Posted on 02/25/2008 12:33:54 PM PST by BGHater
The Oxford laboratory that declared the Turin Shroud to be a medieval fake 20 years ago is investigating claims that its findings were wrong.
The head of the world-renowned laboratory has admitted that carbon dating tests it carried out on Christendom's most famous relic may be inaccurate.
|
|
|
Professor Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, said he was treating seriously a new theory suggesting that contamination had skewed the results.
Though he stressed that he would be surprised if the supposedly definitive 1988 tests were shown to be far out - especially "a thousand years wrong" - he insisted that he was keeping an open mind.
The development will re-ignite speculation about the four-metre linen sheet, which many believe bears the miraculous image of the crucified Christ.
The original carbon dating was carried out on a sample by researchers working separately in laboratories in Zurich and Arizona as well as Oxford.
To the dismay of Christians, the researchers concluded that the shroud was created between 1260 and 1390, and was therefore likely to be a forgery devised in the Middle Ages.
Even Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, the then Cardinal of Turin, conceded that the relic was probably a hoax.
There have been numerous theories purporting to explain how the tests could have produced false results, but so far they have all been rejected by the scientific establishment.
Many people remain convinced that the shroud is genuine.
Prof Ramsey, an expert in the use of carbon dating in archeological research, is conducting fresh experiments that could explain how a genuinely old linen could produce "younger" dates.
The results, which are due next month, will form part of a documentary on the Turin Shroud that is being broadcast on BBC 2 on Easter Saturday.
David Rolfe, the director of the documentary, said it was hugely significant that Prof Ramsey had thought it necessary to carry out further tests that could challenge the original dating.
He said that previous hypotheses, put forward to explain how the cloth could be older than the 1988 results suggested, had been "rejected out of hand".
"The main reason is that the contamination levels on the cloth that would have been needed to distort the results would have to be equivalent to the actual sample itself," he said.
"But this new theory only requires two per cent contamination to skew the results by 1,500 years. Moreover, it springs from published data about the behaviour of carbon-14 in the atmosphere which was unknown when the original tests were carried out 20 years ago."
Mr Rolfe added that the documentary, presented by Rageh Omaar, the former BBC correspondent, would also contain new archeological and historical evidence supporting claims that the shroud was a genuine burial cloth.
The film will focus on two other recorded relics, the Shroud of Constantinople, which is said to have been stolen by Crusaders in 1204, and the Shroud of Jerusalem that wrapped Jesus's body and which, according to John's Gospel, had such a profound effect when it was discovered.
According to Mr Rolfe, the documentary will produce convincing evidence that these are one and the same as the Shroud of Turin, adding credence to the belief that it dates back to Christ's death.
The actual fact is that most scientists have not bothered to even look at the evidence. For the "historical community" most are not involved and have not examined the extant evidence from the first millennia; they are willing to accept what they read from skeptics who, like you, continue to spout OLD information that has been superseded by newer research.
You continually trot out McCrone's optical microscopic claims... and totally unqualified Joe Nickell's assertions... as authoritative... but ignore the findings of scientists whose expertise in the specific areas they are testing (blood, blood fractions, ancient hemoglobin, porphyrins, pyrolosis, microspectrometry, etc.) FAR exceeds McCrone's limited expertise. McCrone is a microscopist, not a physicist, not a pyrolysis chemist, not a hemotology chemist, certainly not a blood specialist, and not even in the same ball park of expertise on blood fractions and hemoglobins as Dr. Bruce Cameron. McCrone based his entire claims on what he claims he saw (something NO OTHER SCIENTIST WHO HAS LOOKED HAS SEEN!) through an optical microscope with polarizing filters. Microscopists, equally skilled as McCrone, have looked at Shroud samples, both image and non-image, and have NOT seen what he claims.
McCrone did NOT perform microxrayspectrometry, which conclusively proved the Iron on the Shroud images and blood areas were NOT composed of Fe2O3 (red Ocher or Iron Oxide) or HgS (Mercuric Sulfide or Vermilion). He did NOT perform the much more sophisticated blood tests that Drs. Adler, Heller, Cameron, and Rogers performed that proved the the blood stains were composed of denatured meth-hemoglobin, a blood fraction that does indeed retain its red color. He did NOT perform the immunological assays that showed the blood stains were positive for PRIMATE blood... and not any other type of blood... and instead merely claimed, without proof, that the scientists got the positive test because of chicken egg Albumin was used (so he claimed) as a binder in tempera paint.
