Shroud & Suderium Afficianado

[Catholicity]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/422233...carbon_dating/
here's a second link I found its a new documentary found with several links posted. It aired on the History Channel the new Data has yet to be published fully

[Leonhard]

Hi guys, don't think I've forgotten about you. I've just come home from celebrating one my uncles fiftieth birthday and I have an exam coming up. Despite that I might be able to squeeze in a response.

Rapaleya do you agree with the following:

Studies show the presence of red ochre and that Cronen used more than his polarized microscope to confirm this (electron microprobe and x-ray diffraction)?

Do you agree that if the shroud is dated to the 12th Century using carbon-14 dating, then unless something went wrong with the sample or dating (which is what you claim), then that outweighs all the other evidence? Many apologists who are interested in the Shroud including Gary Habermas agrees with this, so I was wondering why you wouldn't.

Do you agree that mere contamination by cotton, dye or carbon from the fire it had been exposed to is not sufficient to alter the date?

The C14 results were a scandal, IMHO... incompetance of a monumental and incomprehesible scale... they did not even consult with the STURP team. I accepted the C14 until it was shown to have been bad science... They could easily have tested for cotton, dies and mordant, but did not do so.

Is this your argument? "Its bad science? Why don't they test for things?" Come weekend I'll deal with your rather unspecified claims of incompetence on the part of the experts who cut the sample and the labs that did the dating. However, I can't see exactly what you claim that they have done wrong. Cotten, dye and mordant could not have moved the date from the 1st Century to the 12th Century. They also cleaned the fibres to get rid of that stuff even if it was present to begin with, I'll include a nice and detailed description of carbon-14 dating in the next post.

And yes I'll also deal with the claim, that despite all the careful preparations the experts managed to cut a sample from an area that was OBVIOUSLY a patch. As well as those pollen and vanillin claims. I like how you doubt Cronen who had the superior amount of experience relevant to the studies of the fibers, who used multiple independent techniques to establish the existence of red ochre and vermillion paint. However you base your arguments on Raymond Rogers who worked at home, using equipment nowhere near the resolution of Cronens and who obtained his samples through subterfuge, as well as being an expert in an unrelated field. More on that in the weekend. This is what I told you about showing no critical thinking about the sources.

If I have time I might deal with whether or not the Shroud is impossible to replicate. No I won't go into whether people in the middle age could stich cloth like people in the Ancient Near East could. I can't see how its impossible, but feel free to make the claim. A textile expert I am not.

Oh and finally

I have had two sides. You only have one.

And the image IS NOT VARIABLE.

Its hard enough trying to respond to the barrage of nearly incoherent and poorly formulated and unreferenced claims. Its fun because I love trashing a crank, its a guilty pleasure, however I can't respond to abject nonsense. Now I'm sure you can explain what those two sentences mean... actually, come to think of it I'm not that sure you can. It'll be entertaining to see you try. Try to at least answer one or two of the above questions as well.

And no Rapalyea you're still a crank, who defends that the truth of the Shroud is OBVIOUS, and that everyone who disagrees with you are blasted bigoted morons who doesn't think. I've heard it from you, I've heard it from the moon hoaxers, I've heard it from the 9/11 truthers and the antivaxxers. I think you have all their symptoms. In fact you havn't defended yourself against my criticism of your conduct. Did I manage to put a needle in you? I think the only thing there's clear in this thread is that you're not the unbiased and critical thinker you claim you are. People might disagree with me being rough with you, or whether the Shroud is genuine, but I do think you need a public humiliation. Do you think people on tweb are idiots? Everyone can read the posts you've made in the past. You make bold and big claims that all that you say is obviously true and the establishment is wrong because they don't know the secret knowledge you and the other shrouders possess. All your claims are poor substantiated, short and incoherent.

If the Shroud is a genuine article then this is by no means obvious. It would be so in spite of evidence against it. I think it can be vindicated if its true. I think, which I'll talk about in the weekend, that its very unlikely for the dating to be false. However a second dating using material from another spot on the Shroud would shut me up. Instantly. The Catholic Church has to authorize it and I am no expert on their dealings. In my opinion they have placed the Shroud in the ever growing body of maybe-genuine relics which will never be tested; Forever unconfirmed but never shown to be false. Its unlikely that they'll ever date it again.

