Posted on 01/27/2005 12:28:12 PM PST by shroudie
Barrie Schwortz, Shroud Scholar and a Member of STURP that examined the Shroud in Turin in 1978, will appear on the O'Reilly Factor, Thursday, January 27, 2005 to discuss the Carbon 14 Dating. See foxnews.com for local schedule information.
This is a developing story. A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.
If you are familiar with Medieval relics then you should be familiar with how poor the quality of many, of not most, were. One of the best cases for the Shroud being legitimate is that it's far more accurate than it needs to be and far more accurate than it should be. It includes fine details not only of the effects crucificion and other wounds on a person but also details of a Jewish burial. If a Medieval forger created this relic out of wholecloth, so to speak, why is it so quirky and accurate? Why aren't there more relics like it?
'Respectfully, I don't think any rational human can believe this scenario to be more possible than a forgery."
People seem to forget or ignore the fact that the Catholic Church used this and many other 'relics' to raise tons of money in the Middle Ages via pilgrimages, etc. To "miraculously" find one of these 'Holy Relics' meant lots of moolah to whatever church/cathedral housed them, as they would fleece ignorant believers on pilgrimages to see these 'Holy Relics' out of their money.
Where do people think the medieval Church got all the money to build all those gorgeous Cathedrals from anyways?
"If you are familiar with Medieval relics then you should be familiar with how poor the quality of many, of not most, were. One of the best cases for the Shroud being legitimate is that it's far more accurate than it needs to be and far more accurate than it should be. It includes fine details not only of the effects crucificion and other wounds on a person but also details of a Jewish burial. If a Medieval forger created this relic out of wholecloth, so to speak, why is it so quirky and accurate? Why aren't there more relics like it?"
Those are very good points. I'm open-minded enough to certainly be curious of an objective age-dating process on this Shroud; however, given the corruption of the Medieval Church (the body politic Church, not the Catholic faith), I'm still in the 'It's a Fake' category until I see something more irrefutable.
I was just curious if you share an example of this with us.
Feel free to be skeptical but I don't think you should mock those who believe in its authenticity. Yes, the Medieval Church had a lot of corruption and a lot of bogus artifacts. But unlike the Spear of Longinus, for example, which has characteristics of later weapons or other artifacts that are obviously bogus to a modern eye, this one sticks out as being fairly solid.
O'Reilly and the Shroud. This way to the Egress.
No, Balzeeba, you are the fake, not the Shroud, and science is demonstrating this today.
"God isn't going to use a bunch of dumb trinkets to convey His message nor to prove His existence anyways."
LOL!
Like you would know what God thinks!
"Except for all the money made off claiming its authenticity."
So Billy Graham is a fake? He has made a lot of money too, no?
Alot of money has been made at the National Archives letting people see the Declaration of Independence; so that must be fake too.
You are such a knee-jerk wacko.
Why ever you left the Catholic Church is your own personal hell, not mine.
But please dont dump your emotional baggage on or near me.
Just to keep the discussion going, here’s another take on the origin of the shroud based on electron microscopy.
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html
I personally think the shroud is cool looking and whether real or fake, it’s not going to change anyone’s belief in God. So in my opinion, this whole discussion is simply academic.
Here is a link to a site with a picture of how threads were interwoven between the old material and new patch.
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
The invisible weave is a technique done on expensive/precious clothe that has been around quite a while. It is not technologically advnaced it just takes a lot of patience, time and technique born of experience. A weaver/tailor takes the threads in the individual fibres, unravels them and then splices them back together, one thread at a time.
If you have an expensive jacket that gets a clean cut, one could have this done to repair it even today. And it wont even be noticable in strong bright daylight.
I'm a Baptist deacon with a solid technical background.
When I first heard of it I thought about how if all of the pieces of the 'true cross' was gathered together in one place that you could open a lumber yard. I looked at it with an open scientific mind. The Shroud is no fake. I don't know if it once covered the body of Jesus, (as the STURP team once pointed out, there is no Jesus test.) I believe that it is a first century A.D. cloth that was in contact with the body of a man who was scourged and crucified. I have read of no one who has been able to reproduce the image without the process be detected by the tests that were used on the shroud.
My faith doesn't require relics.
And the crowd goes WILD!
I agree with you entirely!
Thanks for standing up to be heard!
http://www.shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm
Because of the carbon 14 dating, the Shroud of Turin, a religious object important to Christians of many traditions (Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Protestant and Evangelical; conservative and liberal alike) has been cast into the spotlight of secular science. It is not because the Shroud is famous, although it is. It is because the 1988 carbon 14 dating was made famous. And because it was made famous, and because it will now be discussed, the related science of the Shroud will also get attention:
the peculiar nano-scale carbohydrate film that coats some of the fibers, a coating that holds within its chemical makeup the conjugated complex carbon bonds of the images;
the forensics of the blood that, because it is ancient, should be black but is red for good chemical reasons;
the ancillary age-related data about the depletion of vanillin from the lignin of the flax (cellulose) fibers, the depletion that indicates that the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 assigned date range of 1260 to 1390.
