It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shroud of Turin C14 results are really reliable? Why they may have failed dramatically to date it?

page: 1
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Dear Readers,

I am creating this Thread specifically to help to bring on discussion all what exist right now on the most modern advances in forensic science, Archaeology, Statistics, BioChemistry, Materials science , Physics and other disciplines to answer the great question around one of the most Historic objects of Humanity:

What is the actual age of The Shroud of Turin, with close to a hundred percent of precision ? .

We know that to prove that something is authentic talking about extremely old Historic or archaeological objects is a process that is never carried out using only one method or technique of validation, it requires cross validation using many different strategies.

Now, among all the tests that have been practicing on the Shroud of Turin, there is only one and single that is going in the opposite direction of all the others, the radio carbon testing.

If you check carefully all the tons of bibliography that exist in the public domain on the Shroud it is overwhelming the amount of evidences on that object that support it comes from Palestine and from around the time of the life span of Jesus Christ.


1)- Pollen test of samples taken from the Shroud that certify it was once in Palestine, Syria, Turkey and France was positive in that sense.

2)- Textile manufacture techniques of middle east at the 1st century gave also positive .

3) - Forensic analysis of methods of torture and execution by ancient Romans gave also positive.

4)- infrared spectroscopic photographic analysis gave also positive that the image is not painted at all but correspond to some radiation that stamped it on the cloth.

5)- Blood tests are also positive, the stains that supposedly are coming from different injuries are actually Human Serum plus bilirubin. The blood is AB that is the predominant type among Hebrew people.

6)- The Shroud has all the marks of the time that correspond to the two fires that damaged it along the History, according with records that can't be faked. There are patches on completely burnt areas , water marks and also folding marks that are like finger prints of its past.

7)- There is a complete certified record of where the Shroud has been stored or exhibited since the XII century in Europe.

8)- There is an impressive amount of extremely old icons of Christ painted since VI century that are clearly inspired in the face and body of Jesus as it appears stamped in the Shroud.

9)- Art Historians also have certified that the Shroud is not the product of any acceptable Art technique existing in the time frame we are sure there is Historic records of its existence.

Now, there has been a lot of studies along the last 20 years in the Academic community questioning the way the Radio Carbon testing was practiced and even if the object itself given its different characteristics can be accurately dated with that technique.

In particular I am informed of the following:

10) The three laboratories that carried out the Carbon testing provided dates which standard deviation violates all what is acceptable in terms of
what robust statistics has already established as quality standards for interpretation of results, as a matter of fact the only way in which they could agree in some not absurd range of dating was by ignoring the presence of so evident outliers that by themselves have enough weight to invalidate the entire test outcome.


11) In addition to that Radio Carbon testing has failed dramatically in to date correctly mummies of Egypt that we know by sure are even older than the Shroud for many centuries. This is due to the presence of Bioplastic films that use to appear as the result of bacteria presence on this kind of old burial cloths, the mixing of the original material with alterations made with much more recent ones to reinforce it , in order to carry out restoration processes, and also the exposition of the material to extremely dense smog of fires in the past, that are able to incorporate on it particles of Carbon that alter completely its original C14 profile.


This thread is open to the discussion of the topic and I encourage everybody that feels compelled to take part on it to bring your arguments with supporting sources references. Please also when reply refer to the numeral that you want either to support or to attack on the list that is provided above.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Even if it came from the same time period, that does not mean it was used on Jesus. Dating it does not mean it was not counterfeited two thousand years ago.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I disagree with the dating of the shroud. The samples used were taken from a contemporary section of the shroud.

It should be redated using portions of the original cloth.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Oh great... Another one of THESE threads...

So just a heads up. The original dating test of the shroud was SANCTIONED by the Catholic Church. It wasn't until AFTER the results came back saying it wasn't dated back to the time of Jesus that all these stupid claims about the accuracy of the test came back.

criticisms of dating and refutations

Just let go. It's a hoax. Admitting that it is a hoax doesn't disprove Jesus. So there is no chance that your faith is in jeopardy if you admit this either.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
The perfect evidence for the existence of Jesus would have been, the mention of the shroud in the gospels. As soon as Mary Magdalene arrived to the tomb, she may have taken the shroud as evidence to the disciples. Or the disciples use of the shroud as evidence of Jesus resurrection.

The gospels failed to mention that.
That would have given some credibility to the relic.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Well Dear rickymouse, your post is respectable but it is pretty off topic.