Uhm hi Catholicity26, I can't watch the video but I can tell you that Raymond Rogers never carbondated the sample he got. I don't know if that's what the video is referencing. He used his own home baked vanilin decay dating technique, which is very dubious for reasons I'm not gonna go into, other than it makes assumptions about the Shroud being stored at a certain temperature. It has rather huge uncertainties (thousands of years). Its a technique not used anywhere else, period.

[runtmc2jc]

Recent scientific testing all point to the authenticity of the shroud. I recommend viewing the 2003 dvc "Jesus & the Shroud of Turin" to see what science has been up to recently (in this last decade) with regards to the Shroud. (STURP and others).... the Carbon-14 dating conclusion has been proven to be problematic due to the encapsulating of the Shroud fibers by a "bio-plastic" coating, which being carbon-based, skews the dating.... (see Garza-Valdes "The DNA of God")....Garza-Valdes was able to obtain and submit a sample for dating after stripping the encapsulation which yielded a date back to 600 C.E (???)..... - unfortunately, it was determined the substance used to strip the coating did have some carbon-based properties, hence there is not yet any carbon-14 dating of an untainted sample of the shroud to date. When science develops the process to strip the coating leaving just the fibers, and (if) the Vatican agrees to submit another sample to test, you can probably bank on a 1st century date.
The preponderance of the rest of the evidences overwhelmingly points to authenticity..... Furthermore, I don't see how anyone can "weigh-in" on the dating problems without having first studied the problem of the bio-plastic coating and how it relates to Carbon-14 dating ....

[KBertsche]

Recent scientific testing all point to the authenticity of the shroud. I recommend viewing the 2003 dvc "Jesus & the Shroud of Turin" to see what science has been up to recently (in this last decade) with regards to the Shroud. (STURP and others).... the Carbon-14 dating conclusion has been proven to be problematic due to the encapsulating of the Shroud fibers by a "bio-plastic" coating, which being carbon-based, skews the dating.... (see Garza-Valdes "The DNA of God")....Garza-Valdes was able to obtain and submit a sample for dating after stripping the encapsulation which yielded a date back to 600 C.E (???)..... - unfortunately, it was determined the substance used to strip the coating did have some carbon-based properties, hence there is not yet any carbon-14 dating of an untainted sample of the shroud to date. When science develops the process to strip the coating leaving just the fibers, and (if) the Vatican agrees to submit another sample to test, you can probably bank on a 1st century date.
The preponderance of the rest of the evidences overwhelmingly points to authenticity..... Furthermore, I don't see how anyone can "weigh-in" on the dating problems without having first studied the problem of the bio-plastic coating and how it relates to Carbon-14 dating ....

Do you have any scientific, peer-reviewed references to this supposed subsequent carbon dating? I am very skeptical. It would have had to be an earlier, different sample which had already undergone other testing, so is much more suspect than the carbon dating done independently by three labs and reported in Nature in 1989.

[runtmc2jc]

Do you have any scientific, peer-reviewed references to this supposed subsequent carbon dating? I am very skeptical. It would have had to be an earlier, different sample which had already undergone other testing, so is much more suspect than the carbon dating done independently by three labs and reported in Nature in 1989.

it's in the book....... which is also cited in the dvd.... Garza-Valdez is a micro-biologist (?) who happens to be an expert in ancient textiles..... his book is an interesting read on the whole subject of dating the Shroud and the process involved....(not to mention the results and his conclusions)... STURP and the spin-off studies by some of those individuals (and others) have studied the Shroud for many years, and they cannot positively identify the process by which the image was formed on the cloth. ...... the people who claim medieval forgery don't have a clue of the preponderance of the evidences, IMHO.... the best possible explanation seems to be some form of radiation....... did you know that certain skeletal features (i.e. some teeth and bones) are apparent on the Shroud when viewed under certain processes ???

[KBertsche]

it's in the book....... which is also cited in the dvd.... Garza-Valdez is a micro-biologist (?) who happens to be an expert in ancient textiles..... his book is an interesting read on the whole subject of dating the Shroud and the process involved....(not to mention the results and his conclusions)... STURP and the spin-off studies by some of those individuals (and others) have studied the Shroud for many years, and they cannot positively identify the process by which the image was formed on the cloth. ...... the people who claim medieval forgery don't have a clue of the preponderance of the evidences, IMHO.... the best possible explanation seems to be some form of radiation....... did you know that certain skeletal features (i.e. some teeth and bones) are apparent on the Shroud when viewed under certain processes ???

