Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!

You know what, I think there's an even bigger elephant in the room. Seems something else was under that shroud as well. Jesus and a grey??




Just joking obviously. I've watched one video which held my interest, but no time to watch the others tonight. Will continue to watch them tomorrow.

The shroud is a fake. A fake relic like all the others "found" during the Medieval Period.

The blood stains on the head are wrong. The body was washed before wrapping as was the custom of the time. The rivulets formed during the crucifixion would have been washed away. Any fluids that subsequently seeped out while lying in state would be soaked up by the cloth of the shroud. The blood stains on the shroud should be depicted as blotches not rivulets. The blood rivulets from the crown of thorns as seen on the shroud are artistic license by the hoaxer.

Further, the back would be the lowest part of the body while lying in state - fluids would pool there and seep out of any wounds- yet not a single scourge mark is evident on the shroud. The artist forgot to add them.

It's a fake.

a reply to: Tangerine

Dear Tangerine,

I can detect at least one really important misunderstanding from you side in your argument:

This thread was released to present the findings of the research team leaded by the Italian Scientist Dr Giulio Fanti on his testing of the validation of the Radio carbon analysis of samples of the Shroud of Turin and his own dating of the same object, it is not my research or my own intellectual property, so I don't find logical that you are talking on this subject as if this might be my own theory.

Notice please that in every statement I have disclosed in my posts I cited with enough rigor the source of the information given names of the scientists that are in behind each hypothesis or tests.

By the way I am a Professional scientist with Masters degrees of Science in Statistics and Mathematics and a candidate to Doctor in Engineering, with some years of research in Statistical pattern recognition, so I am familiar with the area of image processing used exhaustively to check the Shroud. My interest in the topic of the Shroud is merely scientific curiosity, no other considerations motivate me.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Everyone note that he didn't answer my question.

originally posted by: Abednego
Haven't got the time to see all the links.
But the fact that it can be traced back to the time of Jesus, does not necessarily means that is Jesus. How can you explain the perfect symmetry of the figure in the shroud? Put some paint on your face then put a cloth over, you will see that the figure tend to be distorted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but the shroud looks more like a paint job. As for the Oviedo's one. That could be anything.

It HASN'T been traced back to the time of Jesus.

originally posted by: Chrisfishenstein
a reply to: The angel of light

Excellent thread OP! I am glad they finally took the time to properly inspect and date the Shroud! The people who believe didn't need the verification, also the people who don't believe don't care, but it is nice this information comes out either way! Good find!

Then how about you naming the date, the name of the laboratory, the exact test performed and the exact results of the test that proved that the shroud dates to the time of Christ. Bet you can't.

a reply to: Tangerine

Dar Tangerine,

I am far to be a passionate defender or attacker of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, or of the credibility of radio carbon dating on objects like this one , my interest is into find what the Science can tell us about it, objectively and from all possible strategies of dating, not from one in particular.

I think anyone in my position, working as an academic researcher, must be extremely cautious on to arrive easily to fast conclusions.

It is entirely professional as a Scientist to feel deep respect when other Scientists of so reputed European Universities as Padua, Bologna, Modena , Udine, Parma and London that are working with Dr Giulio Fanti , have dared to publish their results of alternative dating tests on a so famous object and question the dating of 1988.

Moreover, the results I have partially disclosed in this informative thread are not only from Dr Fanti work, also comprise findings of researchers from Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla). Now, you have the complete picture of the material that is on discussion here.

Just a friendly advice, if you at least would have checked the links that I posted in the opening statement of the thread, before to enter in the discussion, possibly you should find this by yourself without even needed to ask me on it.

From my perspective I have already answered your question, now if you have understood me is a different matter.

I am out of any partisan or sectarian discussion on this topic, my interest is just to bring interesting scientific material related coming from a respectable source about a paranormal event to the discussion on this forum of ATS.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Not a medieval 'forgery,' per se, but a medieval prop used in an Easter ritual who value as a holy relic grew far beyond it's original intention, especially as it passed up to greater and more powerful hands in European aristocracy.

Turin shroud was made for medieval Easter ritual, historian says

The original purpose of the shroud, argues Freeman, is likely to have been as a prop in a kind of medieval, theatrical ceremony that took place at Easter – the “Quem quaeritis?” or “whom do you seek?”

“On Easter morning the gospel accounts of the resurrection would be re-enacted with ‘disciples’ acting out a presentation in which they would enter a makeshift tomb and bring out the grave clothes to show that Christ had indeed risen,” he said.

He further establishes a number of times in European history the shroud was depicted or written about, beginning with its original appearance in 1355. Christianity saw an explosion of holy relics during the medieval period, and most of those were fakes.

a reply to: The angel of light

Then how about you naming the date, the name of the laboratory, the exact test performed and the exact results of the test that proved that the shroud dates to the time of Christ or admit that no such test result exists.