The thread is not open to discuss if this Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, that is an interesting subject, but I found it really as an ambitious goal, what we are discussing here is just to explain why in a Historic object that is from all point of view older than what the C14 says we have this so huge difference of dating with respect to other methods?

Now, by the way, I don't even imagine why, how and who two thousand years ago would be able to fake something like this with techniques that even in our time are extremely advance technology ( images created through radiation ) when any Historian can say that first there is no evidence at all to have availability of such methods on that time, and second Christians were at that period a minor sect with no economic or political power whatsoever and under a so terrible violent criminal prosecution either by the Roman Authorities or by the Jewish ones, that even with our current standards could be qualified as genocide.

Sorry, but although your comment is far from the subject it does not look to have to much sense.

Thanks for your comment.

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   


... techniques that even in our time are extremely advance technology ( images created through radiation ) ...


The Egyptians built their pyramids without "extremely advance technology". Chinese did the Great Wall, Mayans have pyramids too and many others civilizations did their thing without "extremely advance technology".

So, who knows! Maybe they did have "something".



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So just a heads up. The original dating test of the shroud was SANCTIONED by the Catholic Church. It wasn't until AFTER the results came back saying it wasn't dated back to the time of Jesus that all these stupid claims about the accuracy of the test came back.


I agree with you that it does not matter in the long run, but the fact that the test was "sanctioned" and objections came "after" the results, both words you emphasized, has no bearing on the matter. The issue is not "stupid," but reflects a real bona fide objection. Deriding the issue with sarcasm is also illogical. The test was badly handled from the beginning. Given the importance of this it is mystifying why the experimenters screwed up so badly.

I do not think for one minute that C-14 tests are generally invalid. The test works well, especially for stuff less than 50,000 years old. Trying to discredit C-14 in general is what is a stupid move here. The issue is what part of the cloth they tested. And if they tested a part of the cloth that had undergone repairs, then it is they who screwed up--not the C-14 test.

BUT, OP, though you have a long list of stuff you claim "proves" the date of the shroud, you did not list even a single reference. This is YOUR thread and one would expect you to make the case well rather than have the rest of us have to look stuff up to verify what you are talking about. In other words, because of your lack of citations, your argument is very weak. And given the orientation of your other threads and where you are coming from, you have an obvious vested interest here. You are not an objective observer.
edit on 5/6/2015 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Abednego

Well that might be a perfect validation w.r.t be the Jesus Christ Burial cloth, for whoever gives all the weight to the precision in the writing and in the translation of the Christian scriptures we have that come from that period.

Conversely, It could be not as Perfect for the ones that claim that the tradition is another so important source of faith, even as important as what it is written in the canonical scriptures.

Now, although your comment seems to be off topic, the Gospels certainly mention a burial cloth of Christ as remaining in his tomb after his body disappeared, that is something pretty clear by the way.


St John 20, 5-6
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in.
Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there,


thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Anywhere along the line, someone could have taken a cover cloth from a tomb and said it was the cloth that covered Jesus. The image could be someone elses image. You would not need to fake this, the cloth could be a real cloth, just not what it is said to be. The carbon dating could prove it was from the exact month Jesus died, but a lot of other people probably died that month. That cloth has been around for a long time, the ones who would know if it was real for sure are long dead.

I am not saying it is not real, just that the evidence can not positively show for sure that it was Jesus shroud.

There have been a lot of dishonest people through all of recorded history. I sometimes wonder when the deceit for gain really started. Probably long before any history we have can show.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Sorry schuyler,

First at all the list you mention as proofs is actually an enumeration of different tests practiced to the Shroud along his History and about which there exist information posted in the so ample bibliography that has been written on the topic, that is reachable or searchable online in the majority of the sources, so they are not my responsibility or my proofs.

The thread by the way is an open one, it is a discussion one provided that you remain on the topic. So it does not have any particular philosophy , position or any personal claim to defend, it is just a thread of a topic that is right now very popular in the web, after a lot of new findings on it.

Since the Shroud of Turin is normally associated for good or for bad with the Person of Jesus Christ, it is logical to have this thread located here in the forum of Religion, faith and Theology.

I just created it to open another neutral space of discussion for whoever is interested on the subject and has something to say in favor or against any of the listed tests or scientific arguments.

I think to have a thread on this topic that is not compromised at all with any thesis is good, the web is crowed of spaces created either to attack or the defend passionately and subjectively more than objectively and scientifically a particular position with respect to this intriguing and fascinating object.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light
So John miss the part that says that they took the shroud with them.


edit on 6-5-2015 by Abednego because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So just a heads up. The original dating test of the shroud was SANCTIONED by the Catholic Church. It wasn't until AFTER the results came back saying it wasn't dated back to the time of Jesus that all these stupid claims about the accuracy of the test came back.


I agree with you that it does not matter in the long run, but the fact that the test was "sanctioned" and objections came "after" the results, both words you emphasized, has no bearing on the matter. The issue is not "stupid," but reflects a real bona fide objection. Deriding the issue with sarcasm is also illogical. The test was badly handled from the beginning. Given the importance of this it is mystifying why the experimenters screwed up so badly.


No it wasn't. All further analyses of the shroud confirms the original dating of it. See that's the thing. The reason you are even SAYING that test was carried out poorly is because of idiotic Christians trying to cling to any argument to discredit the study that they helped get started then regretted once the results came back saying something they didn't want to hear.


I do not think for one minute that C-14 tests are generally invalid. The test works well, especially for stuff less than 50,000 years old. Trying to discredit C-14 in general is what is a stupid move here. The issue is what part of the cloth they tested. And if they tested a part of the cloth that had undergone repairs, then it is they who screwed up--not the C-14 test.


Did you read the second link that talked about this claim being a poor one?

PS: By the way, if you really want to clear this up. Just do another c-14 test and see what the results say. C-14 analysis has improved considerably since 1988. Ever wonder why they don't want to do another test?
edit on 6-5-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Where you aware the bishop that found the shroud said it was a fake and goes on to mention 28 others in various churches.And microscopic analysis revealed the image is indeed paint Which was applied the image would have been much brighter but most of the paint came off leaving the discoloration behind. Add to that the image itself think it's got blood running down his face. Now here's the problem with a burial the jews would wash and then pit oils on the body before burial. Number two supposed they didn't for some odd reason clean the body the blood would have been matted in his hair not running down his face. Then blood on the shroud appears red but problem is blood turns black quickly on a cloth try it. Than they tested it "The 'blood' has been definitively proved to be composed of red ocher and vermilion tempera paint."

During the middle ages every church had holy relics. Usually nails from the cross slivers of wood from the cross As I said shrouds and even some claimed to have the foreskin of christ. Makes you wonder how on earth they would have got that one. Church in the middle ages was all about show.


The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

If you want something that could be real there is the spear of destiny rhere is indeed a 1st century Roman spear under all those additions that were done. But even that doesn't prove it is the spear just a spear.
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr


You know the rules here , they were stated clearly since the opening post, if you come with an argument in favor or against any of the tests you need to provide actual sources, references or links.

Sorry, but to accept your claim here means that you are in position to prove it, by bringing something more solid than statements , or to at least provide a reference to somebody else, a researcher, that is trying to prove it.

We can't accept here rumors or personal opinions, or statements like I heard that somebody else say that he read somewhere this.

Historic evidences provided that are certified would be acceptable to enter in discussion, as well as findings in the Bible through new analysis or translations if they might mention a shroud that could be the Turin one.

Now, the opinions or talks of John Calvin are clearly an off topic subject, they don't have any relevance in relation with our discussion, was him a scientist? what was his discipline? his credentials? or published scientific papers? did he even write something about the Shroud?.

We are not interested in the beliefs of John Calvin or the ones of anybody else, we want to bring here actual research evidence on the topic.


Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: dragonridr
You know the rules here , they were stated clearly since the opening post, if you come with an argument in favor or against any of the tests you need to provide actual sources, references or links.

Sorry, but to accept your claim here means that you are in position to prove it, by bringing something more solid than statements , or to at least provide a reference to somebody else, a researcher, that is trying to prove it.

Can you please give accurate citations for points 1 to 11 in the OP?

This might sound like I'm being a smart ass, but I would actually use them.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

Sure Dear Pinke,

I will save you years on research in the topic. Here there is the list of papers published by the members of STURP, that is the interdisciplinary team of scientists that got privileged access to the Shroud of Turin in between 1978 and 1981. Those papers are crucial to understand the findings on tests enumerated here in between 1 to 9.

1. Accetta, J.S. and J.S. Baumgart, "Infrared Reflectance Spectroscopy and Thermographic Investigations of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1921-1929.