* * * * *
From the article in Thermochimica Acta: "A linen produced in A.D. 1260 would have retained about 37% of its vanillin in 1978. The Raes threads, the Holland cloth [shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. The disappearance of all traces of vanillin from the lignin in the shroud indicates a much older age than the radiocarbon laboratories reported."
* * * * * *
In the case of the Shroud of Turin, it was threads were dyed to look older and to match other threads. But it wasn’t the threads of the Shroud itself that were dyed. It was a small area in one corner of the Shroud where some mending threads had been dyed to look like the rest of the age-yellowed Shroud. Chemical analysis proves this. There is absolutely no doubt about that.
In the case of the Shroud it was the carbon 14 testers that were fooled. And they should not have been fooled. There were clues that warranted investigation:
In 1973, Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology was given permission to remove a small sample from a corner of the Shroud. In the sample he found cotton fibers. It might have been that the cotton was leftover fibers from a loom that was used for weaving both cotton and linen cloth. It might have been that the Shroud was exposed to cotton much later, even from the gloves used by scientists. However, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, he noticed that cotton fibers, where found, were contained inside threads, twisted in as part of the thread. It is important to note that cotton fiber is not found anywhere else on the Shroud.
P.H South, while examining threads from the sample on behalf of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory found similar indication of cotton. To him it seemed like material intrusion. In an article entitled "Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud," published in Textile Horizons in 1988, South write of his discovery of "a fine dark yellow strand [of cotton] possibly of Egyptian origin, and quite old . . . it may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply bound in when the linen fabric was woven."
Teddy Hall, of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory, also noticed fibers that looked out of place.
Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated: "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …" (italics mine)
Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sampling, wrote: “…1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.” (italics mine)
Al Adler of Western Connecticut State University found large amounts of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample area, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis. The question should have been asked: why aluminum? It is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
In the years following the carbon 14 dating, in the years when careful reexamination seemed warranted, other compelling reasons to be suspicious emerged:
· Chemical analysis of the lignin of the flax fibers did not test positive for vanillin. If the Shroud was medieval, it should have. Vanillin disappears slowly from the lignin in flax fibers and all of it has disappeared except in the immediate vicinity of the carbon 14 sample. This indicated that the cloth was much older than the carbon 14 dating suggested and that the carbon 14 sample area was certainly chemically different.
In 1973, Gilbert Raes, of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology, had cut a small piece from a corner of the Shroud. One part of it contained cotton fibers among the flax fibers while another part of it did not. Rogers, following up on Raes’ examination of the 1973 sample, also found cotton. Moreover, Rogers found dyestuff and spliced threads that were not found elsewhere on the Shroud. It is significant to note that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a spot adjacent to the Raes sample.
· In 2000, M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, working with a number of textile experts, examined documenting photographs of the carbon 14 sample and found evidence of expert reweaving that joined disparate materials almost at the middle of the sample. The consensus was that there was about 60% new material and 40% original material in the sample. If that is the case, and if the repair was made in the early 1500s as history suggests, then according to Ron Hatfield of Beta Analytic, a first century date for the cloth is reasonable.
· In 1997, Remi Van Haelst, a Belgium chemist, conducted a series of statistical analyses that strongly challenged the veracity of the conclusions of the carbon 14 dating. Significantly, he found serious disparities in measurements between the three laboratories and between the sub-samples (various tests and observations performed by the labs). Bryan Walsh, a statistician and physicist, examined Van Haelst’s work and further studied the measurements. The essential conclusions were that the samples, and indeed the divided samples used in multiple tests, contained different levels of the carbon 14 isotope. The differences were sufficient to concluce that the sample were non-homogeneous and thus of questionable validity. Walsh found a significant relationship between various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. If indeed a patch was rewoven into the cloth and if the joining of old and new material ran at an angle through the sample cuttings (as it appears to do so) then all this makes sense.
Barrie M. Shworz to talk about the Shroud of Turin on The O'Reilly Factor today. PING!
Sorry this is late for the Ping list... but I got home from work just as O'Reilly was finishing his first showing. Fox does replay O'Reilly later tonite..
If you want to be added to or deleted from the Shroud of Turin list, FReepmail me.
It was a good segment too, for such breif discussions.
Bill didnt seem to be as up on the facts as he usually does, refering, for example, to the Shroud being 'discovered' by a French knight when it was actually stolen in all likelihood.
But good nonetheless.
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.