More evidence the shroud of Turin is ancient - around 2000 years old.

[Mountainmike]

Yet another method , this time the gradual depolymerisation of ancient linen , as observed by wide angle X-ray scattering calibrates fibres of the shroud as 2000 years old, calibrated by numerous controls.


https://dsctm.cnr.it/images/Highlights/Sindone/DeCaro_Heritage_2022.pdf

Is there anyone left who still believes the long discredited carbon dating?

I notice those who have declared “ it was faked up” at Oxford and the British museum, didn’t step forward with any suggestion of how , to claim the million prize on offer.

Nor did they step forward with raw RC data until forced by legal process, that showed the dates were “ manipulated” by them. Their dates are not homogenous.
They have never explained if RC was good , how their pre test validation (see burleigh tite) also managed to get the date 50% out on one sample! How then could they claim their shroud date was good?

No such problem with this. It is non destructive and they invited experts to be present/ validate which they did.

Not commonly known but The shroud RC misdaters also refused to have church witnesses. It’s in the communication transcripts. Why if they had nothing to hide?

 

[FenderTL5]

I went to see the Shroud of Turin Exhibit when it was in the Omni in Atlanta. This was sometime in the latter 1980s. I'm not convinced 100% but even back then my inclination is it's the real deal.
I was a member of a Southern Baptist College/Career group at the time. This was just one more step on the ladder that led me to where I am today.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I went to see the Shroud of Turin Exhibit when it was in the Omni in Atlanta. This was sometime in the latter 1980s. I'm not convinced 100% but even back then my inclination is it's the real deal.
I was a member of a Southern Baptist College/Career group at the time. This was just one more step on the ladder that led me to where I am today.

The shroud was an Eastern Orthodox relic before it was stolen by Roman Catholic crusaders. We know it is real because we know its history prior to its theft...

 

[essentialsaltes]

https://dsctm.cnr.it/images/Highlights/Sindone/DeCaro_Heritage_2022.pdf

Is there anyone left who still believes the long discredited carbon dating?

Yes.

Fig. 2 is not very convincing. It shows the shroud as a outlier compared to all the other samples for most of the graph. Until this dating method, invented in this same lab, gains more general credence, it doesn't add much to the conversation.

 

[AV1611VET]

The shroud violates the First Commandment.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

The shroud violates the First Commandment.

How is that????

 

[AV1611VET]

How is that????

By putting an image of God on a piece of cloth.

 

[Shemjaza]

The shroud was an Eastern Orthodox relic before it was stolen by Roman Catholic crusaders. We know it is real because we know its history prior to its theft...

Pretty weird that none of the writers of the Bible mentioned it.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes.

Fig. 2 is not very convincing. It shows the shroud as a outlier compared to all the other samples for most of the graph. Until this dating method, invented in this same lab, gains more general credence, it doesn't add much to the conversation.

Perhaps you should read it all before comment.

They did the valudation tests on all other samples, that showed good correlation.

In the intervening period before access to shroud samples they were obliged to change anode and recalibrate.
They show in the paper, in the next figure that the recalibration would pull shroud numbers back into relation at low q, where the so called “anomaly” is.
But then , and very important, at low q the effect is jumbled any way. That is not the part of the curve to use.

At higher q the recalibration made no difference, and that is the area in which the effect is pronounced. All is in sequence. All it shows is grazing angle and scatter angle matters on X-ray scattering. Who would have thought it? Low q is unreliable. High q is where it is at. There there is no question, the date given is the same as fabric from herods tomb!

At least they didn’t fiddle the numbers like the RC daters , when they discovered that they could not achieve homogeneity truthfully , they doctored them for public consumption and perpetuated the lie for another 20 years.
The fiddling was a bad day for science , because the date gradient is clearly important. And at least they understand the difference between systematic errors and random which the RC daters never did. RC lab behaviour was Shameful for those in metrology!

The question was rhetorical .

Nobody who has studied the totality of evidence on the shroud can now believe the RC date was a measure of shroud age.

If you still think so , you need to study it more.

Start with burleigh tite et al, that proved before the shroud dating they couldn’t measure fabric age. That test shows the RC dating should never have gone ahead, and that one test showed that at best RC is indicative , not definitive , as meacham told them long before. The question why RC dating failed is largely academic now, but it was not unexpected even years before the dating. Even the daters proved that.

Then work through the long list of questions that each discredit the date…

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Yet another method , this time the gradual depolymerisation of ancient linen , as observed by wide angle X-ray scattering calibrates fibres of the shroud as 2000 years old, calibrated by numerous controls.


https://dsctm.cnr.it/images/Highlights/Sindone/DeCaro_Heritage_2022.pdf

Is there anyone left who still believes the long discredited carbon dating?

I notice those who have declared “ it was faked up” at Oxford and the British museum, didn’t step forward with any suggestion of how , to claim the million prize on offer.

Nor did they step forward with raw RC data until forced by legal process, that showed the dates were “ manipulated” by them. Their dates are not homogenous.
They have never explained if RC was good , how their pre test validation (see burleigh tite) also managed to get the date 50% out on one sample! How then could they claim their shroud date was good?