Is this the book you are referring to?

IBSS

Garza-Valdez has claimed to have found human DNA supposedly of Jesus. He wrote The DNA of God? (1999). The Vatican has refused to authenticate his samples. Anyone who has touched the shroud, cried over it, or a hair has fallen on it, can leave traces of human DNA on the shroud.

Garza-Valdez also claimed that a microbial coating on the shroud altered the radiocarbon date. Physicist Thomas Pickett calculated that would have to be twice as much contamination, by weight, as the cloth itself (see Sketical Inquirer September/October 2001 and Skeptical Briefs, June 1996).

Reference

© source where applicable

[runtmc2jc]

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.

The Shroud has been proven to be "contaminated" with a bioplastic (living) hollow tube-like coating which enshrouds much of the fibers. It was not stripped off when the labs did their cleansing protocols, therefore, the labs tested both ancient fibers together with a living organism.... can't get an authentic date under those circumstances.

[KBertsche]

The Shroud has been proven to be "contaminated" with a bioplastic (living) hollow tube-like coating which enshrouds much of the fibers. It was not stripped off when the labs did their cleansing protocols, therefore, the labs tested both ancient fibers together with a living organism.... can't get an authentic date under those circumstances.

Perhaps you missed or ignored the previous posting. For this alleged "bioplastic coating" to make a 2000-year old linen come out to ~700 years would require this coating to weigh roughly twice as much as the linen itself. And no one noticed this coating?!?

[runtmc2jc]

Perhaps you missed or ignored the previous posting. For this alleged "bioplastic coating" to make a 2000-year old linen come out to ~700 years would require this coating to weigh roughly twice as much as the linen itself. And no one noticed this coating?!?

I don't know where the inference to weight comes into play.... Here's what Garza-Valdes says: While attempting to remove some flax fibers from the threads (with forceps), he caused part of the plastic to break, leaving the naked flax fibers. A higher sodium hydroxide solution destroyed the flax, leaving the empty bioplastic tubes... these tubes are responsible for the Shroud's "sheen"... "What was especially important was that the plastic tube we retained was more than 60% of the overall amount of the fiber. Professor Hall,.... stated that a contamination of more than 60% would be needed to skew the radiocarbon dating results. He did not believe that was possible. Well, here was the proof..."

[KBertsche]

I don't know where the inference to weight comes into play.... Here's what Garza-Valdes says: While attempting to remove some flax fibers from the threads (with forceps), he caused part of the plastic to break, leaving the naked flax fibers. A higher sodium hydroxide solution destroyed the flax, leaving the empty bioplastic tubes... these tubes are responsible for the Shroud's "sheen"... "What was especially important was that the plastic tube we retained was more than 60% of the overall amount of the fiber. Professor Hall,.... stated that a contamination of more than 60% would be needed to skew the radiocarbon dating results. He did not believe that was possible. Well, here was the proof..."

So why don't other 2000-year-old linen samples (like the Shroud control #2) date to 700 years as well? Why isn't this "bioplastic coating" a common and widely recognized problem by the radiocarbon dating community? Why is the Shroud the only linen sample that is thrown off so far (a factor of 3)? As I've said, this is sounding more and more like a classic conspiracy theory.

[runtmc2jc]

So why don't other 2000-year-old linen samples (like the Shroud control #2) date to 700 years as well? Why isn't this "bioplastic coating" a common and widely recognized problem by the radiocarbon dating community? Why is the Shroud the only linen sample that is thrown off so far (a factor of 3)? As I've said, this is sounding more and more like a classic conspiracy theory.

There are numerous examples of dating anomalies cited by G-V. For example, a mummy from the Manchester Museum (Mummy 1770) (excavated by Sir Flinders Petri in the 1890's) returned a date of ca 1510 BCE for the bones, and it's wrappings were dated to ca 255 CE (submitted to the British Museum for radiocarbon dating)... Garza-Valdes' own mummified Egyptian Ibis (Danny) returned different values for the wrappings and some bone and muscle tissue samples - an average of 500 years difference between the two (radiocarbon tests done at the AMS laboratory in Arizona).... G-V also had previously found discrepancies with some of his ancient Mayan artifacts as well.... the point is really very simple and basic.... if you test material with a living component (the bioplastic coating), the overall date given cannot be contemporary with the base material.... it's scientifically impossible.... The coating must be stripped, leaving the textile free from any contamination, and only then will you get an accurate date.

