It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on May, 8 2015 @ 02:55 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

Sadly no you havnt and I'm asking because the bible tells you the shroud isn't from Jesus tomb. Unless you believe John to be lying about what he saw. If the shroud isn't a 1st century burinal shroud we know it's not. but yet co n forms exactly to the middle ages how would that be possible?? How come the priest in 1354 said it was fake and even said he knew the painter? As I said it's first debut was an Easter service we have the record and even at coin from it. If you think that this somehow validates your belief system it doesn't. As I have said there are other relics in veneration false ones is wrong as Martin Luther pointed out.

You cannot get around the fact paint was used on The shroud the carbon 14 dating gave us a date. As much as you want this to be real it isnt. It matches nothing from the 1st century. I've explained to you why in detail yet you want to continue as if blissfully unaware. That is not a burial shroud used anywhere on the planet in the 1st century. Now I'm done discussing this with you because I learned a long time ago you can't change someone's beliefs because beliefs aren't based on facts. I hope the best in your search for your inner peace.

PS I'm not against religion this isn't an attack we studied the shroud when I went to George town.It was part of my religous studies course. I pointed you to the bible and what to read I can do no more.
edit on 5/8/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:06 PM
Just some cursory research here (wiki):

Historical records seem to indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the small town of Lirey around the years 1353 to 1357 in the possession of a French Knight, Geoffroi de Charny, who died at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356.[9] However the correspondence of this shroud in Lirey with the shroud in Turin, and its very origin has been debated by scholars and lay authors, with statements of forgery attributed to artists born a century apart. Some contend that the Lirey shroud was the work of a confessed forger and murderer.[31]

It is often mentioned that the first certain historical record dates from 1353 or 1357.[9][25] However the presence of the Turin Shroud in Lirey, France, is only undoubtedly attested in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Antipope Clement VII, stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.[26][27]

Antipope Clement VII refrained from expressing his opinion on the shroud; however, subsequent popes from Julius II on took its authenticity for granted.[52]

Seems to me that it was a known forgery, and/or assumed to be one for centuries. Religious relics/forgeries like it were really big back in those days. Also, I am no expert but in my opinion the style of the image appears like that I've seen in medieval art.

Just curious but are any of the scientists questioning the various test results non religious? Or are only religious people trying to keep the controversy alive?

Even if I could believe Jesus was crucified and shortly thereafter resurrected I couldn't take this shroud as miraculous.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 03:20 PM
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

It matches paintings done in the 12th century In France. The bishop you mentioned claimed he investigated the shroud because they were attempting to get veneration from Rome he concluded it was a fake. In fact after that the shroud disapeared only to show up 35 years later again as a holy relic.

Here's what the bishop said.
The bishop's text began: ''The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.''

And another bishop at a collegw.
d'Arcis said: ''Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination'' - an earlier bishop of Troyes -''discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.''

In fact he made one of the arguments I did saying that the forger didn't understand scriptures.

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 04:12 PM
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Dear WakeUpBeer,

All the people that took part in the shroud of Turin research project (STURP) were scientists and academy researchers coming form different disciplines, that commission convoked some of the most brilliant minds in Photography, Spectography, Thermo Chemistry, particles Physics, experts on textile analysis, forensic medicine, Archaeology and Art History.

Now, Raymond Rogers was not the only member of Los Alamos National Laboratory that was there, check the list by yourself:

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*

Here a paper from 24 scientists exploring different hypothesis that explain the origin of the image and the first one to be dismissed is precisely the possibility to be a painting. EVIDENCES FOR TESTING HYPOTHESES ABOUT THE BODY IMAGE FORMATION OF THE TURIN SHROUD

All the references that I have mentioned in the very extensive bibliography cited since the thread was open correspond to papers that are scientific material of first hand on this topic and published in well known journals.

Just the last paper I have disclosed that is a solid scientific criticism to the carbon dating of 1987, was published by Elsevier, in Thermochimica Acta, one of the most accredited journals in that area. .

