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.

 

Chemical & Mechanical Not destructive tests Dated Turin Shroud in 1st Century.

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

I thought you were spelling flour wrong.
My bad.

See? I don't know everything and I can admit it




posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TerryDon79

Why.
Everyone in 1300 knew that uranium is slightly radioactive and that it is the best way to murder someone.


I don't know if your being serious or being sarcastic.

It doesn't help that I don't know that much about uranium to be able to know either way.

The latter.

There are better ways to poison someone. The art was well established by then.




That's good to know. Maybe add a /sarc tag from time to time?


Wasn't arsenic used back then?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79


At issue would then be what would cause a human being to glow?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Uranium would not.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

I do not know your position on mediumship; however, Jesus has given numerous messages through mediums throughout the years. One medium, Dr. Daniel G Samuels, received numerous messages from Jesus, and in one such message, Jesus stated that "the shroud at Turin is a reality, the shroud which covered my mortal remains after the descent from the cross and the preparations made for my burial by Joseph as described in the Gospels." Source

Believe or don't believe; we are all searching for the truth and must use our own discernment.

For more information on the mediumship of Dr. Samuels and the messages he received from Jesus you can read here.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:56 AM
link   
answers.yahoo.com...


Lets not allow animals to be harmed. But otherwise could a human body be made to emit photons in the sense of visible light, due to exposure to radioactive elements?



Enough to have created the TS?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Probably not.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Further reading...

theweek.com...


if your having problems accessing the site do a search on "7-gentically modified animals-that-glow-dark.




edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

Maybe in Fallout 4?


Not saying it's strickly impossible considering there has been some speculation as to us breeding genetically modified luminescent animals.

Don't see it being a possibility back in the 13th/14th century all the same.
edit on 22-1-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 09:17 AM
link   
The Shroud has been debunked so far. They keep testing the repair patch instead of the original shroud.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: 123143

Definitively you are not updated about many years of what have happened in this case.

1) The 1988 C14 testing that possibly is what you are trying to refer to was not authorized in order to debunk nothing, it was performed to confirm the findings of the different non destructive tests that the scientists of STURP in 1978 indirectly dating it in the first centuries of our era.

www.shroud.com...

2) Now, although it's final outcome was a strong recommendation to carry out more tests, was not the only testing of that type practised on the cloth, there was another one carried out in 1982, by a laboratory of University of California that was asked to specify protocols and routine of maintenance of the relic, that test counting with much better cleaning procedures actually produced two dates that also had a so large variance were both older than what it was reported in 1988, in particular one of the dates was from the year 200 AD.

Here is a link described that not authorized
First C14 attempt of dating:

triablogue.blogspot.com...

3) The dramatically different outcomes in between the 2 C14 tests is explained by the fact that the sample of 1982 was better cleaned but also was not taken from one of the areas with more intense reweaven or repairs or contamination with external DNA as it happened in 1988, that was carried on one from also the most touched areas, a corner of the Shroud used since XIII century on hundreds of public exhibitions to hold it even with naked human hands.

4) on 1998 the thesis of Dr Leoncio Garza Valdes, a Texan Physician and archaelogist affiated to the University of Arizona remerged about the huge bias that C14 dating experiences in the presence of bioplastic coating of burial materials produced by contaminated bacteria. He had had found this since late 1970s when he was able to date correctly the 1770 mummy of the Manchester Museum, that the traditional C14 dated with a bias of 1300 years, you can read about that in the following link.

www.timeshighereducation.com...#

5)On May 2010 Riani, Fanti and Atkinson were able to show satisfactorily that a Robust Statistical Analysis of the C14 data of the three laboratories involved in the attempt of dating if 1988 show unacceptable levels of Variance in between the distinct dates obtained, something that disqualify that dating to be genuinely representative of the Shroud.

Here is their conference paper:

www.acheiropoietos.info...

So when this new Dating of 2010s appears there have been already along decades of research a lot of important historic events exposing the 1988 attempt of dating as erroneous.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/22/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

Like I posted on the last page and was explained 2 years ago, what you're saying is false.

LINK



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   
+1 here, but I'm just going to call it what it is - bulls**t.

Contamination, contamination, contamination and failure to attempt to test the original areas of the shroud.

As a non-sec, "Angel", you are not objective.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Kashai

Maybe in Fallout 4?


Not saying it's strickly impossible considering there has been some speculation as to us breeding genetically modified luminescent animals.

Don't see it being a possibility back in the 13th/14th century all the same.


I agree... but at the same time realistically, this is not the image of Jesus of Nazareth.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light




The tests used were FTIR, Raman and multiparametric mechanical. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy chemical tests are based on the relationship that exist in between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. Another test was practised measuring many micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, like tensile strength. Now the data obtained was matched with similar tests on pieces of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are accurately known. Molecular Chemical bonds were identifed using FTIR which output was an infrared absorption spectrum, that becomes like a sample profile, uniquely identifying it at molecular level giving information about its composition. In Raman Spectroscopy the light scattered off of a sample is utilized as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample. This is a highly sensitive technique to identify very particular chemicals. Taking about the results, the dates obtained ( with a 95% of precision) were as follows: FTIR = 300 BC + 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC + 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD + 400 years. This means that we have an average dating of 33 BC + 250 years (What is interesting is that by combining these results we get a collective uncertainty below the respective individual test uncertainties). These results locate the age of the shroud of Turin in the actual time of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth that traditionally is fixed in between 29th and 33th AD.