2. Avis, C., D. Lynn, J. Lorre, S. Lavoie, J. Clark, E. Armstrong, and J. Addington, "Image Processing of the Shroud of Turin," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 554-558.

3. Devan, D. and V. Miller, "Quantitative Photography of the Shroud of Turin," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 548-553.

4. Ercoline, W.R., R.C. Downs, Jr. and J.P. Jackson, "Examination of the Turin Shroud for Image Distorions," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 576-579.

5. Gilbert, R., Jr. and M.M. Gilbert, "Ultraviolet-Visible Reflectance and Fluorescence Spectra of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1930-1936.

6. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "Blood on the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744.

7. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103.

8. Jackson, J.P., E.J. Jumper and W.R. Ercoline, "Three Dimensional Characteristic of the Shroud Image," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 559-575.

9. Jackson, J.P., E.J. Jumper, and W.R. Ercoline, "Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape," Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, 1984, pp. 2244-2270.

10. Jumper, E.J. and R.W. Mottern, "Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 12, 1980, pp. 1909-1912.

11. Jumper, E.J., "An Overview of the Testing Performed by the Shroud of Turin Research Project with a Summary of Results," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 535-537.

12. Jumper, E.J., A.D. Adler, J.P. Jackson, S.F. Pellicori, J.H. Heller and J.R. Drusik. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin," Archaeological Chemistry III, ACS Advances in Chemistry No. 205, J.B. Lambert, Editor, Chapter 22, American Chemical Society, Washington D.C., 1984, pp. 447-476.

13. Miller, V.D. and S.F. Pellicori, "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the Shroud of Turin," Journal of Biological Photography, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1981, pp. 71-85.

14. Morris, R.A., L.A. Schwalbe and J.R. London, "X-Ray Fluorescence Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," X-Ray Spectrometry, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1980, pp. 40-47.

15. Mottern, R.W., R.J. London and R.A. Morris, "Radiographic Examination of the Shroud of Turin - A Preliminary Report," Materials Evaluation, Vol. 38, No. 12 pp. 39-44.

16. Pellicori, S.F., "Spectral Properties of the Shroud of Turin," Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 12, pp. 1913-1920.

17. Pellicori, S. and M.S. Evans, "The Shroud of Turin Through the Microscope," Archaeology, January/February 1981, pp. 34-43.

18. Pellicori, S.F. and R.A. Chandos, "Portable Unit Permits UV/vis Study of 'Shroud'," Industrial Research and Development, February 1981, pp. 186-189.

19. Schwalbe, L.A. and R.N. Rogers, "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp. 3-49.

20. Schwortz, B.M., "Mapping of Research Test-Point Areas on the Shroud of Turin," IEEE 1982 Proceedings of the International Conference on Cybernetics and Society, October 1982, pp. 538-547.

Thanks for your question, I am going to update more on this in my next reply.

The Angel of Lightness



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Dear Readers,

In addition to the above listed papers published in refereed scientific journals, four additional articles written by STURP members and published in other publications are included: (There probably are more of these).

21. Bucklin, Robert, "The Shroud of Turin: a Pathologist's Viewpoint," Legal Medicine Annual, 1982. (No page numbers available)

22. Dinegar, Robert Hudson. "The Shroud of Turin - A Look at the Overall Picture," The Living Church, May 17, 1981, pp. 9-11.

23. Jumper, E.J., K. Stevenson, Jr., and J.P. Jackson. "Images of Coins on a Burial Cloth?," The Numismatist, July 1978, pp. 1349-1357.

24. Miller, V., and D. Lynn, "De Lijwade Van Turjin," Natuur en Techniek, February 1981, pp. 102-125.

At the suggestion of Larry Schwalbe, I am including some additional refereed articles describing work that builds on the 1978 investigation. Larry explained, "...we learned in Turin that the image is a product of cellulose degradation, so a few of us studied thermal processes for a while":

25. John P. Jackson, Eugene Arthurs, Larry A. Schwalbe, Ronald M. Sega, David E. Windisch, William H. Long, and Eddy A. Stappaerts, "A New Tool for Cellulose Degradation Studies," Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology: Symposium held April 6-8, 1988, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., Ed. Edward V. Sayre et al., Materials Research Society 123, pp. 311-316 (1988).

26. John P. Jackson, Eugene Arthurs, Larry A. Schwalbe, Ronald M. Sega, David E. Windisch, William H. Long, and Eddy A. Stappaerts, "Infrared Laser Heating for Studies of Cellulose Degradation," Appled Optics 27(18), 3937-3943 (1988).

