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.
Most drivers have faith that oncoming traffic is inclined to stay on their side of the yellow line unless passing or avoiding a hazard etc.
If faith were really orthogonal to facts, this would be rather dangerous, no?
The fact that nobody can replicate the Shroud today — in an age when we can land men on the moon, map the human genome, transplant organs, and send people into space with such boring regularity that it barely even makes the news anymore — is a pretty telling indication that there’s something extraordinary about that shroud.
I heard there was a fire in medieval times in the church housing the Shroud back in the Middle Ages. Some experts believe the radio carbon dating was inaccurate due to the remnants of soot that are imbedded in the Shroud, and have been, since that fire many centuries ago.
Also, I remember that back in 1988, it was reported that there were spores of some kind on the Shroud, and scientists determined that these spores were from plant life found only in the Middle East.
It’s all going to come down to the old saying....
“For true believers, no explanation is necessary;
for non-believers, no explanation is satisfactory.”
ping
That isn't true. The negative qualities of the Shroud have been replicated by using a bas-relief rubbing technique.
That's one pic made by using that method.
It is a fascinating subject isn’t it?
I am so envious
I also remember the previous lab testing. From what I understand scientist who did not out of hand fall in line with the diagnosis that the shroud was a fake were summarily labeled as “shroudies”.
The rigor of these scientists seem to resemble those devoted to the science of global warming.
The idea that the image was forged in the 1300’s is very funny. They ought to have an objective observation and comparison of other artistic renderings of the period . Then throw into the mix the fact that the image on the shroud was accomplished as a photo negative. I would guess such an “illustration” would prove to be a challenge to a photo-realist born in this century.
Regardless, one’s faith is not predicated on the Shroud, I just find it be amusing how some are so quick to proclaim the image a hoax and vilify other “scientists” who do not fall into lock step with their findings.
Very curious.
Depends which facts you factor, doesn't it? I'm willing to keep an open mind on this. There was a Shroud, but is this the one? We know that there was a thriving market for forgeries in the Middle Ages. Practically every prince had several. Using Occam's Razor, I get a different answer...
Every time the shroud of Turin gets tested and a finding reported, there is an outcry from those who disagree. For several weeks afterward the press is filled with arguments from both sides, amounting, at best, to renewed uncertainty. I, for one, am sick of the shroud of Turin — and sick of the seemingly endless testing. If some folks believe it to be the shroud of Jesus, so be it. If others accept findings that it is a product of the 13th century, so be that, too. Because the shroud testers are all people of bias, no finding will be clear of that bias.
It's fake. Next!
I was thinking of a way to lay out the historical features and found it - Thanks for posting some of them.
You are correct about the pollen--it is a kind of flax (I think) that was prevalent in the Middle East at the time of Jesus.
Around the time of the most recent dating (the date they are now trying to confirm/debunk)--1300 to 1400--there was a fire in the church that was protecting the shroud. The fire damaged some of the shroud. Nuns who were responsible for the shroud repaired it using current year fabric. I believe that the scientists who are interested in correctly dating the shroud think they were given a wrong sample or, at least, not enough samples for testing the entire object.
I know of no test that shows the Shroud was not created through the bas-relief rubbing technique. It might have been done through some other method or variation of some kind, but I don’t think there’s any other explanation which trumps it.
LMAO
Not sure I believe that. I know MANY evangelical Christians, including a Ph.D. in Physics who believe it is authentic.
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.