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: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Ok first the negative thing easy make a statue put paint on it wrap with cloth. All you need is a statue of Jesus nit hard in middle ages. now here is the full chwmical analysis.

www.holyshroudguild.org...&ved=0CBwQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNEgCtFWq38Ir7hmoF5NDxXOXXwu2A&sig2=FtIQ7mbYg6R126UzzPWxtw

And finally we already know about the carbon dating put it squarely in the middle ages. Along with the chemical analysis. Didn't you ever wonder why the Vatican was unwilling to say its jesus??
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Dear Readers,

Here is the official press report released by the Vatican city from the results of the new tests practiced on samples of the Shroud by the Team of Dr Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, Italy.

According to the Vatican Insider article:

"the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years."


This can be summarised as:
•Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: 300 BC ±400, i.e. 700 BC-AD 100;
•Raman spectroscopy: 200 BC ± 500, i.e. 700 BC-AD 300; and
•Multi-parametric mechanical: 400 AD ± 400, i.e. AD 1 - AD 800.
•The average of all three dates is 33 BC ± 250 years, i.e. 283 BC-AD 217.
So all three tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) , falls.

The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.

This has been taken from the following link:

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragondr,

Once again, you come here now with a broken link that only returns the following:

404. That’s an error.

Second, you are speculating around how to make a fake Burial Cloth and later say that is of Christ, that is again off Topic, we are not here interested in techniques to falsify such kind of objects.

We are just interested in one single object that has been proven by serious researchers is not painted at all.

Finally you are trying to deviate the topic again to speculate about a supposed conspiracy in the Vatican, something that is not discussed here, because is not our topic, there is a forum of those subjects in ATS where I am sure your posts may be acceptable.

Again the topic here is the Shroud of Turin as an object and its dating and how to explain why the C14 is giving such a biased date when right now we have already other scientific tests that are providing radical different dating on the same object.

The New dating of the Shroud comes from faculty members of the Mechanical Engineering Department of one of the eldest Universities of Europe, Padua, and it belongs to a team that has been working on this topic also in collaboration with Bologna University.


Please understand that this is a serious Thread opened for researchers on the Topic, to discuss in actual published research, it is not a panel of discussion of sensationalist theories that belong to the land of tabloids.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



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



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

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

Dear Readers,

Here is the official press report released by the Vatican city from the results of the new tests practiced on samples of the Shroud by the Team of Dr Giulio Fanti of the University of Padua, Italy.

According to the Vatican Insider article:

"the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years."


This can be summarised as:
•Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy: 300 BC ±400, i.e. 700 BC-AD 100;
•Raman spectroscopy: 200 BC ± 500, i.e. 700 BC-AD 300; and
•Multi-parametric mechanical: 400 AD ± 400, i.e. AD 1 - AD 800.
•The average of all three dates is 33 BC ± 250 years, i.e. 283 BC-AD 217.
So all three tests yield a date range in which Jesus' death (either AD 30 or AD 33) , falls.

The experiments were carried out on fibres taken from the Shroud during a previous study, in 1988, when they were subjected to carbon-14 dating.

This has been taken from the following link:

theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness




Not an acurate way to date anything youonly used infra-red light and spectroscopy when you can't do carbon dating. Reason being it's not acurate because you have to look for CO2 releases at specific wave lengths but the test is to easy to invalidate your results. Works when dating millions of years because if your off by 2000 or so your ok.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Well,

There is a pretty serious reason to don't rely anymore in the C14 dating practiced on 1988 on the samples of the Shroud, because there was huge levels of contamination in the samples themselves , something that has already showed by multiple researchers I have also mentioned and second because the results proven to be useless and unreliable by testing them with Robust Statistics Techniques.

The standard deviation of all the possible dates they provided are out of what is acceptable on a good behaved test. The relative variance on the date is really big from what one laboratory got to other: from 591 to 795 years old. This is the reason for which two outliers were completely ignored by the 3 labs to try to use the C14 data for dating, in their desperation to try to match their results, that were precisely these two extreme dates.

These results 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).

Here is a written version of an exhaustive interview to Dr Fanti on the topic:

www.shroud.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

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



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Its a PDF download it then read it .one more thing don't need to get hostile I personally don't care if the shroud dates to 1st century or not. You seem to have a vested intrest since you seem to be upset. The chemical analysis is straight forward it's paint on the shroud. If you choose to believe it's real that's up to you nothing I say is going to change that. If you simply want facts read the PDF.
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:28 PM
link   

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

Well,

There is a pretty serious reason to don't rely anymore in the C14 dating practiced on 1988 on the samples of the Shroud, because there was huge levels of contamination in the samples themselves , something that has already showed by multiple researchers I have also mentioned and second because the results proven to be useless and unreliable by testing them with Robust Statistics Techniques.

The standard deviation of all the possible dates they provided are out of what is acceptable on a good behaved test. The relative variance on the date is really big from what one laboratory got to other: from 591 to 733 years old. This is the reason for which two outliers were completely ignored by the 3 labs to try to use the C14 data for dating, in their desperation to try to match their results.

We know that the nature of the radio Carbon testing never gives 100% level of confidence, it is nearby 94% with limits that varies in between +-30 to +- 61 years, but if you check my previous paragraph we have 142 years in between the two extreme dates got in 1988, that is beyond any tolerance that is acceptable in C14.

These results 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).

Here is a written version of an exhaustive interview to Dr Fanti on the topic:

www.shroud.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness




The whole fire thing as an excuse of contamination is just wrong the C14 dating wouldn't be effected by a real Lab but then you post dating that used infra-red light and spectroscopy and your all for that. Hugely funny really it is since that's effected in so many ways and needs to have the data interpreted by frequency. Ser this isn't used for dating normally it tells you chemical make up of the sample. To date this way you have to have another sample made at the same time it the same place. Then you directly compare their signatures.
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragonridr

We know that the nature of the radio Carbon testing never gives 100% level of confidence, it is nearby 94% with limits that varies in between +-30 to +- 61 years, but if you check my previous reply we have 204 years in between the two extreme dates got in 1988, that is beyond any tolerance that is acceptable in C14.

So this is not a question that we don't want to accept the C!4 dating, is that the results are clearly unacceptable since they violate all standards of quality that any serious researcher would be open to tolerate, no Scientist in his sane mind will risk his prestige basing any argument on such a messed data.

Here a link, that by the way is not even friendly with the shroud that published the actual dates of all the three labs, overthere anybody can confirm that there is no exaggeration the variability of the results.

www.religioustolerance.org...

The two extreme dates are : Arizona 591(+-30) and Zurich 795(+-65)

The other dates are:

Arizona 591 (30) 690 (35) 606 (41) 701 (33)

Oxford 795 (65) 730 (45) 745 (55)

Zurich 733 (61) 722 (56) 635 (57) 639 (45) 679 (51)

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   

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

Dear dragonridr

We know that the nature of the radio Carbon testing never gives 100% level of confidence, it is nearby 94% with limits that varies in between +-30 to +- 61 years, but if you check my previous reply we have 204 years in between the two extreme dates got in 1988, that is beyond any tolerance that is acceptable in C14.

So this is not a question that we don't want to accept the C!4 dating, is that the results are clearly unacceptable since they violate all standards of quality that any serious researcher would be open to tolerate, no Scientist in his sane mind will risk his prestige basing any argument on such a messed data.

Here a link, that by the way is not even friendly with the shroud that published the actual dates of all the three labs, overthere anybody can confirm that there is no exaggeration the variability of the results.

www.religioustolerance.org...

The two extreme dates are : Arizona 591(+-30) and Zurich 795(+-65)

The other dates are:

Arizona 591 (30) 690 (35) 606 (41) 701 (33)

Oxford 795 (65) 730 (45) 745 (55)

Zurich 733 (61) 722 (56) 635 (57) 639 (45) 679 (51)

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness




That's because you don't understand c14 and how it works. See they had multiple samples meaning they would get diffrent dates and those dates would each have a margin of error. So thus you get the date range they never do just 1 test. To gurantee acurate you want to do at least 3. Read the tests they gave you the dates. By the way did you know the Vatican paid for thos tests.
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragonrid,

Please I am Statistician by the way, I am not ignorant on what is the way to read C14 results, please read the History of how it was sampled the Shroud for the C14 test of 1988.

All the sampling came from exactly the same area of Shroud , in one corner of it, the size and location was so narrow that it is practically impossible to attribute the difference in the dating to different sampling. We are talking of subsamples of less than a square centimeter that were C14 tested by each laboratory.

Here a good pdf link that explains the conditions of the sample, from it was taken and also the quality of it.

www.shroud.it...

By the way, two of the dates the one with mean value 591 and the one with mean value 794 were dismissed as non valid outliers, by an agreement in between the three labs, in order to find the way to match their results with in the boundaries of what is acceptable in C14 testing.

My Masters thesis in Statistics is precisely in detection and treatment of outliers and believe me to reject them is the most rough way to handle them, it is last possibility that any Analyst might carry when dealing with them, something that one only consider if there is absolute certainty that the test was really wrong somewhere, like when a measuring instrument is detected broken , not correctly calibrated or so.

This is something unthinkable that could be done by serious professionals working in such an important project for so reputed labs, it is not something for which they can be proud, especially now that Statisticians have found their omissions.

Outliers can't be rejected, must be explained, and since the variance was so big there was no other explanation than there were some hidden variables not being considered in any regression model, linear or not linear, to try to find a fit on that data.

So it was clear since the moment they compared their results that they were not just dealing only with natural degradation of C14 but with something else in the middle. The point is that instead to accept the challenge and talk about it openly they decided to hide the problem and go around it, opting for a very mediocre solution.

So at least one hidden variable was absent of to be present in any data model elaborated to analyze the results. This can be easily explained due to one or more different contamination factors present together, like the bioplastic material, the restoration with much modern fibers of the original material, the effect of the exposition to dense smog in at least two occasions along History.


Here is the paper that first time publically disclosed the criticism based on the heterogeneity of the data about the validity of the C14 results of this so famous 1988 dating process.

Statistics and Computing, Springer Journal
July 2013, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 551-561
Date: 27 Apr 2012

Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

by Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti, Fabio Crosilla

This is the seminal paper to support claim 10) of this thread original list of claims.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness


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



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

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

Sure Dear Pinke,

I will save you years on research in the topic.

Thank yooooooooooooooooooooooou!

I'd give you more stars etc if I could
but I'm only a lowly peasant so I can't. I'll start reading though.



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinke

You are welcome dear Pinke, enjoy the readings, they are all interesting papers.

By the way let me clarify that if I am requesting to maintain certain formalism in the replies, like to cite references
and be in the topic all the time, it is because I am aware that this has been a highly controversial subject in other
threads.

So everybody is welcome to reply provided that you have a source to support your position with respect
to any of the 11 original claims in the Opening post.

I am not upset with anybody here, just trying to maintain a thread on this topic running well all the time,
giving space to a pretty interesting and civilized discussion that in the long run contribute to improve the quality
on the exchange of the ideas in the forum.

If you feel that you don't have solid references take your time, look for them, or ask as Pinke did,
I am always opened to advise you where you can find what you are looking about the Shroud bibliography.

Thanks,

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



posted on May, 6 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   

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

Dear dragonrid,

Please I am Statistician by the way, I am not ignorant on what is the way to read C14 results, please read the History of how it was sampled the Shroud for the C14 test of 1988.

All the sampling came from exactly the same area of Shroud , in one corner of it, the size and location was so narrow that it is practically impossible to attribute the difference in the dating to different sampling. We are talking of subsamples of less than a square centimeter that were C14 tested by each laboratory.

Here a good pdf link that explains the conditions of the sample, from it was taken and also the quality of it.

www.shroud.it...

By the way, two of the dates the one with mean value 591 and the one with mean value 794 were dismissed as non valid outliers, by an agreement in between the three labs, in order to find the way to match their results with in the boundaries of what is acceptable in C14 testing.

My Masters thesis in Statistics is precisely in detection and treatment of outliers and believe me to reject them is the most rough way to handle them, it is last possibility that any Analyst might carry when dealing with them, something that one only consider if there is absolute certainty that the test was really wrong somewhere, like when a measuring instrument is detected broken , not correctly calibrated or so.

This is something unthinkable that could be done by serious professionals working in such an important project for so reputed labs, it is not something for which they can be proud, especially now that Statisticians have found their omissions.

Outliers can't be rejected, must be explained, and since the variance was so big there was no other explanation than there were some hidden variables not being considered in any regression model, linear or not linear, to try to find a fit on that data.

So it was clear since the moment they compared their results that they were not just dealing only with natural degradation of C14 but with something else in the middle. The point is that instead to accept the challenge and talk about it openly they decided to hide the problem and go around it, opting for a very mediocre solution.

