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.
[Incoherent off-topic mumbling deleted].
You didn't even read the question.
I asked what *YOU* had to lose by admitting it -- why are you afraid of facing the fact that the Shroud wrapped a real dead body?
And you ducked that question too!
Run away, run away!
Cheers!
Jay Ingram, writing in the Toronto Star, discusses a topic with which I was not familiar. Ingram interviewed Clint Chapple, a biochemist at Purdue University, and Malcolm Campbell, a botanist at the University of Toronto. Chapple points out that it was odd that Rogers used a powerful and precise technique, pyrolysis mass spectrometry, to assess the carbohydrates in the cloth, but didn't choose to apply that technique to the vanillin. This was odd because the incredible accuracy of this technique as applied to vanillin is scientifically well-documented. "I've published using this method and have this instrument in my own lab. The method would have easily revealed the presence (or absence) of degradation products like vanillin had the author been seriously interested in testing his hypothesis," Chapple says. Instead, Rogers used a staining technique that reveals the presence of vanillin if you get a color change. But this is a qualitative, not a quantitative test.
That's rich. I took five minutes to google pyrolysis mass spec shroud and came up with this:
Note that this is directly from Rogers at Los Alamos.
The pyrolysis mass spec was not done primarily to check vanillin, but to look for paint!
I quote the relevant paragraph:
The method was sufficiently sensitive to detect traces of the low-molecular-weight fractions (oligomers) of the polyethylene bag that Prof. Luigi Gonella had used to wrap the Raes threads. It did not detect any unexpected pyrolysis fragments that indicated any Shroud materials other than carbohydrates. That is exactly what would be expected from a piece of pure linen. This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted.
The paper goes on to give specific chemical details about the types of paints which could have been used, including red and yellow ochre, charcoal, tempera, and oil paints.
How could you refer to Rogers' pyrolysis mass spec and use it to 'refute' presence of vanillin, but NEGLECT TO MENTION THE MAIN POINT OF THE PAPER ???? T.W.N.F.P. !! (There was *no* f'ing paint!)
Nice try, troll.
Now go home and reload and then shoot yourself in the other foot.
Cheers!
Jay Ingram, writing in the Toronto Star, discusses a topic with which I was not familiar. Ingram interviewed Clint Chapple, a biochemist at Purdue University, and Malcolm Campbell, a botanist at the University of Toronto. Chapple points out that it was odd that Rogers used a powerful and precise technique, pyrolysis mass spectrometry, to assess the carbohydrates in the cloth, but didn't choose to apply that technique to the vanillin. This was odd because the incredible accuracy of this technique as applied to vanillin is scientifically well-documented. "I've published using this method and have this instrument in my own lab. The method would have easily revealed the presence (or absence) of degradation products like vanillin had the author been seriously interested in testing his hypothesis," Chapple says. Instead, Rogers used a staining technique that reveals the presence of vanillin if you get a color change. But this is a qualitative, not a quantitative test.
That's rich. I took five minutes to google pyrolysis mass spec shroud and came up with this:
Note that this is directly from Rogers at Los Alamos.
The pyrolysis mass spec was not done primarily to check vanillin, but to look for paint!
I quote the relevant paragraph:
The method was sufficiently sensitive to detect traces of the low-molecular-weight fractions (oligomers) of the polyethylene bag that Prof. Luigi Gonella had used to wrap the Raes threads. It did not detect any unexpected pyrolysis fragments that indicated any Shroud materials other than carbohydrates. That is exactly what would be expected from a piece of pure linen. This helped confirm the fact that the image was not painted.
The paper goes on to give specific chemical details about the types of paints which could have been used, including red and yellow ochre, charcoal, tempera, and oil paints.
How could you refer to Rogers' pyrolysis mass spec and use it to 'refute' presence of vanillin, but NEGLECT TO MENTION THE MAIN POINT OF THE PAPER ???? T.W.N.F.P. !! (There was *no* f'ing paint!)
Nice try, troll.
Now go home and reload and then shoot yourself in the other foot.
Cheers!