Oh, I get it. Carbon-14 dating is inaccurate and worthless unless it appears to confirm something you believe in. Then suddenly Carbon-14 dating is proof positive that a God-Man walked the Earth and saved us all from burning in Hell (As long as we all fall down on our knees and appropriately worship him. If not, off to Hell we go.).

a reply to: Tangerine

Tangerine,

I am sincerely so surprised of the lack of reading skills that you are showing into follow my replies, as well as your stubbornness into insist in to ask several times the same already answered question.

The material that was posted to open this thread is contained in various links that anybody can investigate is not mine. I don't have nothing to do with it, but it belong to Scientists of so reputed European Universities as Padua, Bologna, Modena , Udine, Parma and London. Laboratories of those Universities are the ones that have been working on experiments that validate the findings of Dr Giulio Fanti , who is the principal author of the book that is releasing to the public the entire research.

As I have already pointed the results I have partially disclosed in this informative thread are not only from Dr Fanti work, also comprise findings of researchers from Universities of London (Anthony Atkinsons), Parma (Marco Riani) and Udine (Fabio Crosilla). Now, you have the complete picture of the material that is on discussion here.

The specific experiments in Robust Statistics that were carried out to prove the claims were described in summary on my opening post, but if you are not comfortable with it you are free to go into the links , anyway my transcription was pretty literal of what the author was releasing in the press report that was linked.

Here are again the links of the press reports about the results of Dr Fanti for n-th time:

www.huffingtonpost.com...

shroudstory.com...

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

www.usatoday.com...

Please move on and if you are in shock for the news I suggest you to take a rest before to come back again to the discussion.

Now, if you don't have time to read the entire book published by Dr Fanti in Italian by editorial Rizzoli on this subject, then you can check a paper that contains an interview he has posted about It on the web.

here the link to the publisher website in which you can order your copy of the book:

www.rizzoli.eu...

here the link to the paper published in the web,

www.shroud.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Your shell game isn't working with me. Have the integrity to admit that no legitimate scientific tests have been conducted that date the shroud to the time of Christ (ie. the dates commonly ascribed to the lifetime of the myth-man Jesus).

a reply to:Have the integrity to admit that no legitimate scientific tests have been conducted that date the shroud to the time of Christ (ie. the dates commonly ascribed to the lifetime of the myth-man Jesus).
Tangerine

Dear Tangerine,


I honestly want to be polite with you, but now I see clearly what is your problem: you are married with the theories that Jesus is a Myth and not a Historic figure, that are of course pretty difficult to support since anyway this is a figure that is extremely important from the Historical point of view, so this is the real reason for which you are so much shocked with this thread.

I am so sorry but my interest is with Science and with the objective truth that is behind this fact, my profession is Statistics so I found interesting to discuss the data analysis and the Robust statistics techniques used by these scientists, to arrive to their claims, I am not compromised with any belief at all with respect to the shroud.

I feel this is what is happening with you, you are so much attached with a point of view, almost at fundamentalist level not at rational one, that you consider absolutely true what you believe so you are not open at all to explore it without passion, you are blinded by your own prejudgments.

Here the problem is not of Integrity is that you are discussing about opinions, while I am talking about Science.

Sorry, but I left you with your own personal subjective ideas on the topic, I respect them, but they are not of my interest.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light


There really are a lot of words that say nothing.
Colour me impressed!

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to:Have the integrity to admit that no legitimate scientific tests have been conducted that date the shroud to the time of Christ (ie. the dates commonly ascribed to the lifetime of the myth-man Jesus).
Tangerine

Dear Tangerine,


I honestly want to be polite with you, but now I see clearly what is your problem: you are married with the theories that Jesus is a Myth and not a Historic figure, that are of course pretty difficult to support since anyway this is a figure that is extremely important from the Historical point of view, so this is the real reason for which you are so much shocked with this thread.

I am so sorry but my interest is with Science and with the objective truth that is behind this fact, my profession is Statistics so I found interesting to discuss the data analysis and the Robust statistics techniques used by these scientists, to arrive to their claims, I am not compromised with any belief at all with respect to the shroud.

I feel this is what is happening with you, you are so much attached with a point of view, almost at fundamentalist level not at rational one, that you consider absolutely true what you believe so you are not open at all to explore it without passion, you are blinded by your own prejudgments.

Here the problem is not of Integrity is that you are discussing about opinions, while I am talking about Science.

Sorry, but I left you with your own personal subjective ideas on the topic, I respect them, but they are not of my interest.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

The title of your thread is "Robust statistics on new scientific tests are dating Shroud of Turin on the time of Christ!" You have now finally admitted that there are no legitimate scientific tests have been conducted that date the shroud to the time of Christ (ie. the dates commonly ascribed to the lifetime of the myth-man Jesus. Therefore, the title of your thread was an attempt to deceive.

There is not an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus actually lived. I anticipate that you will now launch into another shell game to persuade people that there is without, of course, actually citing contemporaneous documentation proving your claim.

a reply to: aorAki

Sorry Dear aorAki,

Possibly they say nothing for you, but well it is clear that this is a thread that was opening to discuss Statistics methods on data analysis so it require more than just basic reading skills, you need to investigate what the authors are saying, if you don't want to rely on me.