So at least one hidden variable was absent of to be present in any data model elaborated to analyze the results. This can be easily explained due to one or more different contamination factors present together, like the bioplastic material, the restoration with much modern fibers of the original material, the effect of the exposition to dense smog in at least two occasions along History.


Here is the paper that first time publically disclosed the criticism based on the heterogeneity of the data about the validity of the C14 results of this so famous 1988 dating process.

Statistics and Computing, Springer Journal
July 2013, Volume 23, Issue 4, pp 551-561
Date: 27 Apr 2012

Regression analysis with partially labelled regressors: carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin

by Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti, Fabio Crosilla

This is the seminal paper to support claim 10) of this thread original list of claims.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness



Well then your not a good static I am because that's the way all C14 tests work they have an acuracy rate of about 100 years. So 3 tests will be within 100 years and than you have a margin for error. Notice though that even being off by 100 years doesn't come close to making it a first century item. And i also see your ignoring the chemical analysis do you read the PDF? ? Oh and it doesn't matter where the sample is from unless your arguing that this corner wss newer than the rest of the shroud. Which would be unusual to say the least.
edit on 5/6/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragonridr,


Excuse me but the correct way to say is Statistician, now, I never have claimed that the test of 1988 as it was had any chance to produce a date of the 1st Century.

What I am saying is that the great variability in the results was clearly atypical, in all of them, not just in the ones the labs wanted to pay attention to, because it is not professional to dismiss part of the data just because it does not match well.

When there is so much heterogeneity in the dating data that only can reveal that the sample itself was far to be homogenous, and in this scenario that means that there was present a lot of contamination. Under such circumstances no result would be reliable, no dating acceptable at all, because it is not dating the real object, but a composite of that object plus many other elements that of course were added to it along centuries, so any date as a product of such test will give a date that is an average of what is the truly original material plus the contaminants, and that was precisely what happened.

This is not the first time that C14 fails dramatically to date old burial objects that it was known were older than the results, it happened again with Egyptian mummies.

One of the most famous example of this bias in the correct dating due to bacterial contamination on burial wrappings is the case of he Egyptian Mummy No. 1770 of the Manchester museum.

Pls read:

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

publication of unwrapping of mummy 1770 Manchester museum

ethos.bl.uk...

www.varchive.org...

The person that found that a bacterial contamination of the mummy was the most likely explanation of why some parts were older than others, was Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes, a faculty of the University of Texas at San Antonio.

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

Dr Garza-Valdes discovered this by accident trying to date Maya object that from all points of view seemed to be authentic but the C14 carbon was dating in a time 600 years after that style was no longer in production. He found that bacteria have coated the object with a bio plastic material that was responsible of the bias in the test.

In the case of the Shroud C14 dating the most correct ethic attitude from the three laboratories would be to have called a press conference in that year of 1988 to recognize publically that the test was not working well with that sample, there were non conclusive results from their tests and that it was needed ulterior testing and also deep Statistical analysis to investigate what was going on.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/7/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Seems to me your fishing for reasons to invalidate the test. Look I showed you it's made of paint so if you want to claim it's a 1st century forgery so be it. Either way you are now claiming that a fungus some hiw altered the results. Well see that is possible but how stupid would the lab be to grab a piece with mold on it. C14 I'd based off the fact living organisms collect C14 during their life. So the cloth once being a living organism will collect c 14 from the atmisphere. By determining rate of decay we can scale backward when this stuff was made.

Contamination of the results can only occur if biological matter was added onto the shroud later. Like a molds and fungus neither of which is present on th shroud.By the way the fire that people mention wouldn't effect the results we do carbon 14 dating on ashes in a fire pit to date a site. So as much as you would like it to be wrong it isn't there were no inconclusive results they in fact we were pretty good gave a date range on all the samples.As I said choose to lie to yourself I understand faith but don't try to say the results are wrong just simply say I don't believe carbon dating works. Now how do you explain the red ocker and the paint on it just curious.
edit on 5/7/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 7 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Excuse me dragonridr,

You didn't show here nothing at all, you were unable to provide any reliable source or serious reference to any scientist
or academic team that supports the thesis that the Shroud was painted.