Your repeated claim that the image is made of Red Ochre is ludicrous in the light under the tests that dozens of qualified scientists have conducted on the Shroud and its fibers, even the most finely ground Iron Oxide would be completely obvious under a microscope... let alone the scanning electron microscopes, microspectrographs, and other much more sophisticated tools brought to bear on the investigation. Compared to the actual caramelized saccharide that DOES make up the image, even finely ground Jewelers Rouge (one of the Iron Oxide sources that McCrone has variously claimed to make up the image) would appear as large as boulders when compared to the coating of caramelized saccharides that is 1/100th the thickness of a human hair.
When only ONE scientists among dozens examining an object claims to see something so easily identified that ALL others cannot find, the conclusions of the ONE have to be discounted.
What part of "There is no Red Ochre on the shroud sufficient to rise to visibility" do you fail to understand?
Your sources are not authoritative on the current state of scholarship OR science on the Shroud. In 2004, Dr. Raymond Rogers conclusively proved... and had his work successfully peer-reviewed, found accurate, and published in prestigious scientific journals (which is something McCrone has NOT done)... that the sample used in the 1988 carbon dating was inconsistent with the main body of the shroud. Other scientists working from a different direction came to the same conclusion. The samples were NOT physically or chemically the same as the main body of the Shroud... ergo the 1988 C14 testing is proved invalid.
Dr. Rogers worked with photomicrographs and the remaining control sample retained from the five sub-samples cut from the original cutting from the Shroud.
I submit you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. You have heard and repeated something that is untrue.
Chemist and pyrologist Raymond N. Rogers, (Sandia National Laboratory, University of California) and, independently, Dr. John L. Brown, (former Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory, Georgia Institute of Technology), have done other research and tests and presented evidence in peer reviewed scientific journals that proved that:
From an 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 [the shroud's backing cloth], and all other medieval linens gave {positive results from] 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."
"The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud."
Thus, the 1988 Carbon 14 Testing has been invalidated because the person who took the sample, literally, at the last hour, changed the agreed sampling protocols and took the sample from an area that had been patched, probably in 1532, with contemporary prepared linen thread that had been spun on a spinning wheel that had also spun cotton, then retted with alum, and dyed with alizarin dye from madder root, all done with 15th century technology. The tests were accurate for what they tested: a melange of old and newer material that gave. The reported a date that is inaccurate for both the old and the new. It is merely coincidence that the false date of the combined old and new happened to coincide with the first display of the Shroud in Lirey France. The repaired area is not the same as the main body of the shroud and tests are invalid.
New C14 testing should be allowed because there are now a lot of loose samples available since the ill advised "restoration" where they cut away the burned edges around the scorches from the 1532 fire.
I can tell you that there was an unauthorized C-14 test done on one of the threads taken during the 1978 STURP examination and the results were 1st Century, with a degree of confidence of 50 years because the sample was so small.
May I suggest you forget the website you keep repeatedly linking and do some reading of the peer reviewed scientific and scholarly articles on the Shroud? They are mostly available from Barrie Schwortz's website Shroud.com. Barrie was the official photographer of STURP... and he is Jewish. Daniel Porter has put together some of the best and current data in a good popularization of the Shroud information which is more accessible than the scientific papers. Daniel Porter is Freeper Shroudie, and his series of Websites, including Shroudforum.com, Shroud Facts Check, and Shroud Story are an excellent resource based on the latest science.. not on the 30 year old, non-peer-reviewed data from McCrone who ignored agreed protocols on handling Shroud samples which resulted in compromised samples, published his "findings" in a non-peer-reviewed journal (his own vanity publication, "The Microscopist," of which he was both publisher and editor), refused to submit his work for peer-review, and has actually attempted to sabotage other researchers by first, dragging his feet, and then sending them samples that were NOT exemplar of the bulk of samples he had in his possession.
And Tutankhenamen has a clearly 20th Century history... with very few mentions in history...
Yes, the Bishop did claim that. However, the letter only exists as a draft. No copy has been found in the Vatican archives (which for this period are very complete) and the evidence is that the Bishop Henri of Trois did not send it (it's possible someone removed it). Although the dispute did eventually come to the Pope's attention, the Pope allowed the continued exhibition (but not the claim that it was Christ's shroud) but also put Henri under a perpetual order of silence... he could never speak of the subject again.
It should also be noted that Henri may have had an ulterior economic motive... the close proximity of Lirey to Trois was resulting in a reduction in the donations to see his relics at his cathedral...
Other evidence from the literature of the first Millennia:
The Images on Jesus' Burial Shroud in Words from the PastWe might think, in our age of spectacular visual effects, that descriptions of Jesus' images, as if my magic, appearing on his burial shroud, are but the product of a fertile imagination. Such thinking is of course justified until we probe the literature.