You are right about the conspiracy factor, though it is actually coming from the "other" side. Apparently those in the radiocarbon crowd "in the know" do not want to admit to the error in their testing/cleansing protocol -and ultimately with their resultant dates.... (a few do and have).... - or possibly they have some bias they are hiding behind......There were apparently some in the STURP group who were told of the coating by someone else (not Garza-Valdes) at the time of their testing, and he was told to keep his mouth shut.... Finally some in the Catholic church heirarchy itself, apparently upset over Garza-Valdes' tests on the Shroud blood and his related DNA research, have turned a cold shoulder to him, and even gone as far as to attempt to invalidate his research, and cast doubt on the authenticity of his samples. Of course this smacks of pure power-politics... throw a little religion in there, season with some highly esteemed scientists (unwilling to admit their mistake) and simmer with the golden cow of radiocarbon dating - and you have a recipe for a conspiracy....


Here's Garza-Valdes' own comments:

"We have already tested the Shroud, Mummy 1770, the Maya Itzamna Tun and Danny the Mummy. Every case has produced that abnormal result. There is not a single case in my research that has been normal. The Shroud of Turin result was abnormal because of the bioplastic coating. The Mummy 1770 result was abnormal because of the bioplastic coating. The Itzamna Tun result was abnormal because of the bioplastic coating. And Danny the Mummy had the coating, and the result was wrong..... "

concerning his being published:

"My papers have already appeared in three symposium publications, one for the American Society of Human Genetics and two for the American Society for Microbiology".... "these were not large papers, just abstracts. With Professor Gove, Professor Mattingly, and Dr. Rosalie David, I have also published the findings on Danny the Mummy in the scientific journal "Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research" (titled "A Problematic Source of Organic Contamination in Linen")" .... he goes on to say ..... "With or without peer reviews, I know the bioplastic coating is present on the fibers. Anyone who says that he cannot believe in the coating because it has not been reported in a peer review is not being honest - or is not capable of thinking for himself ".....

and finally this:

".... I knew that an unsuspected contaminant on the flax fibers was responsible for the wrong radiocarbon dating. It was similar to (the) coating on the Maya artifacts I had studied.....The date found by the radiocarbon scientists did not affect my belief in the authenticity of the Shroud, since I had been able to find out why my Maya artifacts had been wrongly dated. ..... there is no doubt about the presence of the bioplastic coating, no doubt that we have the empty tubules when the flax is digested. But if anyone wants to doubt it, even if he is not practicing good science, we will respect him." .......... and in another place.... ".... I did the research because I was interested in the bioplastic coating"..... and "thought the best way to solve the problem was to learn all I could about the weathering of ancient artifacts. If the others choose to accept my research, that's all right. If they didn't want to accept it, that's all right too. We can respect everyone's opinions. We live in a free society and do not try to force anyone to agree with our ideas. My responsiblity as a scientist is to report my findings...."

and this:

"Do you know what is going on inside the minds of the radiocarbon scientists now that they know they made a mistake? They are good scientists but only human. Respect them. Leave them alone. If they want to continue feeling the way they do, let them feel that way. If you are a scientist looking for the truth, this is one possiblity. I have said in some of my conferences that if a person wants to be wrong, I will defend with my life his right to be wrong. Probably some of the radiocarbon people will go to the grave without accepting their mistake. But they did make a mistake." (p14)

which side to you fall on.... the passionate scientist attempting to solve problems, playing by the rules, who discovers some ground-breaking development in his field of study, or the power politics of the elite ???

[One Bad Pig]

Here's Garza-Valdes' own comments:
<snip>
"Do you know what is going on inside the minds of the radiocarbon scientists now that they know they made a mistake? They are good scientists but only human. Respect them. Leave them alone. If they want to continue feeling the way they do, let them feel that way. If you are a scientist looking for the truth, this is one possiblity. I have said in some of my conferences that if a person wants to be wrong, I will defend with my life his right to be wrong. Probably some of the radiocarbon people will go to the grave without accepting their mistake. But they did make a mistake." (p14)

Where's that fruitcake smilie when I need it?