Sorry, but again this is a serious thread on this topic, you can't pretend to convince us with a broken link and a novel
that you are manufacturing around a look like Davinci Code theory of a falsified relic that only exist in fiction or
tabloids.


Instead, I provided a lot of serious bibliography ( the first 20 references of the bibliography I have already posted ) of
actual scientists that discharged the hypothesis of that the shroud was painted since 1978, they belonged to the original
multidisciplinary team called Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).

All those papers are serious work on physical, chemical, microscopic and spectroscopic analysis of the Shroud,
no body there claim to have found ever that the image was painted, that is absolutely false, is misinformation.

Who is going to try to test with C14 a visible painting? My God that is the most ridicule theory somebody ever have made, Do you really think that we are going to eat such a tale that three of the most reputed laboratories in this kind of test plus a big team of experts coming from the best research centers of that time in the world were going to sample something that everybody can see is an Art work?, that is people that cant be fooled in such a way!

There were in that team people from the Air Force and the National Science Laboratory at Los Alamos, do you really think that they are the kind of naïve people unable to distinguish a painting from an actual burial cloth?

Here the question is not if this is or not a real Burial Cloth, but to whom it belongs?, how old is it? and how that image was radiated on it, what kind of physical event is in behind it ?


The image on the shroud is not made with any dye, art stains or painting at all, the analysis to find any
trace of artist pigments was carried out both by scientists and experts in Art using even microscopes of great resolution.

The Artist Isabel Piczek who works for the McCrone Research Institute and was invited to take part on the analysis devoted long time to explore all the possibilities of a forgery made by an Artist and she was able to discharge all of them with out leaving any possible space for reasonable doubt.

Here a link that explains better how this tests were done:

www.shroud.com...

Thanks, but look please for the ATS forums devoted to Science Fiction or Daniel Brown Novels.

The Angel of Lightness


edit on 5/7/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Again read the PDF it is the official report including fibers chemical analysis Discusses paint uaed.You apparently can read a PDF update your browser. It shows it's a painting and the cloth dates from middle ages for one it uses whitners. See you can continue to believe the shroud is real doesn't matter for others read the PDF it makes it obvious this was a miedeval fake. As I said 27 others that we know of. So apparently Jesus died alot in the first century.

Here it is again

www.holyshroudguild.org...

edit on 5/8/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragonridr,

As a matter of fact it was this paper of Mr. Walter C Mckrone the one that justify the calling of Isabel Pitzek, who is a religious Artist and a particle Physicist, that was once affiliated to the same Research Institute, to either support the initial findings or to give an explanation of what was going on. The research of Mrs Pitzek is after the one of Mr Mckrone, and definitively contradicts the statement that the Shroud is a Painting.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.shroud.com...

What is her explanation:

- First at all the findings of Mr Walter C Mckrone were never beyond the level of particles per million, if you read or anybody do that pdf he is always talking of microns, also of particles of pigment that can't be detectable at simple glance.

- It was required great resolution power microscopic to be able to see the particles, second the tapes he is mentioning were pasted and removed from the Shroud and they never carried blasts of painting, just particles that were almost invisible at naked eye.

- No body has ever found important amounts of any pigment on the Shroud, as well as not stroke of any brush in any point of it, as well as the image is not painted, there are dozens of studies about it, and some of them are mentioned in the list of references I have provided in previous posts.

- Now, along centuries the Shroud was several times replicated by Artists, they made copies of it because a lot of people started to develop devotion to it, and many pilgrims were unable to reach Turin, there were followers of the devotion to the Holy Shroud along all Europe, and so different noble families, members of the Royal houses paid copies of it in order to have something located in churches in their countries to be exhibited for the devotes.

- Every time that a copy was made by an Artist it was allowed by the Church to touch the copy to the original, in order to gain blessing, since as I mentioned in one of my previous posts in this thread it is believed that the contact directly or indirectly with the body of Christ makes miracles. Guess what else happen when a painted copy is touched to the Original? the same that when the scotch tapes of Mr Mckrone touched the Shroud!.

- How many of these Artistic copies of the Shroud were made in History?, really are so many , it is different to estimate the precise amount, Today are no longer painted, but they are still touched to the original, here are some of examples of them:

philadelphia.cbslocal.com...

republicanherald.com...

