Fresh tests on Shroud of Turin

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.

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.

I notice you've been on FR a lot longer than me, but this is the first time I specifically recall conversing with you. What is interesting is that if a poster makes enough noise and throws enough dust in the air, it can confuse lurkers and those who haven't studied the subject...

Time will tell, or perhaps not, but I’ll at least spare myself the need to read more “I’m right and you’re not” stuff and let the scientists sort it out.

The scientists *have* sorted it out.

McCrone is one scientist (IIRC now deceased) who used one method (polarizing microscopy) and proclaimed the presence of pigments. To my knowledge he did not use either positive controls (other known examples of the items in question, either blood or paint) to compare with the Shroud. His results have not been replicated by independent labs; and when he gave samples to the independent labs for the testing they did, he violated the agreed-upon protocols for treating the samples. His one published work came about 10 years *after* he performed it, and only after the carbon dating there has been so much fuss about.
The fuss about the carbon dating has been covered in this thread -- the problem is that the sampling was all from one area of the Shroud, and in particular from an area which had been adulterated many many years ago. This is a systematic bias in the execution of this particular test, and not some whining about "C-14 isn't a valid methodology" as you might see on a crevo thread. If the re-testing is done with attention to detail, custody and preparation of the sample, and controls, it might put that particular issue to rest.

By contrast, the other labs used a large number of independent tests for different blood components, including aged breakdown products of hemoglobin, blood proteins, iron as it was would be found in blood, microscopic examination of the fibers on the shroud itself, and using many different chemical and physical tests. Many of these tests have been well-established outside of the study of the Shroud, and the tests have included controls, and been published in genuine independent-peer-review mainstream journals.
All of these tests were positive for blood and protein components, but not for paint or pigments.

Finally, the current "state of the art" regarding the actual composition of the image on the Shroud, is that it is the result of Maillard reactions taking place between gases coming off of a newly dead corpse, and the wrapping. This is entirely a naturalistic explanation and does not require any miraculous intervention.

See posts #122, #132, #145, #173, #175, #185, and #261.

There. 300+ posts condensed to less than a dozen.

You could also look at the hypertext links provided in #261.

For the "personal" stuff, please re-read post #337...I have included explicit instructions on how to report abuse to the mods. So far, SpringheelJack is the only one whose posts have been removed by the moderator.

Cheers!

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.

"The scientific establishment" is a reification. It's meant to convey an idea of an authoritative body the deliberations of which are rational and trustworthy. In this case, though, it really means an amalgamation of people united in the hope that the Shroud of Turin be anything that what it has been purported to be, clutching the methodology of radiocarbon testing to their breasts as a talisman and shouting "scientific, scientific" to avoid looking at the many ways the tests as performed could be faulty. They got the results they wanted to confirm their beliefs and use them to discount all the other corroborative details that make those results suspect.

...which was supposedly created from the living Christ as a gift to King Abgar.
....just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of HIS FORM on the linen.
....By the simple touching to the face of Christ, an image of HIS FORM was made,
... – for the most beautiful part is the face, not that which is below the armpits –

– I attribute the light shining out not to my own face but rather to the face of the one on the cloth".

It appears that they did have knowledge of the cloth but seemed to have made up or became privy to an embellished story that had grown up around it, possibly mixed with truth.

It appears that in the story around the cloth, King Abgar was seeking to look at the face of Christ and that is why so much of the emphasis is upon the face.

It is interesting to me because I had my own personal miracle concerning the face of Jesus Christ, light and the shroud. I understand the emphasis on the face of Christ. About 30 or so years ago I was cleaning house for a young, wealthy, Muslim man. We had conversed often about our differing faiths. I, at one point, had given to him a paperback book about the shroud. When I was making his bed one day I noticed the book there and picked it up and opened it to a picture of the face of Christ on the shroud. I was looking intently at the picture trying to see what Christ face actually looked like. In my heart, with earnest desire, I let The Lord God know that I really wanted to clearly see what Jesus face looked like. Something happened that was totally unexpected. In an instant I had a wonderful and clear vision of the face of Jesus Christ in all of His glory. Visible light was streaming from His beautiful face. The light looked sort of like beautiful water but it was clear to see that the light that was streaming out from His face was actually love.

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.


	Carbon dating tests carried out 20 years ago on the Shroud of Turin suggested that the relic was a forgery