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.
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
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
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
originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Pinke
Sure Dear Pinke,
I will save you years on research in the topic.
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
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....