Now, there are famous painted copies of the Shroud, all touched to the original:

- The Bensanson Shroud, that was destroyed during the French Revolution,
- The Lier copy of 1516,
- The Guadalupe copy of 1568
- The LIsbona copy of 1620,
- The Naples copy of 1652
- The Cuneo copy of 1653

You can read more about These famous copies at:

greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

Since all these painted copies were touched to the Original, so logically every time that this was done particles of the copies pigments were transferred to the Original, so that is the ultimate explanation of the microscopic findings of Mr McKrone, that by the way remains as an insolated paper in his bold claims, even I don't see any reference cited by him, supporting his thesis.

Now, Let me quote:


There is nothing new in this claim by Antonio Lombatti that there are many copies of the Shroud. In 2004 a paper by a Daniel Duque Torres, who had made a special study of Shroud copies, was published in the British Society of the Turin Shroud Newsletter:

"There are copies the same size as the original, some very small ones (just 10 cm long), others with the spear and nail wounds in different positions, some with a crown of thorns and others without it, some from the same workshop and others absolutely anonymous. Some have texts written on (in Latin, French, Spanish and Italian) etc, ... [in] the eighteenth century ... a copy was made without permission of the House of Savoy, painted from another copy that had been given to Charles II, king of Spain. Another copy was made from the second one. The Savoy family encouraged the tradition to such an extent that Princess Francisca Maria Apollonia spent long periods of her leisure time painting copies of the Shroud that were then distributed according to specific requests or simple friendship. ... many copies made in the sixteenth century and the first half of the seventeenth were given to the royal family and nobility of Spain ... Many of the copies from this time were produced in Chambéry, where the original was kept until 1578. However, in the second half of the seventeenth century and all through the eighteenth, most copies stayed in Italy ... copies were made for the other side of the Atlantic (Argentina and Mexico) ... There are earlier copies in France, although most probably based on the Besançon shroud. ... When we know the date of a copy we can sometimes attribute it to a specific painter or even relate it to another copy which has since been lost. Such is the case of the copy kept in Pamplona, Spain, painted in 1571. This copy was only discovered recently and we can confidently state that it is the "twin" of the copy in Alcoy (Alicante), Spain, also painted in 1571. ... A similar relationship can be established for the famous Lierre (Belgium) copy, painted in 1516, once attributed to Durero but more probably the work of Bernard van Orley, and the copy held today by the National Museum of Ancient Art in Xábregas, Lisbon (Portugal), painted in the early sixteenth century. The Emperor Maximilian of Austria had requested both. There are documents which suggest that the Lierre copy was ordered by Margarita of Austria, Duchess of Savoy, when she moved the court from Malinas to Brussels ... There are two things that can be seen on Shroud copies – the texts, informing us of where and when it was made or reminding us of what the original is, and the image painted onto the cloth. ... There are various ways that this is explained on the copies, either telling people what it is or simply confirming the authenticity of the copy. Sentences such as ... the most common "Extractum ex originali", on numerous copies dating from the 17th century, when more copies were made than in any other century. Most copies were touched to the original, excepting of course those made fraudulently from other copies without the owner's permission. In this way a secondary relic "ad tactum" was created. This is evident from the cloth of many copies, on which a sentence to the effect of "touched to the original" was written in different languages ... If a date is given on the copy, it is usually just the year, although sometimes we can find the day and month, even the date when the copy was touched to the original....


theshroudofturin.blogspot.com...

Sorry but there is nothing substantial on what you posted but it is interesting anyway.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness





edit on 5/8/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

No afraid not even mentions college use on the shroud explains the cloths textile isn't right for 1st century it wa s bleached. The paint came off long ago most of the shroud is just now stains on 5 he fibers caused by the paint. And no painting was allowed to touch directly to the shroud. It was folded and they would sit the other one next to it there was a ceremony involved. They did not ever put one on the other it was a holy Relic.That's a myth sorry

Do you even realize that the shroud isn't a burial cloth go look them up. The forger didn know what one looked like. In Jewish burials a soudarion was used it went over the head seprately. Think of it as a handkerchief . In fact is mentioned in the bible And Christ’s head was separately covered with a small cloth (soudarion) according to John 20:7.But here's the funny pary burial shrouds used on the middle ages exactly like that odd don't you think?? In the middle ages instead of using multiple cloths they used one tucked under the body. In judiasm thet would anoint part if the body and rao it. Most burial linens cisisted if 6 parts. In the middle ages it changed the reason simple it made it easier to remove the body. There version of a body bag the peop o e hauling it wouldn't have to touch the body.

