New: Shroud of Turin carbon dating proved erroneous ( performed on non-original cloth sample)

PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair. LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.

Oh, and by the way. If you *DO* insist that the coloration within the image is in no way indicative of the proximity of the body to the sheet, don't even *THINK* of trying to reverse course later on and claim that pretty good 3-D images can be made by dusting something on a sheet and wrapping it around the face and body. You have explicitly disclaimed that approach.

I have expressed no opinion on how the image was produced. I merely point out that it is unreasonable to argue that an image that is a "graph" of distance from the body can produce an image delineating the pupil of the eye.

Ummm, js?

In case you forgot, re-creating the 3-D information from even a non-holographic X-ray is not 'arbitrary', even though it might be inaccurate.

There are real human bodies (maybe even of the person X-rayed) which we can use to 'tune' the parameters in the software: we all know that the coccyx is not longer than the femur. ;-)

That being said, using multiple light sources does give more accurate 3-D information than a single source of light. But anyone who knows of scattering theory or of partial derivatives would be able to point that out.

Cheers!

In case you forgot, re-creating the 3-D information from even a non-holographic X-ray is not 'arbitrary', even though it might be inaccurate.

The parameters for constructing the 3D rendering are arbitrary. That does not mean the rendering is not useful to someone who understands the eccentricities of the process.

The fact remains that any image having a gradient can be rendered as a false 3D image. The more light and shadow information, the more plausible the rendering.

To make this kind of rendering you have to have a directional bias or direction of offset. If the "light source" is coming from head on or directly beneath the fabric, there would be no preferred angle. The shroud image does not work with any angle. There are only a couple of angles that give realistic depth to the rendering.

And again the claim is made that the image is a graph of the distance from the body to the fabric. This simply isn't true, unless you make some unreasonable assumptions. How can the image of the pupil of the eye be construed as arising from a graph of distance.

I am now calling BS! This is a deception... and a fraud in this discussion! You have presented false evidence as a strawman so that you could shoot it down.

Do you think we're stupid? Your blurry distored, image is bogus, JS1138, and you have now entered into the world of intentionally deceptive, falsified evidence.

The blurring you see above, in the picture YOU posted as falsifying the peer-reviewed science I was reporting on, has NOTHING to do with the angle of pseudo light, but rather the MAGNITUDE of offset.

You have put up a picture that superimposes the negative over the positive 1 inch up and almost 2 inches to the right (in relation to the real sizes) out of registration instead of the slight mis-registration of about 1/32" to 1/16" this technique requires. This will always result in a blurry mess as you put nose over mouth, eyebrows over eyes, etc. The offset to create the quasi 3D is much smaller than what you are posting. Either you or your source is misrepresenting the facts.

The fraud you have posted is obvious on its face... there are distinct landmarks on the images that prove the fraud you are perpetrating. The negative image of the crease mark across the Shroud image's neck is obviously offset at least an inch up and almost 2" toward the right, at about 10º to 15º angle, above the same landmark on the positive image. Similarly obvious are the huge offsets of the blood trails on the forehead. There is no attempt at honesty here. It is even a poor attempt at deception.

This is obviously deliberate deception. I had thought better of you.

You have lost all credibility on this thread and future Shroud threads. That saddens me.

I can now impeach you on every Shroud thread by merely linking to this attempt to foist this picture off as legitimate.

Do you think we're stupid? Your blurry distorted, image is bogus, JS1138, and you have now entered into the world of intentionally deceptive, falsified evidence.

Don't ask questions for which you don't want to hear the answer.

As for the blurry image, it is from the same source as others I've posted. the only difference is the angle chosen in the Photoshop filter.

What you are seeing is the result of choosing an offset angle that doesn't correspond to the apparent angle of incident light in the image.

It isn't difficult to reproduce my result. I took an image from the internet, applied the Photoshop auto contrast correction, and then applied the same emboss filter that, with a different angle, produces a plausible 3D rendering.

Do you think we're stupid? Your blurry distorted, image is bogus, JS1138, and you have now entered into the world of intentionally deceptive, falsified evidence.

Don't ask questions for which you don't want to hear the answer.

As for the blurry image, it is from the same source as others I've posted. the only difference is the angle chosen in the Photoshop filter.

What you are seeing is the result of choosing an offset angle that doesn't correspond to the apparent angle of incident light in the image.

Which means that all of your postings are purely made of straw... because NO ONE has claimed that the Shroud has such resolution... or that pupils are visible on the Shroud.

They eyes are closed... and according to enhanced images they are covered by either coins or potsherds.

The only parameter changed is the angle. I looked long and hard at the effect you describe, but the Photoshop filter is significantly more complex and sophisticated than simply offsetting two images.

The shroud image has a preferred angle of offset, and deviating significantly from the preferred angle fails to produce a realistic rendering.

As much as I enjoy being called a liar by you, I will point out that anyone can verify my work.

But to check myself against committing to a stupid error, I took the unprocessed x-ray image from my earlier post and used the Photoshop emboss filter on it.

Two things become apparent. The Photoshop filter is not as sophisticated as the Bryce program that produced the posted 3D rendering. I’m not surprised Bryce is dedicated to 3D.

More importantly, Photoshop produces a plausible 3D rendering of the x-ray regardless of the angle chosen. There is no bias. There is no angle that produces the mess displayed in the shroud image.

What you are seeing is the result of choosing an offset angle that doesn't correspond to the apparent angle of incident light in the image.

That is a lie. The offset is obvious—and done deliberately to provide garbage.
I did ask the question. Do you think we're stupid? Obviously, you do because you think you can foist off a fraud on us. It doesn't work.

I took an image from the internet, applied the Photoshop auto contrast correction, and then applied the same emboss filter that, with a different angle, produces a plausible 3D rendering.

No, you didn't. You applied an offset of almost 2" in the X axis and almost 1" in the Y axis, deliberately producing a blurry, mis-registered image to make your point. This is fraud... and a lie. There is absolutly no effort to properly reproduce the technique. Either you completely misunderstand how its done, or you have deliberately FAKED your evidence. This is what we've come to expect from those who fallow that other evidence faker, McCrone.
You are either a Fruad, or you are incompetent.

The parameters for constructing the 3D rendering are arbitrary. That does not mean the rendering is not useful to someone who understands the eccentricities of the process.

Yes, Mr. Biden.

There are two key questions.

1) Is there pseudo-3D information recoverable from the image on the Shroud.

Yes.

You are trying to claim that "this tells us nothing" since you can make the pseudo-3D look however you want by modifying the parameters used to do the rendering, and you can get such information out of virtually any picture.

But in doing so, you are missing COMPLETELY my point #2.

2) The details of what you have to do, to get the pseudo-3D information from the picture, ITSELF reveals further information about the picture.

When you apply the pseudo-3D imaging, does the physical size and aspect ratio of the pseudo-3D images get reproduced in a physically reasonable fashion, or not? For the map of the US, you see the mountains you "expect" to see on a relief map, so no red flags go off. But they are way too large to be to scale as real mountains on a real continent. Verdict: artistic representation.

For a human face (like the rightmost "3D" picture of Jesus from a flat picture, it looks "3D like": but it is still obviously a picture, including the monotonous regularity of features and tone, they too-smooth lines, the fictitious source of illumination.

Now look at the picture in 192 or so, posted by Diamond. That looks "really" 3D, as though it were 'sculpted' or really taken from a real face, and yet very imperfect, not the kind of thing an artist would have left in that state: consider the eye sockets, pupils and irregularities in the hair and beard. It looks like someone put an oatmeal scrub mask on the face and then peeled it off badly to get a mold of the face. This does not at ALL resemble what you claim is the trivial reproduction of it using photoshop type software.

Cheers!

The only parameter changed is the angle.

Your statement is false on the evidence. There are obvious landmarks on both images that are so far offset on the positive and negative images that no possible clear image could ever be shown from such a mis-match.

Again, here is your own production. How do you explain the placement of the negative, white forehead blood stains, the neck crease, the nose, in fact everything so far away from the matching black landmarks on the positive image.

IF the only parameter is the angle, then how do you account for the placement of these very blatant, obvious landmarks so far from each other? You can't. You had to have set the offset parameter. In science, falsifying evidence is a very serious thing. You place an eye over a nose and the result is going to be a mess... as you have produced and then claimed it is probative. BS!

IF the only parameter is the angle, then how do you account for the placement of these very blatant, obvious landmarks so far from each other? You can't.

Certainly I can. It's an artifact of the Photoshop filter, which is not equivalent to offsetting two images a fixed distance. I wasn't fully aware of that at first, but it is obvious from this example.

Again, thanks for playing the liar game, but anyone can put a decent sized shroud image in Photoshop and play with the parameters. They will find, as I did, that changing only the angle will produce the artifact I showed.

What you need to come to grips with is that when this happens it is because the image has information about the original angle of incident light.

Take a look at the x-ray renderings. Changing the angle does not introduce weird artifacts.

Tell you what. Give us the image in #252, and a link to the original image you fed into photoshop to get that image, and the version of photoshop you used. Then tell us the exact angle you fed in, and let other people try using all that information and the original photo, if they can produce the image you did in #252.

Science is about reproducibility under controlled conditions, right?

Cheers!

Take a look at the x-ray renderings. Changing the angle does not introduce weird artifacts.

Which is just why he is so suspicious of your image in #252. Can you give a test image (say of Barack Obama, since nobody on this thread is a fan of his), and tell us the settings on the filter you used to get the picture in #252, and we can see what Obama looks like under the artefact of the Photoshop filter?

Cheers!

Take a look at the x-ray renderings. Changing the angle does not introduce weird artifacts.

Cheers!

Certainly I can. It's an artifact of the Photoshop filter, which is not equivalent to offsetting two images a fixed distance. I wasn't fully aware of that at first, but it is obvious from this example.

JS, Here is proof that your offset is way too large to produce anything resembling the quasi-3D image the technique will produce. As anyone can easily see, you have offset the image far too much. The yellow arrows show the neck crease, the Green, Blue, Tan and Red are blood stains... and the corresponding colors on the non-manipulated 3D image to the same landmarks.

You set the angle to ~18º (I measured it) but the offset is, as I said, not the small offset required by this techique, but rather a gross offset that places unlike objects on top unrelated landmarks.

Your picture is a fraud. It is garbage, representing only your incompetence or dishonesty.

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.