Posted on 03/26/2013 8:14:48 PM PDT by NYer
Professor Giulio Fanti and journalist Saverio Gaeta have published a book with the results of some chemical and mechanical tests which confirm that the Shroud dates back to the 1st century
ANDREA TORNIELLI
ROME
New scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua have apparently confirmed that the Shroud Turin can be dated back to the 1st century AD. This makes its compatible with the tradition which claims that the cloth with the image of the crucified man imprinted on it is the very one Jesus’ body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross. The news will be published in a book by Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua’s Engineering Faculty, and journalist Saverio Gaeta, out tomorrow. “Il Mistero della Sindone” (The Mystery of the Shroud) is edited by Rizzoli (240 pp, 18 Euro).
What’s new about this book are Fanti’s recent findings, which are also about to be published in a specialist magazine and assessed by a scientific committee. The research includes three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system, so using infra-red light, and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. The machine used to examine the Shroud’s fibres and test traction, allowed researchers to examine tiny fibres alongside about twenty samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD.
The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. The book’s authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD.
The tests were carried out using tiny fibres of material extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana who passed away in 2008 but had participated in the1988 research project and gave the material to Fanti through the cultural institute Fondazione 3M.
wow link?
Wow. It took 8 posts before we got the first “I don’t care.” Yay
“I certainly don’t need a piece of cloth to confirm my faith, either. However, it is so wonderful that we continuously find evidence and validation for the Scriptures on a nearly daily basis.”
Me too, what you said. Can’t be said often enough.
Why would I tell God that I don’t need a blessing He wants to give me? Who do I think I am, anyway?
“Until someone redates the shroud using carbon dating and overturns the previous results, the matter is closed, as far as I’m concerned.”
Surely people have told you how the testing protocol was violated, and how the material taken for sampling was not from the original Shroud, but from Medieval patches.
Also, see interesting comments from reply #37.
“Big Bang” event (a new Creation) in the tomb:
http://www.nigelkerner.com/Articles/Brighter_than_the_Sun.html
Distinguished particle physicist, Dame Isabel Piczek, has identified the remarkable fact that there seems to be no distortion in the image on the cloth, a distortion that should have resulted from the pressure of the body on the stone floor of the tomb and the inevitable irregularities that would have occurred due to the folds and wrinkles of the wrapping:
“There is a strange dividing element, an interface from which the image is projected up and the image is projected down. The muscles of the body are absolutely not crushed against the stone of the tomb. They are perfect. It means that the body is hovering between the two sides of the shroud. What does that mean? It means that there is absolutely no gravity. The image is absolutely undistorted. Now if you imagine that the cloth was wrinkled, tied, wrapped around the body and all of a sudden you see a perfect image, which is impossible unless the shroud was made absolutely taut, rigidly taut. A heretofore unknown interface acted as an event horizon. The straight, taut linen of the shroud simply was forced to parallel the shape of this powerful interface. The projection, an action at a distance, happens from the surface and limit of this, taking with itself the bas-relief image of the upper and, separately, the underside of the body.”
This, “heretofore unknown interface” she says, would have been the result of a “collapsed event horizon,” in the center of which, “there is something which science knows as a singularity. This is exactly what started the universe in the Big Bang.” Thus, she goes on to say: “We have nothing less in the tomb of Christ than the beginning of a new universe.”
GASP! The face looks not a bit like Max Von Sydow.
I understand perfectly the theory that medieval patches could have tainted the sample. However, that date will stand until someone carbon dates it from a different sample. One would think that Shroud researchers would be in favor of this.
Minor correction. The 1988 C-14 test was not "an already scorched patch" but rather a patch from a corner of the shroud that had been damaged by wear and rewoven, mixing original probable 1st century material made of Linen with 16th century material made of Cotton. The varying mixture 40-60% new mixed with old contaminated the sample to skew the very accurate C-14 test of what was tested into an average, but totally wrong dating of between 1260AD to 1390AD.
The original C-14 test has been invalidated in three separate peer-reviewed scientific journal articles in which it was shown that bad sample taking and breaking of protocols resulted in a good test being made of a PATCHED AREA of the shroud that was not homogenous with the main body of the Shroud. Chemical, microscopic, and physical test have proved that what was tested was contaminated with Cotton fibers. . . significantly so. The main body of the Shroud is pure Flax Linen with no Cotton. Photo micrographs of the tested samples showed they included rewoven and spun in Cotton threads. This was a known technique used in the sixteenth century to repair tapestries. Chemical testing of surviving threads from the samples show they were dyed to match the main body color, were filleted by a totally different method than the main body Linen, and contained other chemicals inconsistent with the rest of the Shroud. Another scientist, working with another surviving thread found it came apart into two pieces, one linen consistent with the Shroud's threads, and the other end dyed French cotton with an opposite twist! This technique is called "French Invisible Reweaving" and required great skill and was reserved for only the most important cloths. The Shroud in the sixteenth century would certainly qualify. In any case, as of 2005, the 1988 C-14 test is invalidated.