As I already mentioned the body wad cleaned and washed meaning all traces of blood would be gone.Not one but 3 diffrent labs oxford, arixona and zurich dated the shroud wasnt just one person. The earliest mention of Thr shroid of turin is 1355 used at an Easter festival which many believe why it w as created.


So if you believe the shroud is real hate to tell you your directly contradicting the bible and Johns eyewitness testimony.

Just for your entertainment look into the image of Edessa. It dates back to the 4th century.That was a soudarion used in the first century it supposedly he'd the image if Jesus well his face anyway.



posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

Dear dragonridr,

I am talking about this piece of Cloth from a scientific perspective, there is nothing here involved to beliefs, you are speculating and in your attempt to prove your point you are right now more interested in me than in the Shroud, because it is clear that at the level of this object I have showed enough serious scientific research to dismiss each of your objections with very convincing arguments.

Now, again you are wrong, the Protocols of the handling of the Shroud and also who and in which circumstances can have direct access to it and moreover touch it have changed dramatically since the middle ages to our days. about two hundred years ago it was still possible to touch an entire painted copy to the entire original almost point by point to gain sainthood for the replica.

Today of course no body has such access to the relic, it is absolutely unthinkable that after all the studies on it the church will again allow such touching of it, that only would add more contamination to it.


Now, the principal reason for which the carbon C14 dating failed is because the entire Shroud was rewoven using cotton fibers by nuns in the past. There is right now enough testing data that show that very important part of the current cloth is not coming from the original linen shroud, but from the repairs that carried out a complete reweave of it in cotton.

Here I am including a video prepared to explain the findings of Mr Raymond Rogers, a Thermochemical expert researcher, that found that one of the areas of the Shroud that got more cotton per area was precisely the one from which the sample of the 1988 C14 test was taken. It was one of the worst areas of the cloth to be sampled at all, that is the truth.

www.gap-system.org...

Here is his seminal papers that remains as one of the most solid and serious ever written that challenge the accuracy of the Carbon dating.

www.shroud.it...

Here is the Vita of Raymond Rogers:

Rogers was born in Albuquerque, New Mexico. At the University of Arizona he studied chemistry receiving a BS in 1950. From 1951 to 1988 he was an explosives research expert and thermal analyst with the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (later called Los Alamos National Laboratory or LANL). From 1987 until 1992 he served on the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board with the equivalent rank of Lt. General, and received a Distinguished Service Award. He received other awards and recognitions from LANL and many professional organizations. He was granted a sabbatical in 1968 to pursue post-graduate studies in archaeology.

During his career Rogers published over forty peer-reviewed papers on chemistry. In 1981 he was named Laboratory Fellow at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Other honors included being named a Tour Speaker for the American Chemical Society in 1971, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Distinguished Performance Award in 1984 and the Department of the Air Force Exceptional Civilian Service Medal in 1991. He also served as the editor for Energetic Materials, a peer-reviewed scientific journal from 1983-1988. He was also on the editorial board of Thermochimica Acta from the first issue of this journal in 1970 (also the very first paper published in the first issue of this journal is authored by him) until his retirement in 1988.

Rogers suffered from cancer. He died at his Los Alamos home on March 8, 2005

Now, about your claims on the origin of the image you are just speculating, since many years ago it is well known by any serious researcher in the Shroud that it is made of degraded cellulose, and it was precisely Raymond Rogers which proposed the Maillard reaction to explain how it was formed.

The Maillard reaction is a form of non-enzymatic browning involving an amino acid and a reducing sugar. The cellulose fibers of the shroud are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars, and other impurities.

Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, in a joint paper of 2003 proposed that amines from a recently deceased human body may have undergone Maillard reactions with this carbohydrate layer within a reasonable period of time, before liquid decomposition products stained or damaged the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically and within a few hours, in an environment such as a tomb, a body starts to produce heavier amines in its tissues such as putrescine and cadaverine.

Here you can also read that paper:
www.shroud.com...

Again as I told you several times this is not a Thread to debate beliefs, here we only debate scientific research on the Shroud. Your insistence to deviate the discussion to the level of beliefs or disbeliefs is starting to be annoying, please remain on topic.

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness




edit on 5/8/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join