Here is again the reference.

Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin
Raymond N. Rogers
Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA
Received 14 April 2004; received in revised form 14 April 2004; accepted 12 September 2004

If you check altogether the replies from dragonridr it is evident that they are in the level of speculation, myths, cheap literature look like tabloid material or Davinci Code novels or rumors than anything really serious. He just have brought only one paper that really was scientific and it is extremely old and also it didn't have continuity of research, the author, Dr Walter McKrone dropped from the topic after new findings showed his hypothesis was clearly wrong.

The person that buried the hypothesis of the painting was Dr Isabel Pitzek that is Particles Physicist and also Professional Artist, she is one of the most famous experts on the topic.

The Angel of Lightness

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

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 06:15 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

No doubt there is a lot of controversy and interest in the shroud. And perhaps there is no conclusive evidence on how the image was made. I'll give you that much. Hell I'll even give you that maybe it dates back to the first century. It still wouldn't mean it was the burial shroud of Jesus. And btw, I thought it was perfectly valid for dragonridr to bring up scripture that would be relevant to the shroud. As I mentioned before, I don't believe Christ ever resurrected. But if he had, I would think this shroud would be mentioned in the gospels somewhere. I'd think, it would have been venerated from that very day. Not centuries later during a period known for religious relics of all sorts.

(I realize this thread isn't about religious beliefs but you have to admit it kind of comes with this territory)
edit on 5-8-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 8 2015 @ 08:53 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

You think sturp proved something?? A group of christians get together to prove the shroud is real and surprise that was there conclusion. Well all but two who said it was a fake and explained the other sturp members were not doing science. Here is a start to see why they got positive results it's funny.

Now I already posted the chemical analysis and it's finding after the sturp was done by the way you think it's outdated.

We have a C14 date you claim it's wrong but cant come up wit a reason why Other than your lack of understanding of the contamination thing you have no clue how things are contaminated ot you wouldn't mention it being it's not true. One of the 3 labs should have got diffrent results. NOne of the samples could get clove to 1st century.

And please stop with the 3d thong it was new but amazingly when we scan paintings we found many with 3 d info. IN fact if they are A Good Artist the artist encodes 3d into apainting.
And still we have the fact it isn't a 1st century burinal shroid. And never did they use anyrhing like this. So here's my one question how did a miedeval burial cross travel back on time r
edit on 5/8/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 09:59 PM
Dear Readers,

It comes to my attention the author of this last paper that dragonidr has dared to bring here attacking the work of the Thermo-chemist Mr Raymond Rogers.

This is authored by only one single person that by the way whose only affiliations and degrees are all related with Geology, a science that only can have a very indirect role to do in the research on the Shroud, and also that has carried out his career in Midland, Texas.

It is interesting these two facts since on this same past week another Geologist and also from Midland, Mr Bernerd Ray, that worked in the same region around 1940s to 1960s is now already famous for his connection with a slide that supposedly showed one of the alien bodies of the so called Roswell incident of 1947 in New Mexico, that was exhibited this week in Mexico city and became the eye of the hurricane of a huge scandal because it was proven to be of a child Egyptian mummy that is right now in the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC.

This also Texan Geologist living in Midland was very concerned with the Carlsbad caves of New Mexico , that he investigated deeply, and coming back from one of his trips to that region he took the photo that is now called the Roswell slide in a sort of sensationalist museum called the million dollars museum of the White city, that was the site of numerous oddities, including child-mummies, and various human and animal curious.

This unfortunate coincidence of profession and same city of residence made me research more about the background of Dr Steven Schafersman, who happen to be not only a Texan Geologist, but also a fundamentalist atheist that has launched great number of campaigns to prosecute any attempt to promote free speech discussions of all the theories of formation of the Universe, in other words that is against free will that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

In that activity Dr Shafersman believes that his own interpretation of Science is the only valid. He was advocate of a functionary of the TEA, Texas Education Agency (TEA) Director of Science Chris Comer that was forced to resignate of her office in November 6th of 2007, after being found responsible of abusing of the authority granted to her office while breaking neutrality with respect to favor in the education curriculum of the region some hypotheses on that field over others, accused to be carrying dogmatic proselytism in favor of Atheistic points of view.

This is a person that clearly has a personal crusade against anything that smells to religious experience, so it is not surprise at all that he decided that the work of Raymond Rogers in his analysis of the Shroud is a valid target for her personal obsessions.

Dr Schaferman has a personal fight not only against religion or against the idea of God, but also into maintain some interpretations of evolution as absolute truth in Science, a kind of sancto sactorum of the scientific explanation of the universe, a body of ideas that is untouchable , something funny since there is nothing in Science that can be treated as absolute truth, if not, just think in the epicycles model of the universe by Ptolomeus that for 1000 years were considered a proof that the earth was the center of the Universe.

The Epicyles and Deferent model was developed by Apollonius of Perga and Hypparchus of Rhodes at the end of the 3rd century BC. , Then it was formalized and extensively used by Ptolemy of Thebaid in his 2nd-century AD astronomical treatise the Almagest.

Just in the XX century Albert Einstein taught us that even the Laws of Newton that for 200 hundred years ruled the Mechanics are relative when are tried to be applied at events that occur at light speed.

Dr Schaferman is decisively working along many years in his battle to prevent any possible discussion of if there exist supreme Intelligence in the Universe and therefore an intelligent design of it. He is far to be impartial or objective in any analysis on subjects that can be connected with historic objects of religious figures.

Here the definitive sentence of the district court against the functionary that was defended as a Martyr of Science by Dr Schaferman in his site.

No. 09-50401
Thus, we find it hard to imagine circumstances in which a TEA
employee’s inability to publicly speak out for or against a potential subject for
the Texas curriculum would be construed or perceived as the State’s
endorsement of a particular religion. Comer has presented no evidence that
disputes the district court’s conclusion in this regard, and accordingly, we find
“no realistic danger . . . that the community would think that [TEA’s
neutrality policy] . . . s endorsing religion or any particular creed.” Freiler,
185 F.3d at 346. We find that TEA’s neutrality policy does not violate
Lemon’s second prong.
For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude that TEA’s neutrality
policy does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Accordingly, the decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Curiously the Intelligent design theory that this Geologist consider an aberration of Creationism in to Science has been endorsed or supported by renown scientists like:

John Corrigan "Jonathan" Wells (born 1942) is an American molecular biologist.

Ralph Seelke received his Ph.D. in Microbiology from the University of Minnesota and the Mayo Graduate School of Medicine in 1981, was a postdoctoral researcher at the Mayo Clinic until 1983, and has been an Associate Professor or Professor in the Department of Biology and Earth Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Superior since 1989

Professor Colin Reeves , Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Coventry University

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/10/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 10 2015 @ 10:11 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

Never mind you still ignored the chemical analysis. But then the other link I showedo you which discusses the team pit together to examine the shroud. Instead of disputing his arguments you just say he's a atheist. Well I'm don't wirh you tour right the shroud is real. Even though the bible itself tells you its a fake. Never mind the fact there isn't a 1st century burial shroud anywhere in the worls like that. See That's WHAT They Used IN THE 13th And 14 THIS century. Unless of course Jesus dies in the middle ages?? Bit OK continue to believe your fantasy but I would suggest read scripture you may learn something.

As of now I'm done with your fantasies have a nice day.

posted on May, 11 2015 @ 03:43 AM
And..? Creationism has no place in school. There is nothing equal about it. Teaching intelligent design in school is just the Christian creationists trying to get around separation of Church and State. There is nothing scientific about creationism. It's patently anti-scientific. And some religious folks get butt hurt when it isn't taken seriously. Because it shouldn't.

And that's why the creationists weaseled her out of her job.

Maybe we should start teaching Hindu creation stories in school like they have some scientific grounds for being a true possibility. Or maybe Native American ones. Hell if we want to be fair and equal we'll need to cover them all. Comparative religions courses, can become the new biological science courses.

edit on 5-11-2015 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 09:34 AM
a reply to: dragonridr

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."

Could you please give a reliable source for this above statement?

I do wish the authorities would put the dating of the shroud to rest. They are in the position to do so but don't understand why it has not been done. I believe that by not doing so does encourage more speculation and less credibility to the entire science of dating as well as encourage more and more such as your post.

Most bibles do relate that the body was temporarily and hastily entombed with out the washing and normal preparation but that part is not the OP's conversation. I believe the OP wants - "What is the actual age of The Shroud of Turin, with close to a hundred percent of precision ?" That would be the foundation of going any further in speculation.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 10:53 AM
Angel Of Light
Very good thread and well thought out posting information. Still reading your sources. Thanks for schooling me.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 11:41 AM
a reply to: Seede
Dear Seede,

The fact that a Bishop that was clearly envious of the amount of people that were attending the Church that was keeping the Shroud has stated that he believed it was false does not prove nothing about its authenticity, he never carried out any serious testing or investigation of the object.

This story of the envious Bishop that tried to discredit the Shroud is part of one of the most embarrassing chapters of the History of the Church, when there was a fight in between abbeys and Basilicas or Sanctuaries to see which one was able to recollect more money from the pilgrims.

First at all, he was never in possession of the relic, so it is unlikely that he even could confirm any of his bold statements, he was just circulating rumors to discredit the Shroud at any cost, thinking that the people that was not attending anymore his Cathedral were the same ones that were flowing in multitudes to check the Shroud.

The Shroud was exhibited for centuries in Istanbul, then called Constantinople, That was the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, this happened before to arrive to western Europe in Medieval times. So there is no possibility at all that it might be faked by an European Artist as the irresponsible statement of that obscure Bishop claimed.

The Holy Mandylion was one of the most famous Bizantine relics, it was well known around all the Christendom at that time that it was there, and that is one of the reasons for which the IV Crusade instead to go to fight against the Muslims in Jerusalem was deviated to attack Constantinople, it was a war for stealing the treasures and relics of the Orthodox Church.

According to Dr. Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican secret Archives, the Shroud had disappeared in the sack of Constantinople in 1204 during the fourth Crusade. The Knights Templar, the religious order that existed for two centuries during the Crusades in the Middle Ages, took care of the cloth and kept it from falling into the hands of heretical groups.

The cloth was kept between 1204 and the middle of the 14th century. The Shroud was moved to various European cities until it was acquired by the Savoy dynasty in Turin in the 16th century.

Barbara Frale has committed her findings to a bulky, 392-page volume called La Sindone di Gesù Nazareno, which was recently published in Italy and which we hope will soon be translated into English.

In 1997 two French researchers, Marion and Courage, claimed to have discovered previously unseen characters on the surface of the Shroud of Turin, using certain image processing techniques.

The letters did not make a whole lot of grammatical sense, and few were convinced that they really exist. In 2009, Barbara Frale published a book where she gave her own reading of these words. She also provided additional support for the theory that the Shroud was in the possession of the Knights Templar. Possibly this relic was the actual object that started the rumors about a mysterious “head” worshiped by the Templars..

At present there are serious research studies that show how in the Bizantine art had a tremendous influence, still in all the Orthodox world, the depiction of Christ face from the Shroud details, this is something possible to trace as proof of the existence of the Shroud in Constantinople.

here are some papers of that period of the Shroud:

Daniel Scavone, University of Southern Indiana

Discovering more of the
Shroud's Early History
A promising new approach...
Ian Wilson, M.A. (Oxon).

Here are some famous Coptic, Bizantine, Greek, Ukrainian and Russian icons that are clearly inspired in the Shroud. Some of them are as old to be dated in VI Century, so that shows how it is absolutely wrong that the Shroud is a medieval fake.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/12/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:59 PM
a reply to: The angel of light

Ok i know i said i was going to stop but watching you massacre christianity i have to say something. First let me tell you something i went to georgetown i have a doctorate in physics but while attending georgetown i have a minor in theology. So im not attacking your beliefs also my thesis was on the knights templars. Consider this a hobby of mine so i can tell you they never had the shroud of Turin your writer makes dubious connections which i will explain in a minute.

So first lets look at the bible and compare it to the shroud shall we??

John 20:6-7
6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

Notice i highlighted the relevant portion a burial shroud consisted of several pieces in the 1st century John of course knew this. basically the burial shroud consisted of 3 pieces 4 if you count the ties. Heres a good example from a tomb wall.

The shroud of turin is one continuous cloth Also notice someone wrapped in a shroud would not give us the pretty picture we have on the shroud of Turin. See the cloth would be wrapped close to the body the image would have distorted not look like it was laid across the body like the shroud of Turin. Also notice the head is completely separate part of the shroud there was a reason for this it allowed mornours to see the face before burial.

Now apparently you are unaware but jesus with a beard and mustache didnt appear in paintings until the 6th century. It was because of one particular painting that the idea of jesus with a beard started. It was because pilgrimages were being made to Saint catherine's monastery built by Emperor Justinian I. Bin 1294 before this Christ was always shown with out a beard and clean shaven. Alot of this had to do with the christ was Pure and any depictions of him couldn't make him seem common. So the image on the shroud matching 6th century iconography would be expected in a forgery.

Now the fun part the knights templar the author wants to track the shroud back to the templars because they use this to explain its sudden appearance in france. So lets go back to 1204 the crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople. Authors claim the shroud was taken to prove this they make the claim that the Knights Templars worshipped a head and it was the shroud folded. Ok aside from this being a stretch lets look at the Knight Templars. The Templars had something they referred to as the mandylion. This was an image of christ painted in the 1st century.According to Eusebius, King Abgar of Edessa was afflicted of an illness, and hearing of the miracles of Jesus as a healer he sent a letter to Him, asking if He would come to his aid. Jesus responded that He could not come, but would send a disciple in His place, which He does. Thaddeus comes in Jesus' place and heals him ; according to variants of this story King Abgar is left with the cloth image of Jesus, beginning with the Doctrine of Addai (ca. 400 A.D.) in which a court painter created an image of the Lord and "brought with him to Abgar the king, his master. And when Abgar the king saw the likeness, he received it with great joy, and placed it with great honor in one of his palatial houses." Now in truth the head they worshiped appears to be an actual head of john the baptist. Or the founder but thats a story for another time. Now the church this was blasphemous because realize in the 1st century John the Baptists had a larger following then Christ and worshiping anything other than Jesus in a major sin. If it was John the baptist this is why the scene in the bible it makes a big deal out of visiting John the baptists and having Jesus baptized. Because John the baptist had a large following than Jesus. And the Knights Templars were actually accused of following his teachings.Now to the Mandylion of Edessa its in a museum its not the shroud of Turin.

So now we know the bible tells us the shroud isnt whats in the tomb. We know the image was created by a roman emperor in the 6th century. We also know the Knights Templar had a completely different image of Christ.We know the Mandylion of Edessa is not the shroud. We know there is nothing on the shroud of Turin until it was painted in the middle ages as our Bishop tells us. By the way accusing him of lying without any proof isnt being fair. At least try to prove that he lied not make accusations as to why he lied. Seems he was telling the truth since hes right the Shroud of Turin popped up from no where. And we also know that to believe the shroud to be real directly contradicts the bible. So if you believe the Shroud to be an image of Christ you cannot believe the Bible. The two are not compatible.

PS and you think the qualities of the shroud are impossible to reproduce its been done and yes it has the same qualities as the original.Meaning yes it can be made by human hands.
edit on 5/12/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in