Anyway let me clarify that I am trying the best I can to digest a topic that is pretty technical and disclose it in a language that is accessible to the average readers, the ones are not mathematicians or statisticians.

Thanks for your interest on it,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Here again the Abstract of the description of the Robust Statistics methods used by the Italian team leaded by Dr Fanti to show that the Shroud of Turin belongs the 1st century with 95% of confidence, according with their own claims and as the Italian Scientist himself described in the press release.

This is something was already posted here in the opening reply, so it is not new at all and justifies in a very acceptable way the title that was given to the thread:

Using robust Statistical analysis as an alternative methods of dating that are applicable to the Shroud, experiments done by the Italian Scientist Giolio Fanti, are dating the Shroud from 280 BC and the year 220 AD.

A statistical model has highlighted the systematic tendency to change: if for a few centimeters of fabric there are differences in 200 years, it’s easy to think that there are thousands years of variations along the nearly 4.5 m of the Shroud, possibly caused by the mysterious energy that produced the image.

To date the Shroud using alternative methods both Raman and FT-IR tests have been used to obtain two different chemical datings with the collaboration of professors Anna Tinti and Pietro Baraldi respectively of the universities of Bologna and Modena.

In addition a multiparametric mechanical method have been used at Padua University after the construction of a new ad-hoc machine capable to acquire the results of loading and unloading cycles of single linen fibers.

Using a petrographic microscope Fanti was able to separate Shroud linen fibers from dust particles vacuumed from Shroud; the fibers have been mounted on suitable supports and then, with Dr. Pierandred Malfi performed tests of tension and compression after analizing about a dozen of antique fabrics (from bandages of mummies Egyptians of 3,000 BC, linens of Masada (Israel, 70 AD) and Medieval tissues up to recent ones.

Five mechanical parameters (tensile strength, Young’s modulus in direct and reverse cycle, loss factor and loss factor in reverse cycle) have been selected to obtain five different age-dependent curves of the samples.

After this Fanti has measured the corresponding mechanical properties of the Shroud finding the corresponding point on the scales just determined. Combining the five mechanical results, the following date for the Shroud results: 400 AD with an uncertainty of plus or minus 400 years at a 95% confidence level.

With Raman and FT-IR spectra the Italian team measured the concentration of particles of particular atomic groups of flax fibers. At the same confidence level, the first produced the date of 200 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 500 years, the latter that of the 300 BC with swings forward and back of 400 years.

Combining the two chemical methods with the mechanical one it results a mean date of 33 BC with an uncertainty of plus or minus 250 years at 95% confidence level that is compatible with the period in which Jesus Christ lived in Palestine.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: aorAki

Possibly they don't say nothing for you, but well it is clear that this is a thread that was opening to discuss Statistics methods on data analysis so it require more than just basic reading skills, you need to investigate what the authors are saying, if you don't want to rely on me.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

"(T)hey don't (ie. do not) say nothing (ie. no thing) to you. That's a double negative meaning they do say something to you. I have both reading skills and grammar skills. While you're trying to pass yourself off as a scientist I suggest that you pay more attention to grammar and critical reasoning. Next time, try matching your thread title to the actual content of your OP. When you get busted in a shell game, graciously admit that you were busted.

originally posted by: The angel of light


The material that was posted to open this thread is contained in various links that anybody can investigate is not mine. I don't have nothing to do with it, but it belong to Scientists of so reputed European Universities as Padua, Bologna, Modena , Udine, Parma and London. Laboratories of those Universities are the ones that have been working on experiments that validate the findings of Dr Giulio Fanti , who is the principal author of the book that is releasing to the public the entire research.

Fanti sounds *cough* awesome:

I would also add that I can not know if Fanti has correctly identified the fibers of the Shroud, distinguishing them from other fibers collected from the extractor, such as those of cloth or filter support, but that would be material of a more recent age than the Shroud itself and not could provide a dating at the time of Christ. In short, I believe that the results are unreliable, not for any doubts about the origin of the material, but for the inadequacy of the methods used.

Source

a reply to: Tangerine

Dear Tangerine,

It is clear that you are trying to boycott the thread in all possible ways. Everybody that have read my threads in the past knows since years ago that I am an European member of the ATS community.

My native language is not English, and maybe you don't believe this, but there are many Scientists with serious academic careers and credentials that are not American and that have published their research in other languages and even they are working right now in some of the best Universities in the USA.

Let me suggest you , just for elemental respect to the copyrights, that when you cite anything of Dr Fanti work please at least use the formal way to provide pages of his book from which you are extracting quotes , before to carry out any interpretation of them for the rest of the readers.

By the way if you don't feel satisfied with the translation into English of his work please submit your complain to the editorial.

I'm moving on from the level of personal attacks that you are trying to give to this thread.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness