Shroud & Suderium Afficianado

[Rapalyea]

Hi,

I have been interested in these subjects a long time and became tired of all the basic missinformation. Specifically:

1) Carbon dating has conclusively proven the shroud is midieval in origin.
2) The image has been conclusively proven to be Red Ochre in composition.

I especially like the second claim. The one and only source I have ever found for this claim is McCrone. Even his own lab assistants demure. The guy blew off numerous STURP confrences, failed to return sample slides until someone actual flew to Chicago to get them.

Further, the only evidence he ever claimed, as far as I can find out, was microscopically viewing image threads. From this he deduced micron sized iron particles (jewler's rouge). His obstinancy was beneficial in the long run, however, because it forced the other members to extreme measures to back up their claims the image was not made by human hand. For instance, no evidence of paint flurescence and no capilary action in the fibers.

Further, they claimed a near impossibility it could have been the result of bodily outgassing. The the image threads are entirely uniform in nature over the entire shroud; darker areas simply include more of these uniform 'pixels', for lack of a better word.

The C14 results were a scandal, IMHO. I have been convinced not to attribute venality to those who cut the sample. That leaves incompetance of a monumental and incomprehesible scale. Apparently they did not even consult with the STURP team.

I have spent the last many days researching a couple of other salient controversies. First, the coin on the eyes. I don't know what to make of this however. Larger images seem to show 'bug' eyes. Whanger claims to have identified a misspelled inscription of a Pilate Lepton over the right eye, and another lepton on the left. Fontinelle claims Leptons, but differently from Whanger.

My own examination of the enhanced images seems to show a Lituus clearly visible in Fontinelles image. The lituus looks like a shepherd hook and is distinctive to Pilate Leptons of LIZ and LIS and LIH vintage [AD 30,31,and 32 respectively]. I am still skeptical, however, because I do not have access to the high resolution imaging and polarization techniques mentioned. However, ANY lituus, in and of itself, would be strong evidence....

The recent 'Death Cirtificate" is what led me, through google, to this site. Apparently it has been discussed elsewhere in the forums. The cirtificate claim is especially interesting because letter images have been deduced for decades. In addition, the purported images, unlike the tiny lepton coins, are very large. In fact, the image purporting NAZAREAN, is probably nearly a foot long and two inches wide.

This word is important for several reasons, not just the obvious. Jesus is reported to be a Nazarean in the New Testament, I believe, not because he was from Nazareth, a town that may not have actually existed as such at the time, but because he was of the Nazarean 'philosophy'. I have not researched this last item yet, but it would be an interesting development.

WELL. I have clearly let this introduction get out of hand and will close. Later I will see if I can find the thread that includes such discussions and provide the various URL links I have archieved.

Cheers!
David

[Leonhard]

What's wrong with the C-14 dating? It can't be contamination from the fire, or biological contamination as far as I understand it. Some shrouders believe that the dating is cast into doubt because of threads interwoven recently into the fabric. However I can't see how they conclude that the samples had those flaws. The shroud stands or falls with the radiocarbon dating. If it is called into doubt, it should be retaken.

Until then, the Shroud will exists in a state of being a probable but unconfirmed hoax.

[KBertsche]

1) Carbon dating has conclusively proven the shroud is midieval in origin.

We've already been over this in detail in other threads. The carbon dating shows conclusively that the cloth which was carbon-dated was Medieval in origin.

According to the official, peer-reviewed report (Damon et al, "Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin", Nature v337, 16 Feb 1989, pp611ff),

Damon et al

The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieaval.

© source where applicable

Of course, this cannot conclusively rule out conspiracy-type theories: e.g. the linen was actually from a Medieval repair, or the samples were switched before dating, or other such suggestions.

[Rapalyea]

KB -You wrote: "We've already been over this in detail in other threads. The carbon dating shows conclusively that the cloth which was carbon-dated was Medieval in origin."

