Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia
From a Jesse Bradford Interview on The Power of Few Movie in ELLE: Filmed news of the theft of the Shroud of Turin, the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, It looks like March 15 or so is the planned date for a nationwide rollout – if The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now. New scientific tests on the Shroud of Turin, which was on display Many experts have stood by a carbon dating of scraps of the cloth. When the Carbon 14 (C14) dating of the Shroud of Turin result was announced in .. Dr. Marzia Boi, in her Valencia in paper  points out a possible misclassification by Frei .. hockey-jerseys.us~adw2/shroud/hockey-jerseys.us
Carbon 14 Dating On Shroud of Turin Were Botched | Shroud of Turin Story
However, they concluded, the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, while retting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud. The shroud was composed of a simple two-way weave, unlike the complex herringbone twill of the Turin Shroud. Based on this discovery, the researchers stated that the Turin Shroud did not originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.
The weaving pattern, 3: The dirt was found to be travertine aragonite limestone. Working independently, forensic pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone concurred with Heller and Adler's findings and identified the blood as the AB blood group. He reported that the outlines of the flowering plants would point to March or April and the environs of Jerusalem.
Thomas Litt who is an expert palynologist and has very sophisticated microscopic equipment. Litt concluded that none of the pollen grains he saw could be named at a species level. Hence, all the conclusions drawn from previous palynological investigations of Dr. Frei's material should be suspended until a new collection of pollen grains can be carried out and the grains thus obtained can be studied with modern equipment and by an expert of pollen of this area.
Beaulieau has stated that Frei was a self-taught amateur palynologistwas not properly trained, and that his sample was too small. Danin reported five new species of flower, which also bloom in March and April and stated that a comparison of the black and white photographs and the ultraviolet images indicate that the flower images are genuine and not the artifact of a specific method of photography. They did not find any images of flowers or coins or anything else on either image, they noted that the faint images identified by the Whangers were "only visible by incrementing the photographic contrast", and they concluded that these signs may be linked to protuberances in the yarn, and possibly also to the alteration and influence of the texture of the Enrie photographic negative during its development in They examined the human and non-human DNA found when the shroud and its backing cloth were vacuumed in and Of the human mtDNAsequences were found belonging to haplogroups that are typical of various ethnicities and geographic regions, including Europe, North and East Africa, the Middle East and India.
A few non-plant and non-human sequences were also detected, including various birds and one ascribable to a marine worm common in the Northern Pacific Ocean, next to Canada.
According to the scientists, "such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East.
Furthermore, the results raise the possibility of an Indian manufacture of the linen cloth. According to the author, palynologist Marzia Boi, it "confirms and authenticates the theory that the corpse kept in the Shroud received a funeral and burial with all the honour and respect that would have been customary in the Hebrew tradition".
A number of studies on the anatomical consistency of the image on the shroud and the nature of the wounds on it have been performed, following the initial study by Yves Delage in In Pierre Barbet wrote a long study called A Doctor at Calvary which was later published as a book. Zugibe concluded that the image on the shroud is of the body of a man, but that the body had been washed.
Paul inseparately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent.
They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology show evidence of wrist wounds.
More on The Power of Few Movie | Shroud of Turin Blog
A brightness map isometric display interprets differences of brightness within an image as differences of elevation — brighter patches are seen as being closer to the camera, and darker patches further away. Our minds interpret these gradients as a "pseudo-three-dimensional image".
The researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief. If the object being photographed is lighted from the front, and a non-reflective "fog" of some sort exists between the camera and the object, then less light will reach and reflect back from the portions of the object that are farther from the lens, thus creating a contrast which is dependent on distance.
Inin an article in Journal of Optics AFanti and Maggiolo reported finding a faint second face on the backside of the cloth, after the restoration. In fact, Jesus' hands and face are depicted with great detail, while his buttocks and his navel are faintly outlined or invisible, a discrepancy explained with the artist's consideration of modesty. Also, Jesus' right arm and hand are abnormally elongated, allowing him to modestly cover his genital area, which is physically impossible for an ordinary dead body lying prone.
These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. The carbon 14 dating of the Shroud is famous because so many people doubted the results, doubted such prestigious scholarly, scientific authority? Partly, it was because the Shroud of Turin is a religious object; millions believe it is the real thing, the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth.
Partly, it was because there was a lot of other evidence that argued that the Shroud was plausibly real. And partly, it was because there were persistent clues that the tests were invalid. The faithful believers, the scientists and the historians who were weighing other evidence were arguing that something seemed wrong. They would, in the years followingtry to figure out what that was. Some suggested that the snippet cut from the shroud for testing was from a section of the shroud that had been damaged and rewoven.