Shortly after the image-bearing cloth was discovered in Edessa in 544 AD, shortly after the monk Leander's three-year visit to Constantinople in 579 AD, these words became part of an Eastertide rite of the church in Toledo, Spain.
Peter ran with John to the tomb and saw the recent imprints of the dead and risen man on the linens.About 200 years later, Pope Stephen III, in Rome, stated that Christ had . . .
spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvelous as it is to see . . . the glorious image of the Lord's face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred.We can not be certain that those words referred to the Image of Edessa. But on August 15, 944 AD, the image-bearing cloth was moved from Edessa to Constantinople with great fanfare and ceremony. And on that occasion, Gregory, the archdeacon and referendarius of Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople described the cloth as a burial cloth with a full-length body image and bloodstains. We know this from a sermon given by Gregory which was only recently discovered in the Vatican archives and translated in 2002.
And other documents have been found that describe the image-bearing cloth of Edessa. Documents found in Vatican library and the University of Leiden, Netherlands (the Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 and Vatican Library Codex 5696, p. 35.) add to our understanding:
You can see [not only] the figure of a face, but [also] the figure of the whole body.But the Earliest Words Might Be 1st CenturyIn a poem, the Hymn of the Pearl, we find Jesus allegorically saying that in a garment, justifiably a burial garment, that he sees two entire images of himself, one facing outward and one facing inward -- in other words ventral and dorsal images.
TWO IMAGE - Within the Hymn of the PearlAlternative independent translations:Suddenly, I saw my image on my [ burial a ] garment like in a mirror
Myself and myself through myself [ or myself facing outward and inward b ]
As though divided, yet one likeness
Two images but one likeness of the King [ of kings c]
[A] justifiably, burial garment from other prior references to burial garment. And this phrase is pregnant with meaning: "And when I had put it on, I was lifted up unto the place of peace (sahltation) and homage."
[B] possibly, myself facing out and facing in as in frontal and dorsal views.
[C] possibly, the "King of king" as in Hans Jonas translation.
Translation by Hans Jonas: (The Two Images Segment)it seemed to me suddenly to become a mirror-image of myself:
myself entire I saw in it, and it entire I saw in myself,
that we were two in separateness, and yet again one in the sameness of our forms
And the image of the King of kings was depicted all over it.Translation by M. R. James: (The Two Images Segment)
but suddenly, [when] I saw the garment made like unto me as it had been in a mirror.
And I beheld upon it all myself (or saw it wholly in myself) and I knew and saw myself through it,
that we were divided asunder, being of one; and again were one in one shape.
Yea, the treasurers also which brought me the garment
I beheld, that they were two, yet one shape was upon both, one royal sign was set upon both of them.
I would pose a question wrt this statement. While what you suggest is true, and to the point, one would expect an influx of similarly wrought articles springing from an industrialized process, such as those which come from the guilds, or even individual artists.
But the shroud is a very unique piece (with the arguable exception of Veronica's cloth). A piece with exquisite detail and amazing likeness, especially when considering extant works from the supposed time period. Once able to create such a piece, the monetary offerings to create similar works would be tremendous, and the fame of such a talent would be widespread.
I find it quite difficult to believe that the process would not have been repeated, and that an artist of such capability would remain unheralded.
Mary most certainly came from the High House of Judah. She had to. It is Mary's bloodline that must prove Jesus as David's legitimate heir, as Joseph, Mary's husband, was of an accursed line of David (never again to sit the throne).
Joseph of Aramathea would have succeeded Heli, and was probably Mary's brother, with Jesus adopted into his line. He would predictably control the High seat (David's) in the Knesset, and would be deeply involved in governance, and very likely business as well, with the full weight and inheritances of David's House at his command.
Oops. Knesset=Sanhedron
One might add that the pollen (or perhaps dirt?) analysis of the shroud confirmed it's presence in Constantinople for a protracted period...
I differ with my FRiend "just mythoughts", in that the only logical relation between JoA and Mary is that of brother, in that it goes to Jesus' pedigree- His eligibility as the rightful heir to the House of David.
It is fairly common knowledge that a man executed by the state would only be given into the hands of a family member. It is equally curious that Nicodemus was likewise involved...
There is more than passing evidence that the British mines were known and used by the Phoenicians, and their later incarnation as th Carthaginians. It is age old shipping lane. there is even some evidence of Greek colonies as far north as Holland.
It is quite easy to consider the ships of Dan plying those same waters, especially considering the long standing trade partnership between Israel and Phoenicia. There are longstanding legends of Israeli colonies in Spain, the Coast of France, and the Isle of Brittany.