Larry goes on, "...also Bob Dinegar (STURP Team Member) and I presented some thoughts about what could be learned from isotopic measurements of the cloth in":

27. R. H. Dinegar and L. A. Schwalbe, "Isotope Measurements and Provenance Studies of the Turin Shroud," in Archaeological Chemistry IV, Ed. Ralph O. Allen, Advances in Chemistry Series 220 (American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 1989) Chapter 23.

Larry concluded, "As I said, these papers do not deal directly with the data collected in 1978. Instead, the work was intended to serve as background to support a future investigation that we thought was still possible in the late 80s. There are probably more papers like these. Perhaps including these will flush out more such information." Larry was correct and the following paper came to my attention thanks to Emanuela Marinelli:

28. Laurance R. Doyle, Jean J. Lorre and Eric B. Doyle, "The application of computer image processing techniques to artifact analysis as applied to the Shroud of Turin study," Studies in Conservation, Volume 31, Number 1, p.1-6, 1986. (Link to abstract only).

The following paper was added on September 26, 2012 thanks to input from Gabriel on Dan Porter's Shroud of Turin blog. Note that one of the authors, Jim Drusik, was a member of the STURP team:

29. DeNiro, M.J., Sternberg, L., Marino, B. and Drusik, J. - Relation between D/H ratios and 180 and 160 ratios in cellulose from linen and maize. Implications for paleoclimatology and sindonology. Geochim.-Cosmochim.-Acta, 1988, vol 52., 2189-2196.

Although many years have passed since I first created this list, I felt it was important to add the following peer reviewed paper in January 2005. This paper provides critical new information about the sample used for carbon 14 dating of the Shroud in 1988:

30. Raymond N. Rogers, "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta Vol. 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

if you want to be updated anytime in the future on this official bibliography and more papers that continue the line of research of the previous ones, please refer to:

www.shroud.com...


Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness



edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Investigators for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) included:

Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John Heller, New England Institute
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*


Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.

By the way the following link provides an excellent introduction on why the Radio Carbon C14 test fails in to gives a accurate dating of the Shroud, it gives access to more bibliography that supports the claim number 11) of the list in the opening Post.

www.newgeology.us...

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Dear Readers,

Claim 11) of our original list of tests is based primarily in the following research:

Raymond N. Rogers. 20 January 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin. Thermochimica Acta, Vol. 425, Issue 1-2, Pages 189-194.

2. The Fire-Model Tests of Dr. Dmitri Kouznetsov in 1994 and Drs. John Jackson and Propp in 1998, which replicated the famous Fire of 1532, demonstrated that the fire added carbon isotopes to the linen.

Dmitri Kouznetsov, Andrey Ivanov, Pavel Veletsky. 5 January 1996. Effects of fires and biofractionation of carbon isotopes on results of radiocarbon dating of old textiles: the Shroud of Turin. Journal of Archaeological Science, Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 109-121. doi:10.1006/jasc.1996.0009

Jackson, John P. and Propp, Keith. 1997. On the evidence that the radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was significantly affected by the 1532 fire. Actes du III Symposium Scientifique International du CIELT, Nice, France

Now, there is an interdisciplinary team of University of Padua and Bologna that has carried out a new non invasive testing using much modern spectroscopy techniques on fibers of linen from the Shroud that were originally sampled in 1978 and they results are being matter of great analysis in the scientific community right now.

This is important since comes from the same team that is in behind the claim 10) of the list, the same Scientists that have questioning the validity of the 1980s C14 test using methods of Robust Statistics.

This team said to have conducted test on the religious relic at the University of Padua in northern Italy. There conclusions suggest that the “shroud” of Turin dates back in time to between 300 B.C. and 400 A.D., a few centuries before or after the historic Christ lived.

Results of the latest test has been published in Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta’s new book, titled, “Il Mistero della Sindone” or “The Mystery of the Shroud.”

Fanti is a professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, and Gaeta is a professional journalist. Their tests have revived the debate over the true origins of one of Christianity’s most prized but mysterious relics.

According to their book, the two used infra-red light and spectroscopy – the measurement of radiation intensity through wavelengths – to analyses fibers from the shroud. The sacred cloth is kept in a special climate-controlled case in Turin, and has been their since 1578. They claim their study shows that the shroud is much older than previous tests had concluded.

Read more at guardianlv.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



edit on 5/6/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
3
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join