|
Posted on 09/28/2008 8:19:34 AM PDT by dascallie
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.
For me, no scientific logistics are necessary; I say let’s start by agreeing that the thing is only 500 years old.
Now go back in time and find the greatest, photorealistic artist of that time ~ Michaelangelo for existance ~ compare the quality of his art and the probability that he could produce such an image (he could not). Then have him replicate the feat, but consider that it would need to be done in photp-reverse.
It seems unlikely to me that such an image could have been made 200 years ago.
“It is looking more and more like it is an authentic artifact from the time of Jesus’ death...”
Or...
It’s a cotton fake
It’s a linen fake that has been repaired
The author if this article is full of s**t
or... lots of other possibilities
There is no such thing. The goofballs who suggested it referred directly to "French Re-Weaving". I had a suit done in the 80's. It uses a matching peice of excess cloth from a hem that is then spliced in to match. In other words, if Benford and Marino were right, the patch would have had the same date as the original because it would have been original cloth.
The cloth that was actually c-14 tested was completely consumed in the process. These critics have NO basis for saying the sample was corrupted. (Here is a picture http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/109/2/j92cur.pdf (go to page 17) of one of the samples. It is clearly the 3:1 herringbone twill of the rest of the shroud and no threads are missing. No patch is visible. The Vatican fabric experts there during the sampling certified it as original.)
Benford and Marino who came up with the invisible patch are absolute crackpots. See: http://www.gizapyramid.com/BIO-Benford-Marino.htm
The polen evidence by Frei was pure fraud. He was looking for fame. He also verified that the fake Hitler diaries were real and he is a laughing stock in handwriting analysis.
It isn't a Los Alamos team. It is a few old Catholics who happen to work at Los Alamos that were part of a group that analyzed the shroud in the 70's.
The statement that it is a photographic negative is false. The hair, eyebrows, and "blood" are not negative in the picture. It is a fake shroud, not a fake picture. It looks somewhat like a negative because the high points of the body that come into contact with a shroud are darker than those further away. A painting has closer features lighter. It isn't anatomically correct either. One arm is longer than the other and the hair forms a nice little cap and isn't flattened out. Also, the character on the shroud conveniently has his hands over his winkie as if anticipating that the "shroud" might be shown in church. This was common in medieval painting, but Jews were buried with their hands crossed on their chests.
|
I think there is some incorrect reporting in this article.
Raymond Rogers determined that the patch material was linen but it had cotton fibers inter-spun into the flax fibers which is not at all representative of threads taken from the main body of the Shroud. The presence of cotton IN the fibers is the anomaly.
The scientists accurately dated what they were given. They dated a sample that was taken in violation of the protocols that had been agreed on—a sample that now turns out to be a melange of old and newer material, that when accurately dated, reports an average of the ages of the older and newer material which accidentally fell within the range the skeptics expected.
Bad sample in, bad data out.
The Turin cloth first appeared in north-central France in the mid-fourteenth century. At that time the local bishop uncovered an artist who confessed he had “cunningly painted” the image. Subsequently, in 1389, Pope Clement VII officially declared the shroud to be only a painted “representation.” For 500 years the shroud was considered a fake.
At the end of the 19th century, Secundo Pia took photos of the shroud. He noticed that the negatives appeared to be a positive image and that the shroud was therefore a “negative” image. The myth grew that the image was a miracle because it was a negative image that could not have been faked (because photographic negatives didn’t exist in the Middle Ages) and that it is “anatomically perfect”. Both statements are wrong. The image isn’t a true negative (hair, eyebrows, and “blood” are positive images, and the picture is far from anatomically perfect.) One arm is longer than the other. The hair is wrong. Blood trickles on the head are wrong and the overall figures height to girth is wrong.
In 1972 a team was put together by the Vatican. They used very sophisticated tests for blood, but found none. Two of the experts declared it a painting. They were pressured into saying they weren’t sure because of the “miraculous’ negative properties and the alleged anatomical perfection.
During the later 70’s, a group that venerated the Shroud assembled a team called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, “STURP”. Several of the “scientists” were from Los Alamos. None had experience in forensics or art forgeries, so they brought in the world’s foremost microscopist and noted forensic art expert, Walter McCrone. McCrone also found no blood and identified paint and substances typical of the art of the middle ages. He said it was a fake dated around 1355.
The STURP dudes flipped. They took away McCrone’s samples and tried to ruin him.
STURP used less sensitive tests for blood, and shazzam, they found it! Around the STURP team grew up a circle of quacks that found all kinds of miraculous things. The real scientists never did.
In 1988, the Vatican had samples taken by experts under their supervision. Three labs in three different countries c-14 tested the samples and came up with dates consistent with Pope Clement, and McCrone. The Catholic **** hit the fan.
A papal representative named Gonella had a hissy fit calling the scientists who did the tests “dogs”. He set out to prove them wrong by releasing samples without the Vatican’s permission. Although there is no evidence except his word, he supposedly took a warp and weft thread from the samples that were used for dating (this was suspiciously convenient since the samples were destroyed in the testing). The sampling had been very closely scrutinized and no one confirms the existence of these threads and microphotographs of the samples do not show any missing threads. He did not have authority to distribute any samples.
A man named Rogers (of STURP who wasn’t supposed to be involved) supposedly tested these threads and said that they came from an “invisible patch”. This was based on a report by Benford and Marino who are two of the quacks mentioned earlier (they are famous for being experts on spontaneous human combustion and pyramid power).
Rogers wrote a paper that slipped through the peer review process and appeared in a real scientific journal. The press seized on it as proof that the c-14 tests were flawed. They weren’t. Rogers’ paper was nonsense covered in pseudoscience. Interestingly, he stole from McCrone in it making claims he had ridiculed earlier.
The shroud is a fake. It was a known fake for 500 years. Every team that has tested it had members that said so. The STURP true believers have lied, stolen, and violated Vatican rules to keep the myth alive. They have been aided by UFO, Bigfoot type wackos who make a living at such things
BOVINE EXREMENT, Soliton. Sue Benford and Joe Marino did investigate Spontaneous Human Combustion in relation to their studies of the Shroud of Turin because there was evidence for an internal energy source being the cause of the creation of the image. There work was published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, Benford MS. Idiopathic Thermogenesis: Potential Origin and Mechanism of Action, Journal of Theoretics. August/Sept. 1999, Vol. 1, No. 3, published prior to our current understanding of what makes up the image on the Shroud which was determined in the work of the late Raymond Rogers, confirmed independently. Secondly, Non-scientists Benford's and Marino's observations and theory about the Shroud C-14 Sample have now been proven several times over by scientists using multiple approaches, including this current report. What they hypothesized, based on close observations of the photomicrocraphs of the C14 samples, has been proven to be true... regardless of the nature of some of their other areas of interest.
The Raes sample was NOT adjacent to the samples tested, but the Vatican DOES have the piece that was next to it.
That is not true, Soliton. The Raes Sample WAS taken from an area immediately adjacent to, and to the right of the 1988 C14 Sample. There are abundant photographs of the area showing exactly where both samples were taken.
Photographs of the samples analyzed show them to be 3:1 weave like the rest of the shroud and NO THREADS ARE MISSING.
Who has claimed anything about "missing threads"???? No one but you! Benford and Marino are now hypothesizing that the repair was done because someone took a piece of the Shroud in medieval times and needed to hide the fact that they had taken it. That is not based on any research other than their own. There is no reason to suspect such surreptitious shenanigans to account for a repair to a damaged corner. In addition, it was already known that the woman who repaired the cloth and sewed on the Holland Cloth backing was given a piece of the Shroud in recognition of her work. No one knows exactly where that piece was taken from. It is entirely possible that she kept the corner that was replaced with the repair. The matching of the weave is also completely irrelevant. If an EXPERT medieval re-weaver doing a repair that would be "invisible" mismatched the weave, it would be a very poor repair indeed. It would stick out like a sore thumb.
The Thermochemica Acta article referenced has been thoroughly refuted.
PROOVE THAT! Where are the peer-reviewed refutation articles written in response to that research and specifically disproving the findings.
These goobers at Los Alamos... The Los Alamos/STURP goobers ...
Again you devolve to ad hominem attack which shows you really do not have ANY facts to back up your assertions.
This is factually incorrect and doesn't even map to the excuse Rogers gave. It has been demonstrated that "melange" wouldn't have produced the date that was arrived at. Rogers claimed that the whole sample was from the 14th century and was a later invisible patch. He claimed that Gonella gave him threads from the middle of the samples tested. This is a lie. No threads were missing from the samples. There is no provenance for the alleged threads. No one saw Gonella take them. No one knew of their existence, and Gonella and Ricci had been ordered to return all samples to the Vatican before Rogers did his alleged tests. The Raes samples he said he had were stolen property. All of the samples taken at that time were supposed to be returned to the reliquary. Rogers was a fraud and a thieif.
Then what is the age of the shroud?
M. Sue Benford is a registered nurse, health care researcher, and Executive Director of a non-profit biomedical organization in Ohio. Her education is diverse, from the in-depth study of religion to pursuing scientific testing of unexplained paranormal phenomena, e.g., the Shroud of Turin, pyramid energies, alternative healing energies, crop circles, and Spontaneous Human Combustion.
Benford’s experiences with psychic phenomena are responsible for the redirection of her life into the pursuit of spiritual enlightenment. In 1997, she contacted Fr. Joseph Marino, a Benedictine Monk and Catholic Priest at a St. Louis Abbey. Their divinely inspired meeting, and subsequent joining as life partners, served a research liaison that is credited with uncovering vital information leading to the authentication of the Shroud and, quite possibly, proving the existence of the soul.
Benford’ s newly-released book entitled STRONG WOMAN: Unshrouding the Secrets of the Soul is a real-life transformation story full of hope, strength, encouragement, and inspiration that culminates in the understanding that there is much more to our existence than meets the eye. Visit Benford and Marino’s website for more information: www.unshrouding.com.
Their work with pyramids is best explained in the excerpt below from Sue’s book.
Excerpt from STRONG WOMAN: Unshrouding the Secrets of the Soul by M. Sue Benford.
On March 5, 2001, I built a pyramid using standard poster quality cardboard. My miniature pyramid measured 10 cm high with sides 15.7 cm. and a four-sided base of 9.5 cm each. I placed a dull Exacto-knife razor blade on top of fresh, unexposed Kodak Ultra-speed dental film. I decided that the dental film, securely encased in protective coverings, might produce the charged particle tracks that DelaWarr had recognized on his glass plates. I positioned the edge of the razor blade so that it was facing West. The pyramid itself was positioned so that the walls faced true North, South, East and West while the corners aligned with NW, SW, etc.
On March 7, 2001, I added a 3 cm high cardboard box platform in the center of the pyramid. I then placed the X-ray film and razor blade on top of this platform, which was positioned in the center of the pyramid.
According to DelaWarr, “. . . an ordinary. . . photograph of a person would act as a ‘link’ for tuning-in to him, though not such a good link as a blood specimen or a sputum slide.” (Day/DelaWarr, 1956; 66). Would it be possible to use a Shroud of Turin photograph to get an actual image of the person on the cloth or maybe something else connected to that person? To test this, on March 8, 2001, I decided to build a second pyramid according to the same specs I used on 3/5/01. This time, however, I included a simple 1 by 1.5 inch real looking Shroud-face photograph (the negative version) and laid it on top of clean, dry linen provided to me by the late Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) chemist, Al Adler. I put the photograph face down on the cloth then put both (linen and Shroud picture) on top of a fresh, unexposed Kodak Ultra-speed dental film (white, smooth side of plastic film packet against the linen). All three objects - film, linen and picture - were laid on top a 3 cm high cardboard box inside the pyramid. The Shroud face was aligned to face West. The pyramid was positioned so that the walls faced true North, South, East and West while the corners aligned with NW, SW, etc. The final “ingredient” was to focus intense “thought” on the apparatus demanding that an image appear.
On March 15, 2001, I developed the film underneath the razor blade in the first pyramid. It had been in the pyramid for 10 days and had been undisturbed for 8 of those days. I followed the standard instructions for manual developing of dental X-rays, which were included on the packaging sent by Kodak. Incredibly, I could see a faint image of the razor blade in the upper right hand portion of the film. But even more incredibly, I also noticed the image of a strange “fetal” image in the bottom left corner of film.
Where did this “fetal” image come from? Did it possess any of the known characteristics of a fetus (either a real one or the etheric DelaWarr fetus)? I sent the image of the “fetus” to optical physicist, Robert Kersten, for his evaluation. I also asked him to determine whether or not the image had any of the 3-D spatial encoding characteristics of the Shroud and the DelaWarr images. He commented that this image looked very similar to the one he had been shown from the DelaWarr book of the 3 mo. old fetus. He also noted that this fetus differed from DelaWarr’s in that it appeared to have an umbilical cord and placental sac attachment. More astounding, it also had spatial encoding characteristics.
http://www.gizapyramid.com/BIO-Benford-Marino.htm
You didn't read the posted article, did you?
Cheers!
The samples tested in 1988 were not adjacent to the Raes sample. The Ricci sample was and the Vatican still has it.
http://members.aol.com/turin99/radiocarbon-b.htm
I read the article and what they claim is impossible.
1. They could not have sampled anything adjacent to the samples actually c-14 tested. The shroud has been put away for years.
2. Rogers did not have any part of the c-14 sample to test. It was all destroyed in the c-14 testing.
3. The Raes sample that he allegedly had illegally was not adjacent to the c-14 test area. It was adjacent to the Ricci sample that the Vatican still has. If they would release the sample, we could settle this once and for all, but they won’t.
Seriously, look at it this way. If this were only the image of a corpse on a piece of cloth, from > 1000 years ago, there would not be the frenetic rush to "debunk" it (lest someone give undue attention or credence to Christianity). Instead, there would be gazillions of studies trying to determine the exact *mechanism* of the formation and preservation of the image. Nobody is trying to debunk mummies or the "ice man".
Cheers!
Thus spake Biden.
Though it's possible the cloth dates from Jesus' lifetime, Rogers noted, actual connection to Jesus can never be proven.
OK, great. Let's say it isn't the burial shroud of Jesus, thereby removing the temptation to invoke, or fear of invoking, the supernatural.
What do the circumstances happen to be that lead to the creation of the image of a dead body in juxtaposition to linen? What is the physical mechanism? What specific features can be explained by this mechanism?
Analysis, son, analysis. This is a unique artifact, and therefore scientifically interesting on its own merits, regardless of any religious association.
Cheers!
I was vaguely under the impression that this prohibition was against *wearing* of clothes of "mixed parentage" ;-)
Did the rabbinical authorities hold that the prohibition was against the *weaving* of such cloth, or just the wearing of it (dead bodies aren't sinning, I guess, since they don't have much say in the matter).
Cheers!
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.