Others suggested that the sample was contaminated with residue from a damaging fire in But the scientists who conducted the carbon 14 tests refuted these suggestions. They denied that the sample was taken from a damaged area and they argued that any residue from the fire would have been removed during the sophisticated cleaning process that precedes actual testing.
Leoncio Garza-Valdes, a Texas pediatrician and amateur archeologist, and Stephen Mattingly of the University of Texas offered another suggestion. They claimed that they found an organic bioplastic contamination on the Shroud that would not have been removed with the cleaning process that the labs had used. The bioplastic idea gained traction among many Shroud researchers when Harry E. Gove, a nuclear physicist at the University of Rochester who designed the carbon-dating methods used on the Shroud, gave tentative support to Garza-Valdes and Mattingly.
Sheler, writing in the July 24,issue of U. But the bioplastic idea came up short. For one thing, there is no way to determine the definitive composition of an organic material by scanning electron microscope.
Furthermore, it is well known that such polymers obtain their carbon material from the host fibers in this case and not from the atmosphere, hence they would not significantly alter the carbon 14 dating. On this point, Gove took exception with the bioplastic theory by explaining that the quantity of biological material would be very significant. Because significant material could be easily detected, fibers from the Shroud were examined at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska.
Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry examination failed to detect any form of bioplastic polymer on fibers from either non-image or image areas of the Shroud. As it turns out, those who suggested that the carbon 14 samples were from a rewoven area were right.
This is what was reported in Thermochimica Acta on January 20, Thermochimica Acta is not the sort of journal you will find in the reading room of public libraries. It is mainly for chemists. It is a peer reviewed journal which means that articles are carefully examined by other scientists to ensure that the science is true, methods are sound, and all explanations and conclusions are completely free of logical fallacies.
Peer review, an exacting process of challenge and correction, is the normal way that scientists announce their findings. Carbon 14 Dating Scientists Fooled When the Piltdown man hoax was uncovered insophisticated chemical analysis techniques, developed in part by Teddy Hall, showed that skull fragments and other bone pieces had been expertly dyed to look older and match each other. This was done to fool people into thinking the bones were very old. People were fooled and many thought that the Piltdown man might be the missing link.
In the case of the Shroud of Turin, it was threads were dyed to look older and to match other threads. It was a small area in one corner of the Shroud where some mending threads had been dyed to look like the rest of the age-yellowed Shroud. Chemical analysis proves this. There is absolutely no doubt about that. In the case of the Shroud it was the carbon 14 testers that were fooled. And they should not have been fooled.
There were clues that warranted investigation: InGilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology was given permission to remove a small sample from a corner of the Shroud. In the sample he found cotton fibers. It might have been that the cotton was leftover fibers from a loom that was used for weaving both cotton and linen cloth. It might have been that the Shroud was exposed to cotton much later, even from the gloves used by scientists.
However, when later he examined some of the carbon 14 samples, he noticed that cotton fibers, where found, were contained inside threads, twisted in as part of the thread.
- Navigation menu
- Accessibility links
It is important to note that cotton fiber is not found anywhere else on the Shroud. H South, while examining threads from the sample on behalf of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory found similar indication of cotton. To him it seemed like material intrusion. In an article entitled "Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud," published in Textile Horizons inSouth write of his discovery of "a fine dark yellow strand [of cotton] possibly of Egyptian origin, and quite old.
Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the carbon 14 sample from the Shroud stated: The question should have been asked: It is not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin
In the years following the carbon 14 dating, in the years when careful reexamination seemed warranted, other compelling reasons to be suspicious emerged: If the Shroud was medieval, it should have. Vanillin disappears slowly from the lignin in flax fibers and all of it has disappeared except in the immediate vicinity of the carbon 14 sample. This indicated that the cloth was much older than the carbon 14 dating suggested and that the carbon 14 sample area was certainly chemically different.
One part of it contained cotton fibers among the flax fibers while another part of it did not. Moreover, Rogers found dyestuff and spliced threads that were not found elsewhere on the Shroud.
It is significant to note that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a spot adjacent to the Raes sample. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, working with a number of textile experts, examined documenting photographs of the carbon 14 sample and found evidence of expert reweaving that joined disparate materials almost at the middle of the sample.
If that is the case, and if the repair was made in the early s as history suggests, then according to Ron Hatfield of Beta Analytic, a first century date for the cloth is reasonable. Significantly, he found serious disparities in measurements between the three laboratories and between the sub-samples various tests and observations performed by the labs.