται οὖν [a]καὶ Σίμων Πέτρος ἀκολουθῶν αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον· καὶ θεωρεῖ τὰ ὀθόνια κείμενα, 7 καὶ τὸ σουδάριον, ὃ ἦν ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ, οὐ μετὰ τῶν ὀθονίων κείμενον ἀλλὰ χωρὶς ἐντετυλιγμένον εἰς ἕνα τόπον·

The actual Sudarium (latin) from the tomb is thought to still exist and is kept in the Cathedral at Oviedo, Spain and is called the Sudarium of Oviedo. It shows signs of having been rolled corner to corner diagonally into a kerchief, something like a boy scout would have done to wear around his neck, and then tied. The diagonal length of the Sudarium is ~40” which is an ideal length for a jaw binding to keep the mouth closed as required in the Mishnah. The blood stains match those on the head of the image on the Shroud of Turin.

The blood stained cloth called the Sudarium of Oviedo

[Swordmaker]

There is a shroud of Turin for one reason....... to increase the take in the offering plates

Uh, no. Geoffrey de Charney, the French knight who built the chapel in Lirey France where it was first put on display in ~1350, refused all pilgrims’ donation offered to support the church and the clergymen at the chapel, funding it instead from his family’s own coffers. In fact that family funding continued even after his death to the point of bankrupting his family to the point his daughter Margaret wound up having to sell the Shroud to the royal family of Italy to survive.

Geoffrey De Charney was no ordinary knight. He was the Standard Bearer for the King of France who fought by the King’s side, his right hand man, considered above reproach in his piety and honesty. He is the author of the French Code of Chivalry for the Knights who served the King which was used for centuries. He is not one who would be party to a fraud. .

[Oatka]

Lotsa books out there. The one I like is Turin Shroud where the authors claim to have reproduced the technique that created the image. Claim that DaVinci did it and give the reasons for their hypothesis.

Created a firestorm and the usual "Fraud" and other labels were hurled at them. Mebbe, mebbe not, but they expose some of the frauds the "Shroudies" pulled and, if nothing else, made interesting reading.

[LouAvul]

Sigh. That’s what is says in an ENGLISH translation

No. That's the history. In Jesus' day they used two pieces, one for the head and one for the body.

Later, they used a single piece. But the one touted as the shroud of turin is a single piece, later than Jesus' day, hence is a fake.

But you believe what you will. It's immaterial. My faith is not in a piece of cloth. My faith is in Truth.

This is why God left no image of the Christ (even though they had statues of famous people aplenty), nor antiquity, etc. He did not do so because He knew people would elevate the cloth, etc, to something worthy of worship.

But like I said, believe what you will. It matters not. My faith is in the Eternal, not a cloth.

[Swordmaker]

That thing gets replicated all the time. But there will always be some "eminent scientist" willing to tell you what you want to hear because there is money in doing so.

No, Pill, it doesn’t. There are skeptics who do not grasp what is required to “replicate” the shroud who do things like dust cloth with Iron Oxide powders, or use photographic techiniques with a silver solutions with fixatives they claim were available in the 14th Century based on the now falsified 1988 Carbon 14 test such as urine. However, these pre-suppose these Iron Oxides and Silver solutions can actually be still showing an image on the Shroud 700 years after the image was made by their purported methodology. However, none of their methods EVER fulfill even a rudimentary capability of re-creating the image on the Shroud of Turin satisfying all of the criteria, but most importantly, NOT ANY OF THEIR CRITICAL CHEMICALS EXIST ON THE SHROUD IN THE IMAGE AREAS IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES (IF THEY ARE THERE AT ALL) TO RISE TO THE LEVEL OF VISIBILITY. Most are not even there, such as silver oxide or even Iron Oxide, which exists only in the area of the blood stains. . . And then it is not the type used in pigments, but a type that relates to blood remnants, certainly not a ground up, pigment type Iron Oxide which would stand out like a sore thumb on the X-Ray microspectrometry and Raman Spectrometry that has been done on the Shroud. Not a single one of these pathetic attempts to replicate the Shroud has ever come close to doing so. Your sampling making a declaration they have done so “all the time” is ludicrous.

