|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Shroud of Turin | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
from another thread:
WillowTree writes: The Shroud of Turin IS NOT a fake. Research has proven that carbon 14 dating does not accurately date linen.
I will be interested in seeing the evidence for this. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6518 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Actually, as I understand it, since the shroud was involved in a fire during the 1400's it is belived that the sample tested was tainted. Subsequent retests, however, did prove the shroud to be made sometime in the middle ages.
shroud of Turin - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com Just thought Id throw something ito the mix for ya, Nosey
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
did prove the shroud to be made sometime in the middle ages. That was what I had heard. Then some suggested that several independent tests were all wrong. Amazingly the error was just enough to date the shroud at about the time it first appeared in history. An utterly astonishing result such a convenient error would be. But since WT says there is some evidence that the thing is old enough I'd be interested in seeing what there is. Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
bump de bump bump. For those who want to support what they assert.
Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eta_Carinae Member (Idle past 4396 days) Posts: 547 From: US Joined: |
I am sick of discussing the Shroud on another forum - ITS A FAKE.
Radiodating was concordant.Contamination is not a problem. (have to double the weight of the whole shroud) Replicas have been created. No mention of the Shroud until some mercenary shows up in the 13th century wanting to sell it. The image on the Shroud is stronger on the top surface of the Shroud than the bottom surface where it should be stronger. Burial Shrouds at the time were 2 separate pieces not a single cloth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5866 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
Never mind all of that
For me the most compelling evidence that the shroud could not be real is that the face actually looks like a face. If you were to take a facial imprint and flatten it out, it would look remarkably different (kind of like the globe printed in a 2 dimensional map) regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Certainly, please give me a few days - thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Then please remmember to produce actual proof. Not the speculations of shroud supporters (such as the idea that a biofilm "explains" the dates - but to do that then it would have to replace almost the entire material of the shroud).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
The DNA of God: Newly Discovered Secrets is a recent book on the topic. It has been a long time since I've read this book (or was it another book on the same topic? I dont remember) but anyway, it states that examination of the material that comprises the shroud has been covered with some organic bacterial coating forms. About 40% of the material is estimated to be this organic material, which is enough to possibly cause the distortion of the radiocarbon dating.
As for the facial imprint.... I remember reading and watching on tv some program about that it could possibly be caused by radioactivity... kinda like a photographic imprint or something like that. But of course, I'll leave it up to you to examine the evidence and form your own conclusions
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
About 40% of the material is estimated to be this organic material Estimated how? And this is after the rigorous cleanings that were done? Wouldn't 40% be a little bit noticable? Was it only "noticed" after someone didn't like the dates that were determined? Common sense isn't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
40% isn't enough. The figures I've seen suggest that it would need to be 60% if all the carbon were modern - but since biofilms grow slowly it'd probably have to be 80% or more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7035 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
PaulK:
My math shows that you're correct. Assuming that all of the bacterial contamination was from the very day that it was tested (the most helpful figure for an old-shroud hypothesis), we get: C14 halflife: ~5730 yearsShroud's date: ~1350 AD: ~650 yrs: 11.3%: 92% remains. Jesus's death: ~35 AD: ~1965 yrs: 34.3%: 79% remains. For every gram of initial C14, there should be 0.79 grams of C14 left.There are 0.92 grams of C14. That means that there is a surplus of 0.13 grams of C14. If all bacterial contamination was instant and new, for every gram of itsinitial C14, it would provide 1 gram of C14. Thus, we have the equations (where C is the percentage of contamination and 1-C is the percentage of the shroud): C*1.00 + (1-C)*0.79 = 0.92C + 0.79 - C*0.79 = 0.92 C*0.21 = 0.13 C = 62% Thus, the best contamination figure they could get was that the mass tested was 62% contamination and 38% shroud. (*note: this is an oversimplification; C14 rates in the atmosphere constantly fluctuate, and are calibrated via tree rings and ice cores. Also, nuclear testing since the 1950s has increased C14 levels in the atmosphere, so you could probably fall below 60% if all of the bacterial contamination was provided "in the lab" (actually, in all 3 labs that dated it); however, to build up a biofilm, realistically almost all of it would have to have been developed before the 1950s) "Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MarkAustin Member (Idle past 3837 days) Posts: 122 From: London., UK Joined: |
Blitz77:
quote: Won't work. All kinds of radiation so far discovered are isotropic - non directional - in normal gravity and magnetic fields, so the image would be a 360 deg panpramic picture of a face. In order to have the full-frontal face of the shroud, you have to postulate a hitherto unknown gravitationally anisotropic field. To have any credibility as an explanation, it would require a proof independent of the shroud itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
True bacterial biofilms need a decent amount of moisture to develop. As far as I'm aware the conditions the shroud are kept in are anything but overly moist.
Secondly everything that has been radiocarbon-dated has a "covering" of bacteria on the surface, so all dating would be wrong. Thing is, it isn't. So why should bacteria on the surface of the shroud meand that the the result is wrong, but for everything else it's OK? Didn't I also read somewhere that analysis of the pigment which makes up the image show it to be one which wasn't available until around the 13th Century?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blitz77 Inactive Member |
quote: Actually the linen shows no signs of paint pigments (the reddish oxide found is not a paint, according to x-ray flourescent analysis[whatever that technique is lol]) or brush strokes. The red stains were found to be of blood, of type AB, containing elevated levels of bilirubin (a reddish-yellow bile pigment), consistent with that of a person tortured.
quote: Everything else in this case being? I meant that the presence of the bacteria could POSSIBLY have skewed the result. As noted Rei has performed an analysis of the impact of 40% of the linen being made of bacterial and fungal remnants-I imagine that the amount of C present in the organic remnants could be a larger percentage than that of the linen, due to different proportions of C in the materials. The Shroud of Turin suggests that the balance could be caused by the cleaning method used in the dating dissolves some of the cellulose from the flax from the shroud, while not affecting that of the biopolymeric film.
quote: I imagine they get their moisture from the fungi, like lichen do. Other evidence for the authenticity of the shroud include analysis of the dirt found near the foot of the linen. It was found to contain travertine argonite, a rare form of calcite found near Damascus Gate. [This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-06-2004] [This message has been edited by blitz77, 01-06-2004]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024