Conclusively it does not. This borders on the rediculous. Not only were the carbon dates contaminated by cotton, dye and mordant, the actual linen shroud is entirely devoid of vanillin. The dead sea scroll linens are devoid of vanillin. The shroud is devoid of vanillin.

Yet the midieval linen patches, backing, etc, still have something like 37% of their vanillin. And it just goes on and on. A three to one herringbone weave [shroud] would have been unthinkable in the middle ages with 'hank' weaving.

Talk about Faith Based Enterprises. DO SOME FRIGGNE HOMEWORK, already.

[Rapalyea]

KB - PS

I have no dog in this fight. When the C-14 came back as midieval, I had no complaint. Until it was shown to have been about the least competant C14 dates in history. I put it right up there with piltdown man and saskwatch.

And I really really dislike bad science. I DO have a dog in THAT fight. I actually querried the labs involved to provide names of those who submitted the samples. Not one frign one of them responded.

So. Go on with your faith based C14 samples. As a decades long Congressional Investigator, I am rather grumpy for having been taken for a fool by the C14 crowed. And I am determined it will not happen again.....

[Leonhard]

Until it was shown to have been about the least competant C14 dates in history. I put it right up there with piltdown man and saskwatch.

The Piltdown Man was a deliberate hoax created by Charles Dawson. Ironically it was originally believed to be genuine until it was demonstrated to be an elaborate fake conclusively by showing that it was composed of bones from three different creatures.

Do you believe that the laboratories deliberately botched the testing? Or is your claim merely that they did a bad job? If the latter then your claim is a flawed, and actually falls into what I believe; the shroud being another forgery like the Piltdown Man and the Patterson-Gimlin film of BigFoot.

Not only were the carbon dates contaminated by cotton, dye and mordant...

How much, cotton, dye and mordant contamination do you think it would take to move the dating from the 1st Century to the 12th Century? You can add bacteria growth, and added carbon from the fire. How great a percentage of weight of the shroud ought to be replaced in order to make the Shroud look it came from the 12th Century? The difference of a 1st Century date and a 12th Century date is much larger than any uncertainties inherent in the methods themselves.

It should be noted that Walter McCrone found all those traces in other parts of the shroud, and not merely the so called 'patch'.

It should also be noted to people reading this that these are the claims of Ray Rogers, one of the few legitimate scientists to come out recently in favor of the Shroud's authenticity. His major claim is that the sample that was dated was from a wrong section. Note, neither he nor anyone else claim that the laboratories did a bad job, or even that radiocarbon dating is a false technique. His second claim is that he used a different technique to derive a much older date for the shroud. The later claim however has a HUGE uncertainty; It could be from 3000 years ago or 1300 years ago according to him. No verification of this dating exists in any peer reviewed journal, period. Conveniently his samples were 'lost - broke apart' as far as I understood it.

The dating of the shroud were verified by three independent laboratories. All coming to the same conclusion for the same reasons. In order to throw down their results, an equal or greater amount of evidence would have to be made. One would be a new redating from a part of the shroud agreed by everyone to be 'genuine'. If that came back as being 1st Century then we'd have repelled the original dating. Whether that happens is up to the Catholic Church.

If you ignore the pro-authenticity crowd of shrouders from the STURP. There's basically no legitimate research (that I've been able to find), that has demonstrated any difference between the sample sent to the laboratories, and the rest of the cloth. I have seen no sufficient reason to doubt the report from McCronen. Though I'm sure Rapalyea will supply his reasons for doing so. As well as for why the radiocarbon dating is wrong.

I have no dog in this fight.

"Its not that I'm arguing that we've never landed on the moon, I'm just asking some questions. Why are there no stars? And how did they survive the radiation?"

