New Shroud study

Debi

Debi

Owner/Admin
Staff
Joined
Sep 16, 2013
Messages
241,474
Reaction score
233,980
Points
315
Location
South of Indy
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY29hc3R0b2NvYXN0YW0uY29tL2NpbWFnZXMvdmFyL2V6d2ViaW5fc2l0ZS9zdG9yYWdlL2ltYWdlcy9jb2FzdC10by1jb2FzdC9yZXBvc2l0b3J5L3RodW1ibmFpbHMvc2hyb3VkLW9mLXR1cmluLTIwMTgvMTA1MTk1MC0xLWVuZy1VUy9TaHJvdWQtb2YtVHVyaW4tMjAxOC5qcGc=


New Shroud of Turin Study Casts Doubt on Landmark Radiocarbon Test Results - Coast to Coast AM

An intriguing new Shroud of Turin study reportedly casts doubt on a landmark 1988 examination of the cloth that found it to be a medieval hoax. The often-cited research from three decades ago saw the Catholic Church allow independent laboratories in England, the United States, and Switzerland to subject portions of the alleged relic to radiocarbon testing in order to determine its age. The study's conclusion that the shroud was actually from somewhere between 1260 and 1390 sparked worldwide headlines declaring that the mystery was solved. However, a new look at that project seemingly upends the controversial findings.

Remarkably, the raw data from the study had been kept secret from the public for nearly three decades and all requests from independent investigators to see the information had been rebuffed by the institutions. Finally, in 2017, a team of researchers filed a Freedom of Information request to the British Museum, which oversaw the project and was in possession of the materials. Much to their surprise, the legal gambit worked and they managed to get their hands on the much-coveted information.

A subsequent two-year-long study of the raw data led to the conclusion that the 1988 project was rather problematic. "The tested samples are obviously heterogeneous from many different dates," team leader Tristan Casabianca explained, "there is no guarantee that all these samples, taken from one end of the shroud, are representative of the whole fabric. It is, therefore, impossible to conclude that the Shroud of Turin dates from the Middle Ages."

Shroud of Turin researchers who had previously been skeptical of the 1988 study see the new examination of that project's data as confirmation of their suspicions that something was amiss with the work. "The decision not to publish all the data," Russ Breault argued, "was no doubt so they could achieve the coveted '95% confidence' regarding the medieval date." Another researcher, David Rolfe, mused that, back in 1989, "no one was prepared to challenge the weight and might of the combined authority" of the institutions behind the initial project which appeared to debunk the relic's purported miraculous origins.

These skeptics specifically point to lax testing protocols as well as the specific portion of the shroud that was tested as problems which were not properly addressed at the time. "The corner chosen [to be studied in 1988] was absolutely the most handled area of the cloth," noted Breault, "exactly where it was held up by hand for hundreds of public exhibitions over the centuries." As such, he declared, it was "the worst possible sample location" for radiocarbon testing.

In light of these new findings, Casabianca called for a new radiocarbon examination of the shroud. "New tests, with robust protocols, are needed,” he declared, "we have to learn from the failure of the 1988 carbon dating." While another round of modern-day tests of the shroud may very well serve to provide some clarity on what has become a decidedly convoluted examination of the relic from three decades ago, such a study would could only happen if the Pope himself approved of such a project and there are doubts as to whether or not the Church would want to wade into the controversy at this time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benway, Paintman and NobleHouse
i tend to lean in the direction of this being the real deal
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duke and T-Bob
There's no doubt that this was coming. I'm not sure C-14 dating can be done, as the shroud has been handled by countless individuals over the centuries, also it's been in a fire, and the fabric saturated with smoke. I would expect that cleaning any sample for C-14 isn't possible, because of contamination.....However, I believe the C-14 date that was taken, was from a restored re-weave, from close to the the time that C-14 indicates. The testing protocols were atrocious, in my opinion, and I watched the news closely at the time that they were done. I believe in the authencity of the shroud, because of actual evidence, rather than the bad science that has been publicized.......I'm not a religious nut, and if there was good evidence for it being a hoax, I would be on board...It's just that real evidence shows that it's most likely genuine, rather than a fake. I'm a skeptic (by nature), and know a little about research on historic and prehistoric artifacts and culture. Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NobleHouse, Paintman and Duke
T-Bob said:
There's no doubt that this was coming. I'm not sure C-14 dating can be done, as the shroud has been handled by countless individuals over the centuries, also it's been in a fire, and the fabric saturated with smoke. I would expect that cleaning any sample for C-14 isn't possible, because of contamination.....However, I believe the C-14 date that was taken, was from a restored re-weave, from close to the the time that C-14 indicates. The testing protocols were atrocious, in my opinion, and I watched the news closely at the time that they were done. I believe in the authencity of the shroud, because of actual evidence, rather than the bad science that has been publicized.......I'm not a religious nut, and if there was evidence against it being a hoax, I would be on board...It's just that real evidence shows that it's most likely genuine, rather than a fake. I'm a skeptic (by nature), and know a little about research on historic and prehistoric artifacts and culture. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you on the Shroud. I think it is authentic. What the Shroud comes down to is Faith...once again, those that believe will believe. Those that insist science prove it will demand more and more evidence and never get there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Bob and NobleHouse
Remember never to underestimate the degree of chicanery that scientists are capable of.
Exhibit A is Piltdown Man. A British anthropologist claimed to have found the missing link. After all the accolades and fanfare subsided it was determined that he combined human bones with gorilla bones.:confused:

B. Going by memory. There was a British scientist that was in charge of a Shroud of Turin study that concluded that it was a medieval forgery. He had a very wealthy benefactor that paid for the testing.( paid for the results he wanted;)). The scientist was to be rewarded with a prestigious chair at a prestigious University in Britain.
The British Science contingent was running roughshod over the Italian scientists, and according to what I have read and heard were very rude and condescending. Miffed, the Italians gave them a piece of repaired cloth from medieval times. The Italians knew darn well what they were doing. So in this regard, the Shroud has never been tested with carbon dating.
I always felt that the photographic evidence was compelling. I don't really understand it but it sounds like an MRI. The image on the Shroud is made up of layer upon layer upon layer.
It was described as a radioactive flash of light imprinting the image
.:cool:
That also fits with the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It's a church built above what is believed to be Jesus's tomb a long long time ago. The cave is radioactive. Cameras, recording devices and scientific instruments go kablooey.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NobleHouse and T-Bob
T-Bob said:
There's no doubt that this was coming. I'm not sure C-14 dating can be done, as the shroud has been handled by countless individuals over the centuries, also it's been in a fire, and the fabric saturated with smoke. I would expect that cleaning any sample for C-14 isn't possible, because of contamination.....However, I believe the C-14 date that was taken, was from a restored re-weave, from close to the the time that C-14 indicates. The testing protocols were atrocious, in my opinion, and I watched the news closely at the time that they were done. I believe in the authencity of the shroud, because of actual evidence, rather than the bad science that has been publicized.......I'm not a religious nut, and if there was good evidence for it being a hoax, I would be on board...It's just that real evidence shows that it's most likely genuine, rather than a fake. I'm a skeptic (by nature), and know a little about research on historic and prehistoric artifacts and culture. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...


I tend to agree with T-Bob here. I think it is probably genuine, although of "who" is still questionable in my mind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Bob
I'm a skeptic about the shroud being the actual shroud of Jesus. Once you get past that it doesn't actually matter when or how it was made.

That said, it isn't the physical shroud that is so special or of value. It is the belief and adoration of millions of people that make it an ICON of unimaginable value and power. Faith and belief make actions, words and things powerful and special.
 
NobleHouse said:
I tend to agree with T-Bob here. I think it is probably genuine, although of "who" is still questionable in my mind.
Click to expand...
I think there is little doubt that it could be anyone other than Jesus, as the wounds, crown to thorns, wound in the side, scourging, etc, are too exacting to be by coincidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lynne and Paintman
I think there is little doubt that it could be anyone other than Jesus, as the wounds, crown to thorns, wound in the side, scourging, etc, are too exacting to be by coincidence.
Click to expand...
The doubt comes from the theory that it's a clever (and macabre) forgery.
From Wikipedia:
The first possible historical record dates from 1353 or 1357.[18][30] and the first certain record (in Lirey, France) in 1390 when Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote a memorandum to Pope Clement VII (Avignon Obedience), stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed.[8][31] 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.[18] However the correspondence of this shroud in Lirey with the shroud in Turin, and its 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.[32]

There are no definite historical records concerning the particular shroud currently at Turin Cathedral prior to the 14th century. A burial cloth, which some historians maintain was the Shroud, was owned by the Byzantine emperors but disappeared during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204.[8] Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the 14th century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.
Click to expand...
and:
In 2001, Pierluigi Baima Bollone, a professor of forensic medicine in Turin, stated that the forensic examination of the wounds and bloodstains on the Shroud indicate that the image was that of the dead body of a man who was whipped, wounded around the head by a pointed instrument, and nailed at the extremities before dying.
Click to expand...
A 2013 study analysed the wounds seemingly evident on the image in the shroud and compared them favorably to the wounds which the gospels state were inflicted on Jesus.[125] However, the analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds consistent with those found on Jehohanan and are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology show evidence of wrist wounds.[126]

In 2018 an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or “didactic” representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.
Click to expand...

From what we know of history, people being crucified where tied to the frame rather than nailed, so that they would die of asphyxiation over a long period. They would have to try to support their weight on their feet to take breath. That's why leg breaking was used to kill them quickly. If a person was nailed by the wrists he'd die from that long before dying from broken legs. So if nails were used it would be to secure the ropes and wrist injuries would be from rope friction, not the wounds seen on the shroud.
So it may be that this murderer dressed some poor victim up as Jesus and then recreated the wounds on him based on the Biblical accounts, and used his corpse to create the shroud. But his lack of knowledge about crucifixion led to errors.

Or not.
 
Last edited:
I believe this to be the real shroud too. There was repairs on the cloth and it also went through a fire. All these things could throw off the dating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T-Bob
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back