Haven’t you been watching the prosperity TV evangelists? Jesus wants you to be filthy-stinking rich!!!!
Me too! a fabulous thread.
The Knights Templar angle may not be too far off either. I have read somewhere (and perhaps someone could confirm) that the term "grail" in French is a word quite close to the word for "burial cloth"...
grail=grael
burial cloth=gra 'al (or something close to that)...
It would be truly grand if all the "Search for the Holy Grail" stuff, which undoubtedly arose from the Knights Templar fame, culminated in finding the cloth, which is what the quest was really all about... :D
Part of the reason, other than greed, for the execution of all of the Knights Templar was the persistent rumor they were idolators who worshipped an Idol of a head... about 50 years ago, a representation of the "Idol" the KTs worshipped surfaced in Wales... it was a medieval depiction of the face on the Shroud.
Quite true- the thumbs are drawn in because the nails pierced the wrists. All contemporary art shows the nails in the hand- A great (and telling) technological difference, to be sure.
Riddle me this, and it all becomes much clearer:
Who is the "Barren Woman" in Isaiah 54?
I seem to recall that the medieval-dated sample did not come from the center panel with the image on it, but from an outer section that appeared to have been added on as a repair (perhaps in medieval times)which is separated from the center panel by a seam.
If that's the case, the earlier tests were a miracle of scientific stupidity. Hence the do-over.
Many in modern times have trouble imagining that our Christian ancestors were anything but unlettered clods incapable of preserving anything. For instance, secularists sneer at the idea that we could have relics and reliably know about the lives of saints from 1,700 years ago. It's puzzling to them, since we know so much less about the individual pagan Romans. They forget that the pagans cremated their dead, while the Christians and Jews carefully laid theirs in a subterranean labyrinthe containing tombs and personal effects called the Catacombesa fantastic "library" of ancient Roman life that is still open to study.
Indeed, it looked like it - (I'm a portrait artist and avid researcher of all things Shroud/KT's )
I had an article with the photo in my archives - the one I lost when my PC crashed last year - and I cannot find the magic combination of words to bring it up on GOOGLE - (I have kept my old hard drive and when I get a few shekels together that some other unknown doesn't present itself to grab them, will take it to the shop to have my files retrieved...but I can still see the carving in my minds eye...)
Oh baloney. The verdict of the scientific and historical community is clear, and the efforts of the fringe who gainsay it are riddled with flaws that those links illustrate.
The current state of scholarship is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery, and attempts by true believers to refute that have been found singularly unimpressive, as those distillations of contemporary thinking about the matter in 252 illustrate. That's peer review. The historical record points to a 14th century date, as does the scientific record. If the Church ever allows a further Carbon-14 test on another piece of the cloth it'll just repeat the 1988 results, though I don't expect the excuse-mongering will ever stop.
This is a really bad analogy, and it's not true anyway. There are inscriptions from his period, and the insinuation that the bishop was lying reflects a colossal will to believe in something with no history prior to that bishop's lifetime.
These quotes are a blind alley.
579- that refers to the gospel account, and it’s a stretch to see this as referring to anything other than the ancient equivalent of seeing a bed with the imprints of someone recently there still present.
The fallacious “Pope Stephen” quote. Quoting from an excerpt of a book published by Ian Wilson that’s searchable on the net: “For instance, interpolated sometime before 1130 into the text of a sermon attributed to the eighth-century Pope Stephen III was the following remark concerning the `holy face’ of Edessa: `For this same mediator between God and men, in order that in all things and in every way he might satisfy this king [i.e. Abgar] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvellous as it is to see or even hear such a thing, the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred ... [italics mine].’” That’s in reference to the Abgar legend, and according to “Stephen” it was done by the living Christ in answer to a request by Abgar for an image, and hence could not possibly refer to the Shroud of Turin with its dead Jesus.
I just read the Gregory sermon and the image it describes was clearly only of a face, supposedly created while he wept in the Garden of Gethsemane.
Of what very little I could find on this, Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69 is supposedly describing a cloth given by Christ to King Abgar, at least according to a citation of the original book in Wikipedia, in which case it obviously relates to the false “Pope Stephen” quote of a cloth the living Christ sent to Abgar. I do not understand why the pro-Shroud sites are so circumspect about this.
The Hymn of the Pearl is irrelevant, and while I’m on the subject, a positing of a 1st century date for it is very fringe.
We’re again left with the 14th century French bishop, who was clear that the Shroud of Turin had no past beyond a few decades — not to mention there being an identifiable maker who admitted doing the job.
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.