The scientists who are working on the Shroud are scientists who are working in their fields of expertise, Pill. They know what they are talking about. On the other hand, on the skeptics side, they have a geologist and a guy who is a failed stage magician with a degree in English Literature. . . challenging experts, many of them who are world class in their fields. One of those, Dr. David Cameron, who has a double doctorate in the areas studying blood and blood derivatives, who examined the blood stains on the Shroud and tested them finding them to be human blood derivatives and very old human haemoglobin derivatives, was told by one of these skeptic “experts” that he was “mistaking Iron Oxide, Egg Albumin, and Vermilion paint (Mercury Sulfide)” for real blood, despite all the real scientific tests he had done including DNA, Primate and Human Antigen tests, Raman Spectroscopy (No Mercury sulfide [HgS] or inorganic Iron Oxide [FE₂O₃] except accidental environmental contamination), and a host of other very specific blood tests. Yet these so-called skeptical “experts” claimed they knew the blood stains were paint because a microscopist Walter C. McCrone had said so because he saw the paint in his optical microscope. . . and had published it in his non-peer-reviewed magazine The Microscopist, where he claimed the Shroud was a painting. He even claimed he could tell the “dilution of the Tempera Paints used to create it” something that is not possible to do under a microscope. The problem is that there are no pigments of any kind found on the Shroud, down to the scanning electron microscopic level.

These replica shrouds created by these skeptics are rife with pigments, silver oxides, etc, that light up every test applied to them. They FAIL the tests for image media. Thus, the Shroud has not been duplicated at all. The modality of image creation has NOT been duplicated.

Please tell us how “money is made” in telling anyone what you claim? Most of the people involved are self-funded, contrary to your claims.

[Neidermeyer]

Nordic looking white guy in 1st Century Judea? Yeah right.
***************
Yeah... North Africa/Southern Med. people were white ,, even in Egypt ,, just look at the paintings from the pyramids... Black people from farther south in Africa were generally slave labor in the north... over the millennia the races mixed and the current more or less brown people of the area resulted... Egyptian paintings depicting white people often had blue or green eyes which were made with precious or semi-precious stones which is why they are always missing from the murals...

[GingisK]

Not only that, the Shroud is completely unimportant and not worth a millisecond of the time that has been wasted upon it.

[mware]

Don’t you just love that show. Really cerebral.

[Swordmaker]

The analysis says nothing about fraud, only that carbon 14 dating procedures were less reliable in 1988.

No, it does not make that claim. The tests were quite accurate. . . They are just as accurate today. . . But we are able to test smaller samples now. That doesn’t mean the tests in 1988 were inaccurate. In fact, they were quite accurate for what they tested, and that is the problem. The accuracy of the tests SHOWS that what was tested was NOT homogenous.

For a C14 test to be considered valid, the sample being tested must representative of the whole item being dated. Yet the test dates that were returned from just a very small 2 ½ inch x ½ inch sample cut from one end of the Shroud of Turin turned out to so in disagreement with each other the sample itself was determined with a 95% degree of confidence to itself to be NOT homogenous with itself! In other words, from one end of the sample to the other, it was made of differing materials of differing ages! This is unheard of in C14 testing on such a small test sample; it’s a HUGE red flag that something is wrong with the sample In fact, the ages reported creation dates that varied over possible range from 1220AD to 1410AD or 190 years. What was worse was the degrees of confidence of each of the tested sub-samples from the three testing labs, using four samples, did not once overlap another lab’s tests! They should have all been within a range of 25 years, not 190. They were all using the same C14 technique. The testing lab in charge of the overall testing knew this, but they covered it up and rounded the results to get what they wanted it to be. They FUDGED the results.

Not only that, but the ages of the testing seemed to get older the closer into the center of the Shroud the sub-samples were, implying a variable contamination was affecting the master sample. Again, in other words, as the sub-sample got further away from the edge of the cloth, the older the sub-sample tested, implying a larger percentage of older material was being dated, compared to a younger amount closer to the edge.

Prior to this article there have been several other peer-reviewed scientific articles published that have proved that what was tested was a patched area of the Shroud that included a mix of original Linen which had had newer dyed cotton threads re-woven into it by a technique called French Invisible Reweaving, In this technique a skilled artisan matches the color of the original material by dying threads, then actually twists each thread into existing threads of the cloth, and then replicates the weave, repairing a frayed or torn section, interweaving original with new threads. Such patches are invisible to the eye and were used to repair Arras and Tapestries. Under an existing photomicrograph of the original sample taken of the 1988 C14 sample, a slight difference can be discerned between the right and left side threads. A thread from Raes’ Sample taken in 1976 from the area immediately adjacent to the 1988 C14 sample was examined and it fell into two pieces, one part was dyed cotton, the other was Flax Linen. It is thought that the repair was most likely done in the mid-17th Century using then modern French cotton. Combining that age cotton with 1st Century Flaxen Linen in a 40%-60% to 60%-40% varying melange results in the exact dates the 1988 C14 tests reported for each sub-sample locations with those proportions of old to new threads.

Other peer-reviewed statistical papers starting in the early 1990s, using just the various labs’ reported dates, not the raw data, have pointed out the 1988 C14 failed the basic statistical tests for validity any C14 test must meet to be considered valid for homogeneity. There were at least four of these papers published confirming this falsification of the C14 tests on statistical basis alone without access to the raw data.