I think you're drawing conclusions that are not supported by the data.

First, the paper in Vibrational Spectroscopy tests a NEW method of correlation dating of ancient fibers. The method itself has not been tested since the paper was published nor was a sample of the Shroud tested using this technique.

Second, from the paper:



4.3. Dating of unknown age samples If a new sample has to be dated using the results of the present paper, the procedure described hereinafter must be followed. A) The sample must pass the cleaning tests of Section 3.3. B) The resulting FT-IR/ATR spectra (advised three for repeatability) must be averaged and the corresponding ratios of Eqs. (1)–(3) must be used in Eq. (14) to obtain the date D4. C) The resulting Raman spectra (advised three for repeatability) must be averaged and the corresponding ratio of Eq. (4) must be evaluated with the fluorescence F given from Eq. (5). Depending on the fluorescence F, either Eq. (18) or Eq. (19) could be used to obtain the date DCOC/OH. For values of F in the range between 0.786 and 1.825, the DCOC/OH can be evaluated from the plot of Fig. 9. D) Dates coming from both FT-IR and Raman spectra can be combined together to obtain the most probable spectroscopic date D of the sample. The simpler combination is the arithmetic mean: D = D4 + DCOC/OH 2 (22) with an uncertainty [25] of about ±220 years if F = 0.786, but the latter can decrease to less than ±180 years if the date is calculated on the basis of the arithmetic mean weighted over the square uncertains.


The range of dates, if the method proved to be accurate, would be approximately 220 down to 180 years. How do you arrive at 29-33 years A.D.?

Third, from the paper:




The resulting calibration curves give the possibility to make a rough dating of ancient flax textiles, but future calibration based on a greater number of samples, coupled with ad hoc cleaning procedures, will significantly improve the accuracy of the method. This procedure should be capable to remove the pollutants, but not to damage the chemical characteristics of the flax fiber. Therefore, this non destructive method could be an alternative to others, such as the more accurate radiocarbon dating, that is in the narrower range of ±50 years or less, but that both requires destruction of textiles and has higher costs


The reliability factor of +/-95% was based on very few samples which is acknowledged in the paper. Currently, there is no statistically significant number of samples which have been analyzed to confirm the reliability of the method.

The conclusions:



Conclusive remarks: On the basis of a proposal of previous papers [1,9], this work investigates the possibility to define a two-way relationship between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles. This task has been carried out by testing samples dated from about 3250 B.C. to 2000A.D., that have been reduced to about a dozen after a preliminary selection. In fact, it is necessary to eliminate polluted or degraded samples from the analysis because environmental factors can influence the spectral results. An example is a long conservation time in humid environments (e.g. Akeldama shroud of Jerusalem) that alters the chemical structure of the fibers.


Quoting this article as support for dating the Shroud is very, very speculative.

As for the C14 dating chaos of the Shroud, there are a few recent papers analyzing those results. If you're interested, I'll post them later.



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Everybody that has serious papers and references to bring in order to contribute in a civilized discussion of the results of The team of Dr G.Fanti at Padua University and his colleagues of Bologna and Emilia Universities is welcome to show them.

Excuse me, but at this point of the discussion I need to observe the following:

I see a lot of personal attacks that are unacceptable in the forum right now, as well as to use the thread to deviate to other aspects not clearly connected with the work of these Italian researchers.

To express in a verbally violent language mere subjective positions about what is your opinion on the Shroud is not what this thread is about, we are discussing a very specific vein of academic research on its dating, that is our topic here.

I encourage the members to return to full respect of norms of decorum in the posting, and please remain in topic..

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 1/22/2017 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: The angel of light

If you see personal attacks, alert the mods and, if it is a personal attack, the post will be removed. You've been here long enough to know that.

It's also funny that you ask for "serious papers" while linking to highly biased sites and sites that don't have anything to do with the shroud.

Did you bother to read the link I've posted twice now? Anything to say about it, or will you pretend it doesn't exist?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: The angel of light
a reply to: Phantom423

Everybody that has serious papers and references to bring in order to contribute in a civilized discussion of the results of The team of Dr G.Fanti at Padua University is welcome to show them.

I see a lot of personal attacks that are unacceptable in the forum right now, I encourage the members to return to full respect of norms of decorum in the posting.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness


Are you suggesting that my post wasn't serious? How?



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Why don't we take a look at the process the OP claims to be wrong.




Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin
by P. E. Damon,1 D. J. Donahue,2 B. H. Gore,1 A. L. Hatheway,2 A. J. T. Jull,1 T. W. Linick,2 P. J. Sercel,2 L. J. Toolin,1 C.R. Bronk,3 E. T. Hall,3R. E. M. Hedges, 3 R. Housley,3 I. A. Law,3 C. Perry,3 G. Bonani,4 S. Trumbore,5 W. Woelfli,4 J. C. Ambers,6 S. G. E. Bowman,6 M. N. Leese6 & M. S. Tite6

Reprinted from Nature, Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989 Copyright 1989 Macmillan Magazines Ltd. - All Rights Reserved
Reprinted by permission.

Conclusions

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr).  These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations.  The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.


www.shroud.com...


edit on 22-1-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai

The problem is, is the op and shroud believer think all the tests were faulty. They even use the same arguments (the samples taken were from newer repairs), even though it's been explained over and over again in 2015 that that isn't the case.

They'd rather rely on samples of dust, seeds and other contaminants as it "proves" a younger age.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join