The inventor of the C-14 test used on the Shroud, Harry Gove, when presented with these findings, and the varying percentages of old to new material intermixed in the samples did some calculations to estimate the age of the original material. The cotton varied from between 40-60% mixed with the linen. His calculation estimated the age of the linen at FIRST CENTURY plus or minus 100 years. . . If the contaminating cotton was 16th century.
It's not a scorch. A scorch in linen would fluoresce. The image does not fluoresce. . . yet the scorches from the fire of 1532 do fluoresce. However, we know what it is made of. It's a sugar like caramel coating caused by a meloidin reaction in the starch of the soapwort that was left over from washing and starching the hanks of linen yarn before it was woven into cloth when it was "fullered." It exists only as a surface phenomenon in that coating that is thinner than a soap bubble and about as fragile.
The image is strangely vertically collimated. There is no evidence that image formed horizontally or even by a force at an angle even slightly away from the vertical both up and down. Whatever the force was, it attenuated by about ten centimeters distance from the body. . . or at least to the point of inefficacy in forming the meloidin change in the soapwort.
You've been told wrong. The amount of contamination to skew a date of an old object such a large number of centuries is huge. For the shroud, it would require that almost half the weight of the sample be modern material to skew it that far. . . and that's what happened! They tested a sample that had a patch invisibly rewoven into the older material! They broke protocols about where samples were to be taken and about how many were to be taken. They got garbage results because they did that.
I agree with your point. Some people likely will believe because of the Shroud that would not have believed otherwise. They will be with us in Glory .... Sad that we know many who will not be there....
It’s really easily sorted, isn’t it? Simply conduct another test, with a sample taken from a non-patched area.
It seems like I was misinformed and there are quite few people up thread that agree with you. Thank you.
Freepmail.
Shroud researchers ARE in favor of new carbon dating. However the Shroud is the property of the Pope. The scientists do not have the final say. An unauthorized C-14 test was performed on a thread several years ago. Results were 1st Century. . . but because it was unauthorized, the results are unofficial and unpublishable but just talked about.
However, you are wrong to state the 1988 C-14 test dating stands. It has been invalidated in peer-reviewed, published science which post-dates the tests. Invalidation means the date is just that. INVALID. It means nothing. Any one who chooses to cite it is biased and is NOT truthful or a true scientist. . . because it has been PROVED FALSE! To cite in light of that proof and the publication and peer-review, and confirmation by TWO independent researchers by other methods and published in two other peer-reviewed journals, make it absolutely proven and accepted.
The sad thing was that it was avoidable. The original C-14 test broke the well designed protocols designed by STURP to avoid this very issue and in fact took their single sample from the very area the STURP scientist all agreed SHOULD BE EXCLUDED because it was obviously chemically and physically different from the main body of the Shroud! The 1988 C-14 sample taking group were idiots.
Mind the ozone. (Yes, I know your signup date.)
What's your scientific background? Do you know the protocol for homogenization of a sample, or the significance of differing dates from different samples of the same item?
Cheers!
Thanks Gene Eric.
Enlighten me, then, by posting links to these journal articles. Please post from reputable journals.
Face it: it has been 25 years, and if the carbon dating methodology was flawed, there has been ample time to redo it.
I’m just going to suggest you go to the central clearing house for all Shroud articles, you’ll find almost everything there. Barrie Schwortz was the principle light photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), a Jew, he went with the idea that the group would look, see obvious pigments, and close the book. He became convinced that the Shroud did indeed once cover the body of Jeshua Bar Joseph, called the messiah. . . and is exactly what it is purported to be. He now maintains the website for scholarly and scientific papers on the Shroud as a non-profit Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association, inc., (STERA).
On there you will find a reprint of the main article from Thermochimica Acta, “Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin”, Rogers, R.N., 2005.
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
Also of use is a website maintained by fellow Freeper Shroudie. It is more accessible, telling the information in a more readable fashion.
He also has many links to the scientific articles on his websites.
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.