In 2003, the Late Ray N. Rogers was able to get thread samples from retained middle sub-sample from the 1988 C14 master sample and run tests on them with the intent to falsify the patch hypothesis. To his surprise he found that the left side was made of cotton, dyed with madder root, and bleached and sized with alum, while the left side was undyed and sun-bleached Flaxen Linen. There were distinct twisted together joins of the two pieces. The Linen was Z twist, while the Cotton was S twist and slightly smaller in diameter. He also found a large amount of Vanillan in the Cotton, but no Vanillan in the Flax. Vannillan is a chemical in plants that dissipated over time and takes about 1,400 years to completely disappear. It was Rogers opinion that the Shroud had to be older than 1,400 years for the flax Vannillan to be completely dissipated. Instead of falsifying the patch hypothesis, he actually wound up confirming that hypothesis.

Rogers published his findings in the peer-reviewed chemical journal “Thermochemica Acta” in 2005.

[Swordmaker]

Even if your story is sound, she's specifically referencing the Casabianca's study which in no way alleged fraud.

Any scientific institution which will not share the raw data to other researchers is trying to hide what they fear will be revealed in the raw data. Having to sue to gain access to scientific data is absurd. That is in the article. When those data show the announced conclusion does not follow from those data, that constitutes the fraud.

These 1988 C14 testers started their fraud when they broke their own protocols by taking the sample from the one area on the Shroud that all of the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project scientists had agreed should be avoided for such testing due to it being different from the main body of the Shroud chemically, physically, and photographically. In addition, the protocol called for SIX samples to be taken from six different locations and sent to SIX different C14 labs, instead at the very last hour, they decided that one sample would be taken from that worst possible location, and then cut into five pieces, four of which would be sent to THREE labs for testing.

The protocol further required the samples to be sent to the testing labs along with two other control samples of similarly aged linen cloth. To avoid the labs knowing which samples were which, the samples were supposed to be reduced to mere clippings of small segments of threads. Instead, the 1cm x 1cm Shroud samples were sent intact, as were the control samples. However, it was well known that the weave pattern of the Shroud was a three-over-one twill. The two known age control samples were both one-over-one linen, and obvious as hell they were not the Shroud sample. It was left to each lab to anonymize the samples and controls, breaking double blinds study requirements. The labs knew which samples they were testing. More scientific fraud.

Sub-sample A, the sub-sample closest to the edge, and Sub-sample E, the one furthest from the edge and closest to the center of the Shroud, went the same C14 Lab, the University of Arizona, When they got their samples, they cut them into smaller samples with the cuts going along the longer threads, thus across the edge on each so the interwoven new and old were contained in each of their newer smaller samples. They then tested each of these smaller samples and got different dates on each. This should have raised their eyebrows. Instead, they averaged the results for the entire sub-sample. They did the same for sub-sample E, and averaged that. It was THIS raw data that Casabianca’s Study nailed down as proof falsifying the whole 1988 C14 testing. There were RED FLAGS at every step that should have told each lab they were working with a non-homogenous sample. . . Yet they plowed ahead, instead of calling a halt due to bad data.

Garbage In, Garbage Out. Hiding their raw data shows they knew. That’s a cover up. They did it because they felt justified in tweaking the noses of “true believers” and what they considered “pseudo scientists.”

That’s scientific FRAUD.

[Swordmaker]

Lotsa books out there. The one I like is Turin Shroud where the authors claim to have reproduced the technique that created the image. Claim that DaVinci did it and give the reasons for their hypothesis.

Created a firestorm and the usual "Fraud" and other labels were hurled at them. Mebbe, mebbe not, but they expose some of the frauds the "Shroudies" pulled and, if nothing else, made interesting reading.

Quite a trick. Did Da Vinci also invent a time machine to create the Shroud 100 years before he was born? That’s what is required since the Shroud first appeared in Lirey, France, in 1352. . . but Leonardo Da Vinci wasn’t born until 1452, 100 years later. Lynn Pincknet and Isabel Piznek came up with that cockamamie idea to sell a book and make a documentary to make money. They made their money based on NOTHING. No evidence. Nothing. Zip, Nada. It’s “Isabel and Lynn in Wonderland!”

There are representations of the Shroud with known provenance before the 12th Century and descriptions of it in the 10th Century. So much for Da Vinci and the Shroud.

Please inform of the “frauds” the “shroudies” have pulled. I am quite interested as I follow the science and scholarship. I don’t give much weight to the people who work outside their fields of real expertise, such as failed stage magicians with degrees in English Literature or Geology telling world class forensic specialists they don’t know what they are talking about in physiology, blood science, or people with double doctorates in blood studies that the blood they are working on is really paint. . . especially when the skeptical “scientists” have never gotten their hands on so much as an iota of a sample to test.