If it gives you satisfaction to believe that the Shroud represents an anonymous 14th century dead man, by all means think so, but mainstream science recognizes no body tissues on the shroud, only pigments of red ochre and vermilion. If you feel peeved at me arguing from competent and well-esteemed authority, well, I’m happy to be in their company. Not so thrilled though to have you imagining me masturbating. I’ll do without the back-story on that one.
Well, you could probably make a movie around the story.
By now you're just trolling, and I don't know that it's worth my effort, but claiming McCrone is not mainstream is just internet key-hammering.
Of course McCrone is mainstream. He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica, a recognized expert in microscopy, a consultant on many different projects, and in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.
Nothing. But I don't consider it a fact since the mainstream scientific and historical community do not recognize it as one.
what story
If you'd bothered to read the link I supplied, you'd find that the discussion was of a paper called "Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin" published by Raymond Rogers in 2005. Vanillin, for example, is nowhere mentioned in this new article. As for this article, one major problem that I see with it from the getgo is that he uses "contaminated" fibers left over from McCrone's research, but only after they were "laboriously cleaned and prepared" by his wife. McCrone studied it prior to Mrs. Rogers' "laborious" cleaning and found paint pigments, something Rogers weirdly doesn't mention, and given the criticisms of his later paper for faulty and non-serious methodology you may take it for whatever you think it's worth.
You must not be a writer. I readx all this stuff and scenarios flash through my brain for stories to write. Imagine, for a moment, that material cut from the main shroud is taken out by a woman who is taking it back to lab for testing. On the way she is involved in an horrific auto accident and is bleeding. Her blood happens to flow to where the material has been exposed by the accident, and !!!! ‘something’ happens to her that stops the bleeding and heals her wounds ... stuff like that. What if she comprehends the meaning of her accident and subsequent healing and then seeks to do something about ‘it’?
It could outsell Devinci code.
You have not yet shown a single controlled scientific test, submitted for peer review, which falsifies blood proteins.
I have already shown you links which describe the peer-review studies, using generally accepted forensic tests, which DO test positive for tissue samples.
Strike one.
only pigments of red ochre and vermilion.
You quoted a skeptical site (the one with the reporter from Toronoto quoting the guy from Purdue) which attacks the claims of age based on vanillin -- Rogers should have tested for vanillin using this, the source claims.
In your haste to quote this, you failed to notice - or deliberately omitted -- that this test was explicitly looking for PAINT, described in detail the paints it was looking for, the chemical kinetics of their decomposition, expected species, etc. It didn't find any, thus demolishing the claim that the image was paint.
If you feel peeved at me arguing from competent and well-esteemed authority,
Argument from authority is invalid in science. Don't you know that?
Not so thrilled though to have you imagining me masturbating. I’ll do without the back-story on that one.
Well, I know where *your* stains came from, anyway.
Cheers! Whoops.
McCrone’s studies have been endorsed by the American Chemical Society, the leading publisher of peer-reviewed research journals in the chemical sciences. It is not the mainstream view of science that the Shroud was created by the carcass of a dead man, and the problems with the pro-Shroud research have been discussed ad nauseum.
Your bitch about the criticisms of Rogers’ methodology is silly, for the critics are referring to another article which is clearly explained on the link. And you speak of my “haste.” I won’t accuse you of deliberate omission like you try to insinuate me of — you’re just galled at Swordmaker’s exposure.
I’m not a scientist, I’m a layman citing the research and conclusions that the vast bulk of scientists respect.
He's the only Shroud of Turin researcher that I know of graced with a biography in the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Argument from authority is not scientifically legitimate. And Britannica is not a peer-review journal.
a recognized expert in microscopy,
who while reviewing the Shround changed his own conclusions as to the composition of the colorations; who did not prepare control samples; who was reticent about providing samples to independent researchers; who during his own tests used a matrix for the sample which was known to be capable of interfering with the tests.
And the current state of the art on studying the Shroud has moved beyond this, to multiple chemical and physical tests, all of which are consistent with genuine blood and body chemicals as a source for the stains, and many of which explicitly ruled out the very paints McCrone is claiming.