I don't buy it Rapalyea. I believe you're taken in by the idea of a conspiracy. One where the 'secular' scientists are complacent and ignorant of the REAL FACTS about the shroud known only to the brave internet explorers who go to the right sites, and write letters to labs who mysteriously doesn't answer. You write that the radiocarbon dating is 'OBVIOUSLY' wrong, a secret that's little known to the world of scientists whom you find ignorant, along with everyone who actually holds a expert opinion in the matter, KBertsche for example. I've seen 911 truthers, Nevada ufo chrash landing believers, cryptozoologists bent on proving the existence of Big Foot or Nessie, Autism Speaks promoters who cite the little known facts that THEY IGNORE that shows apparently that vaccines cause autism and so on. You seem to have the symptoms of such believers.

I believe a cursory reading of your posts reveal that you're very agitated and emotional about this. Nobody should care about your anger or spittle, they will want to know what reasons you have. You also don't seem to demonstrate any criticality of the sources you cite. In the past you've posted dubious internet articles, showing that it seems you buy anything as a source unless its peer reviewed research. Beyond Ray Roger, who managed to get one of his articles into a peer reviewed journal, what else of credibility do you have?

I am no more impressed by their research than I am of BigFooters when they say that the movements of the creature in the original footage, can-not-be-made-by-man. The same goes for the UFO crowd, who'll gladly give you a five foot pile of bad images. STURP scientists finding coins, letters, optical illusions, from staring into the photos taken of the shroud, should be viewed in the context of people finding advanced propulsion systems in the videos of discs dangling from strings and blurry images from home videos. I'm sure there's articles that explains in detail how the stylistic face is produced from being beaten up, I've heard it atleast from a shroud believer who told me it was his reason for believing in Christ.

If the STURP researchers don't take credit in the carbondating, then do a retest. Until then I see no reason for arguing that the Shroud is anything more than a clever hoax.

[Rapalyea]

Leon

You seem unaccountably disturbed. Do YOU have a dog in this fight? I accepted the C14 until it was shown to have been bad science. Now that it has been shown as bad science YOU seem to be having a coniption fit. Why? WHO CARES if the date is first century or not. You should have nothing to fear from it either way though you present yourself as rather fearful individual and go al algore on us. The Sky Is Falling. The Sky is Falling.

What sort of superstition drives you to this extreme?

[Rapalyea]

Leon - You wrote: "If the STURP researchers don't take credit in the carbondating, then do a retest. Until then I see no reason for arguing that the Shroud is anything more than a clever hoax."

You seem entirely unaware STURP had no authority for destructive testing. The C14 is an entirely separate enterprise authorized by, I believe, the 'King of Italy' who actually owned the shroud during this era. Upon his death ownership was tranfered to the Pope.

The C14 was an entire fiasco, did not follow its own protocols, and did not even test what sort of matterials they were testing. They could easily have tested for cotton, dies and mordant, but did not do so. What is YOUR opinion as to why not? I simply put down as an amateutish enthusiams without proper controls. Thats all.

[Leonhard]

You seem entirely unaware STURP had no authority for destructive testing... The one and only source I have ever found for this claim is McCrone...

Someone didn't read the entire post.

The dating of the shroud were verified by three independent laboratories. All coming to the same conclusion for the same reasons. In order to throw down their results, an equal or greater amount of evidence would have to be made. One would be a new redating from a part of the shroud agreed by everyone to be 'genuine'. If that came back as being 1st Century then we'd have repelled the original dating. Whether that happens is up to the Catholic Church.

You seem unaccountably disturbed. Do YOU have a dog in this fight?

Only you.

You do argue like those cranks and your way of reasoning is the same. You've cited anything you can find to back up your claims, paying no attention to the quality of the sources. You engage in conspiracy mentality and you believe that everything you believe is completely obvious; secular scientists don't buy the shroud because they don't want it to be true.

The C14 was an entire fiasco, did not follow its own protocols, and did not even test what sort of matterials they were testing.

You havn't made clear what you believe is wrong with the C-14 dating.

