> To say it's a fake without any idea of HOW it could be faked is simply denial.
Incorrect. Here's the logic:
Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.
Theory refuted; it's a fake. Exactly how the image got there is another matter; but the evidence shows it to *not* be the shroud of Jesus
Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted. Guess you're not up to date on the carbon dating actually used.
The sample used was from a corner the Catholic Church felt was not essential to the shroud. It had been contaminated in a fire, and restored in a way that invalidated its use for carbon dating purposes. In addition, it was subsequently shown that the individual fibers in the shroud had grown a biological "sheath" that was not removed prior to testing, and added new biomass to the original material. Since this new growth was obviously younger than the shroud itself, it undoubtedly changed the tested age of the sample.
Attempts have been made to mathematically correct for these problems. You may choose to dispute the math, but the correction results in a first century date for the shroud.
In regards to the carbon 14 testing which has been completely discredited: M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, in collaboration with number of textile experts, identified clear evidence of medieval mending on the Shroud. A patch was expertly sewn to or rewoven into the fabric to repair a damaged edge. It was from this patch—quite likely nothing more than a piece of medieval cloth—that the samples were taken. From documenting photographs of the sample areas, the textile experts identified enough newer thread to permit Ronald Hatfield, of the prestigious radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic, to estimate that the true date of the cloth is much older—perhaps even 1st century.
Independently, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory have explored the chemical nature of the sample area. They have confirmed the finding of Benford and Marino. Ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis show that the area from which the samples were taken was chemically unlike the rest of the cloth. Chemical analysis reveals the presence of Madder root dye and an aluminum oxide mordant (a reagent that fixes dyes to textiles) not found elsewhere on Shroud. Medieval artisans often dyed threads in this manner when mending damaged tapestries. This was simply to make the repairs less noticeable. The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way.
This photograph, by Vern Miller, was taken before the samples carbon 14 testing were cut from the Shroud. It was taken with a heavily-filtered ultraviolet lighting (black light) that did not emit any visible light at all. All of the light you see in the photograph was produced by the fluorescence of chemical compounds on the Shroud. Any variations in color and brightness are a direct result of the chemical composition.
The dark brown region across the bottom of the picture is the mended area. The place from which the carbon 14 samples were cut is in the dark brown area just above the tiny triangular white spot located on the bottom edge. (The tiny white triangle is where a small sample was trimmed from the Shroud in 1973 by Gilbert Raes).
Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for it. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin.
This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.
Incorrect. Here's the logic:
Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.
Theory refuted; it's a fake. I would agree... IF they had tested the Shroud and not a 16th Century PATCH.
It has now been almost conclusively proven that the Carbon 14 testng was done on material that had been patched in the 16th Century, probaby 1535 or 1552. The C14 sample was taken from an area of the Shroud that was SIGNIFICANTLY different from the rest of the Shroud..
The following table is borrowed from shroudie's Shroud Story website and shows the results of the tests comparing the C14 sample piece with the Shroud itself:
| Chemical Differences |
Carbon 14 Sample Area |
Main Part of the Shroud of Turin |
| aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing |
Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud) |
Virtually none |
Madder-root dye (alizarin and
purpurin) |
Found |
Not found |
| a gum medium (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant |
Found |
Not present |
| Lignin at fiber growth nodes |
Very little |
Significant |
| vanillin in lignin |
Found |
Not found |
ultraviolet
fluorescence |
significant |
less |
| cotton fiber in thread |
Found |
Not found |
| spliced fibers |
Found |
Not found |
So we have a C14 Sample that is:
CHEMICALLY different from the body of the Shroud in that it contained Rose Madder-root Dye, Aluminum Oxide (bauxite), Gum coating on the fibers as a mordant (a chemical to "bite" into the linen to allow dyes to adhere), and Vanillin (a decomposition product of lignin that disappears over time), and other chemicals not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
PHYSICALLY different because the patch fluoresces significantly under an ultra-violet light while the rest of the Shroud material fluoresces dimly, The C14 Sample shows significant differences as a TEXTILE in that the threads of the patch were spun in an "S" (counter-clockwise) twist while the entire rest of the Shroud was spun with a "Z" twist. In addition, the average thread size of the C14 Sample is "significantly" (statistically) smaller than the average thread size of the Shroud. The fibers composing the threads of the patch include WOOL and European COTTON which is found NOWHERE ELSE on the Shroud. Finally, the linen of the C14 sample was "retted" using a completely different process from the rest of the Shroud.
The location where C14 sample was taken.
Diagram of the cutting of the sample for distribution
to the three laboratories.
Photos linked from The 1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon Tests Reconsidered
Paper by Bryan J. Walsh, Shroud of Turin Center, Richmond, VA
The samples provided to the Zurich C14 Lab (top) and the Oxford lab.
Note the obvious changes in thread directionality and tone in
the samples from left side to right side, and the subtle variation between
the direction changes. This has been determined to be an area of "invisible
reweaving" where the 16th Century linen patch material is interwoven
with the original shroud material.
This color photo of the one of the Arizona lab's samples
(the only lab to get two samples) shows a distinct change
in thread quality in the lower right. Note the subtle change
in direction of the "woof" (horizontal) threads.
Sample photos borrowed from
Catholic Counter-Reformation Website
Bryan J. Walsh' statistical analysis of the C14 tests performed by the three laboratories show that given the accepted accuracy of the tests, the test results and the reported ages of the 11 tests (three labs Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich, four samples cut into 11 sub-samples (A-4, O-3, Z-4) for testing) COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM THE SAME HOMOGENOUS POPULATION! In other words, the test results varied so greatly that statistically they could not have come from the same sample! Yet we know they did.
Plotting the age variances in the samples show that the age reported is inverse linear proportion to the distance from the edge of the Shroud toward the center. At the time the statistical analysis was done, the evidence of a patch had not been found.
The distances used were:
Laboratory Distance (in mm)
Oxford 50.0 (the approx. distance from the edge of Shroud cloth to center of Oxford sample)
Zurich 64.0 (the Oxford value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)
Arizona 76.0 (the Zurich value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)
A regression analysis was then conducted which compared the subsample radiocarbon dates with the corresponding distance from the edge of the Shroud linen. It was determined that there was statistically significant (P>98.8%, r2=0.49) inverse linear relationship between the date measured and the distance from the sample to the edge of the cloth. This finding indicated that there was an apparent gradient of radiocarbon measured on the Shroud sample with higher levels of 14C measured at increasing distance from the edge of the Shroud linen based on the sample measured. This is illustrated on the following chart:
The data and statistical analysis by Walsh is equally valid if it is not distance from the edge of the cloth but rather proportion of patch to original material in a diagonal change across the flawed sample that results in the statistically anomolous results. This is proof that the samples, although cut from the Shroud, and then further cut from the same sample WERE NOT HOMOGINOUS... and in fact were made up of OLD shroud linen intermixed with NEW patch linen.
Ergo, the test was flawed from the beginning. It is akin to finding a note on a piece of paper scotch taped to the flyleaf of a book, taking that page, including the scotch taped piece and testing it to find the age of the book. The sample was corrupted by additional anachronistic material, the results are wrong.