And in the meantime, attempts to independently replicate his results have failed.
a consultant on many different projects,
Irrelevant. The specific tests performed and the results obtained are what matters.
in 2000 McCrone received the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry for his work on the Shroud of Turin -- including his findings that the image and blood were composed with pigments of ochre and vermilion.
From The Skeptical Inquirer:
The award nomination was written by David Stony, Director of the McCrone Research Institute in Chicago, who wrote that McCrone's work on the shroud "is an excellent example of the use and application of his methodology, the necessity for the ultramicroanalytical approach, and of McCrone's character." The award is sponsored by Fisher Scientific Co.
So it isn't even a independently peer-reviewed award; and it is sponsored by a manufacturer of lab equipment.
Can you say, "McCrone gives himself an award and then uses it to bolster his credentials?"
I knew you could.
Oh, and the *author* of the piece I just quoted -- read it yourself --William Vanderlinde, Ph.D., is an engineering failure analyst in Columbia, Maryland, and a member of the National Capital Area Skeptics. He recently co-authored a paper on microscopic methods with McCrone Institute Director Dave Stoney.
The jokes write themselves.
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
And your attack on the ACS Award in Analytical Chemistry is ridiculous. From Cornell University's Department of Chemistry newsletter: "It has just been announced that Professor Fred W. McLafferty has won the prestigious American Chemical Society Award in Analytical Chemistry sponsored by the Fisher Scientific Company. This is the country's leading award in analytical chemistry. Pro- fessor George Morrison of our faculty won it in 1971. With the present award to Fred McLafferty we now have official recognition of what we have known all along— that our Department has one of the leading programs in analytical chemistry in the country, and two of the world's leading analytical chemists" newsletter
Umm, Jack?
I was quoting an earlier paper than the one you supplied. Why?
Because in the quote in your post said that pyrolysis / mass spec should have been used to check for vanillin. This gives a strong indication that you are prepared to accept pyrolysis mass spec as both relevant and efficacious.
So (as I explicitly pointed out) I googled for these terms.
Within five minutes I had found a paper on pyrolysis/mass spec applied to the Shroud of Turin by Rogers. It explicitly, categorically, and in great detail gave NEGATIVES on paint -- which is and was the foundation of all your postings.
To quote:
"The pyrolysis-MS analyses did not detect any nitrogen-containing contaminants. This seemed to rule out glair (egg white) as well as any significant microbiological deposits, confirming microchemical tests that were also made. They did not detect any of the sulfide pigments that were used in antiquity, e.g., orpiment, realgar, mosaic gold, and cinnabar (vermilion, mercury sulfide, HgS). The Shroud's image had not been painted with any known vehicles and pigments."
So, why bleat about vanillin? A test method which you had just implied was accurate and relevant has ruled out paints.
As far as "cleaning the samples", that was required since McCrone himself violated the agreed-upon protocol for preparation and transfer of the samples. Almost as thoughhe had a vested interest in a way out. :-)
Nice try, though.
Cheers!
Because you didn't know what the hell was being talked about, clearly, and were too lazy to follow the link and check.
If he makes the claim it is up to him to substantiate it or to allow independent tests without interference.
And of course, you still ignore the actual presence of blood and of caramelized fibers inconsistent with paint.
The only criticisms of Rogers' work come from people with an axe to grind, who curiously enough only reference each other, and don't get accepted for independent peer-review publication.
Cheers, you lovable troll, you.
I knew about the award... and who had nominated him... but had forgotten it. Thanks for the reminder.
This is similar to McCrone ony publishing his findings in his in house magazine, "The Microscopist," published and edited by McCrone.
Has McCrone done good work on other topics? I think so... but not on this. Unfortunately, allowing his biases to invade his work, such as appears to have happened with his Shroud work, will tend to discount his other good work.
There is almost a rabid aversion to the Shroud and Shroud research among atheists as it seems to challenge their world view. Did you read the skeptic links from Steven Schafersman's site? Whow... vitriol everywhere.
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.