No contamination imaginable could move the date from the 1st Century to the 12th Century. Cotten, dye, charcoal from the fire, intense neutron radiation from the resurrected of Christ, bacteria growth, etc. None of that is sufficient to explain why the Shroud got a date of 12th Century. "The Shroud weights about 20 pounds (9 kg.); approximatley 40 pounds (18 kg.) of 20th century carbon contaminant (mold, mildew, bacteria etc.) would be required to raise the measured carbon date to 14th century." Walter McCronen (2009).

This doesn't go into the details of the many chemical scrubbings the laboratories gave the samples to extract only the linen fibres and nothing else.

The three laboratories were in good report as to performing a radiocarbon dating. They followed standard procedures, and nothing ill has been reported. Except by you of course, so I think people will wonder what you think they did wrong.

"2) The image has been conclusively proven to be Red Ochre in composition"...The one and only source I have ever found for this claim is McCrone...the only evidence he ever claimed, as far as I can find out, was microscopically viewing image threads.

I think readers deserve to read the mans own reasons for his claims, here.

"A careful microscopical survey of the 22 image tapes and 10 nonimage tapes shows, without exception, tiny red particles in body- and blood-image areas but no red particles on the fibers in the nonimage areas. The red particles require careful high-magnification light microscopy (600-1000x) to see and identify...The red particles are found on the fibers of all image tapes and have varying degrees of hydration, color, and refractive index (from about 2.5 to 3.01). These properties are characteristic of the artist's earth pigment, red ochre...The composition of the Shroud red ochre was confirmed both by electron microprobe and by X-ray diffraction"

[Catholicity]

There were however a couple of problems found with the radiocarbon dating, the first being that indeed the shroud was instilled with new backing because of the fire it was caught in. and that was the sample taken secondly a new sample taken sated in back to the early (a.d. 30-40) 1st century. and art work fails to explain the blood, and the negative on the shroud. like the Church says science should prove what it is.

[Catholicity]

a

[Rapalyea]

Leon - You wrote: "The shroud stands or falls with the radiocarbon dating..."

No, it does not. And you should KNOW it does not. In fact, I am ASTONOSHED you do not. As a result, I am forced to assume you have some sort of faith based reason to cling to this notion of yours. I accepted the C14 until it was shown flawed, and am now open to other possibilities. You, on the other hand, seem determined to defend the indefensible to the very end. It does not speak well to your ability for skepticism from all sides.

I have had two sides. You only have one.

http://campus.usal.es/~licesio/T_I_Farmacia/shroud.pdf

[Rapalyea]

Leon

Besides, the fabric itself is testimony against Midieval origin. Lets start with the combination of 3-1 herringbone plus hank bleaching evident in the shroud. This would have required a special order in midieval times because a typical, high cost 3-1 herringbone weave would have been uniformly bleached in order to appeal to wealthy customers. This sort of bleaching was an important innovation and bespoke of good taste and money. A motly bleached 3-1 herringbone would be like a tie died Armani suit.

In addition, the shoud, unlike all its patches and midieval backing matterials of linen, did not test possitive for vanillin. Accordingly, it is clearly older then those specimens.

Finally, no forger in his right mind would order a hank bleached 3-1 herringbone weave linen cloth upon which to apply a forged painting. It just does not make any sense. The variations in the fabric would make a forged painting stand out like a sore thumb. Capillary action of a liquid medium in such a non-homogenous base would, well, be non-homogenous.

And the image areas are nothing if not homogeonous. And it just goes on and on. Pollen, dirt fragments, blood, hemoglobin, billirubin [only detectable by modern methods] etc etc etc. To me the shroud is a simple curiousity. Why is it so important to you?

And it just goes on

And the image IS NOT VARIABLE.

[Rapalyea]

Catholicity26 - You wrote: "... a new sample taken sated in back to the early (a.d. 30-40) 1st century..." I am very curious about this 'new sample' you mention. Do you have a URL citation?

[Catholicity]

Its from an EWTN documentary, I should've sourced it properly. but the documentary, should've been cited properly. Go to EWTN.com you can find it in the Library type in the Shroud of Tourin