No such problem with this. It is non destructive and they invited experts to be present/ validate which they did.

Not commonly known but The shroud RC misdaters also refused to have church witnesses. It’s in the communication transcripts. Why if they had nothing to hide?

Nothing new there. It's just a rework of their original paper from 2019, they've just added data from the shroud - which is, of course, what they've been aiming for all along. Very scientific - we have a conclusion, now let's find some data to fit.

 

[Larniavc]

Yet another method , this time the gradual depolymerisation of ancient linen , as observed by wide angle X-ray scattering calibrates fibres of the shroud as 2000 years old, calibrated by numerous controls.


https://dsctm.cnr.it/images/Highlights/Sindone/DeCaro_Heritage_2022.pdf

Is there anyone left who still believes the long discredited carbon dating?

I notice those who have declared “ it was faked up” at Oxford and the British museum, didn’t step forward with any suggestion of how , to claim the million prize on offer.

Nor did they step forward with raw RC data until forced by legal process, that showed the dates were “ manipulated” by them. Their dates are not homogenous.
They have never explained if RC was good , how their pre test validation (see burleigh tite) also managed to get the date 50% out on one sample! How then could they claim their shroud date was good?

No such problem with this. It is non destructive and they invited experts to be present/ validate which they did.

Not commonly known but The shroud RC misdaters also refused to have church witnesses. It’s in the communication transcripts. Why if they had nothing to hide?

From your paper’s conclusion.

“Since the 14C dating [3] does not agree with our results, or with the dating obtained by other works (see Table 1), a more accurate and systematic X-ray investigation of more samples taken from the TS fabric would be mandatory to confirm the conclusions of our study.”

 

[essentialsaltes]

But then , and very important, at low q the effect is jumbled any way. That is not the part of the curve to use.

Of course not, it would give a result that contradicts the predetermined one.

I mean look at the table on p 865

The shroud is an outlier in ID, and outlier in IM and an outlier in Im. Only by creating a ratio unsupported by any physical argument do they get the numbers to line up the way they want.

Until this method is validated by other labs, it's worthless.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

By putting an image of God on a piece of cloth.

If God did it then why oppose it?

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Pretty weird that none of the writers of the Bible mentioned it.

Why would they? Also, maybe the image was very light and got darker through time?

 

[Shemjaza]

Why would they? Also, maybe the image was very light and got darker through time?

It is allegedly a significant relic yet none of the factions or groups who kept the writings that became the Bible in the years leading to its formation saw it or had heard of it.

Even if it wasn't obviously marked with the image of Christ in the early years it seems unlikely that it wouldn't have been mentioned that his literal shroud was kept.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

It is allegedly a significant relic yet none of the factions or groups who kept the writings that became the Bible in the years leading to its formation saw it or had heard of it.

Even if it wasn't obviously marked with the image of Christ in the early years it seems unlikely that it wouldn't have been mentioned that his literal shroud was kept.

Nails were often kept as good luck charms by Romans and that was not mentioned in the Bible either. It may not have been mentioned to protect it. There are texts outside of the Bible that do mention it. Also, in a very ancient custom, all Eastern Churches have copies (epitaphios) that are kept and brought out in procession to put on the altar before Pascha. The shroud moved from Jerusalem to Edessa then to Constantinople where it was held until the early 13th century when it was stolen by Roman Catholic crusaders when they sacked the city...

 

[Mountainmike]

I agree on the main issue... None of this by itself is a slamdunk.
All of these methods could do with more validation. And all the other evidence included too.
I would be just as happy to see a later repudiation of this should anyone manage it.

The oddity is the only one test that has utterly failed is RC.
But that is the one that others try to hang on to! Who are a decreasing group. A survey of recent papers that most assume the RC date was invaid.

RC failed both on its own terms.
1- It failed validation against controls done by the dating team before the RC test.
2- the test protocol was ignored. the daters refused to characterise it chemically as demanded.
3- the labs refused to hand over raw data, which had to be obtained by legal process. People with nothing to hide, do not hide it.
4- we then discover why -given true data it showed it was actively fiddled from log book to paper
5- The data was not homogeneous - ie no date could be given at all
A date gradient showed there was an underlying problem. No single date can be given.
The sample failed.
The anomalous fabric in that area resulting in inability to date is evidenced physically by..
a- Adler testing taped fibres from different areas of the shroud showed the sample area was spectrally anomalous
b- UV flourescence at time of STURP shows dark, indicative of it being "different stuff". That was a core reason giving Marino and Benford reason to look deeper.
c- Rogers found intrinsic cotton (which should not be there at all) and actively spliced into a thread
d- Linen is like bamboo cane in structure - the linen in that area has different pitch, different diameter and has madder root dye found nowhere else on the shroud. Rogers also found node lignin indicative of younger linen in that area.

I could go on...
The RC dating ( which can only go with the "medieval fake" hypotheises totaly fails on other evidence.
6 - forensic correspondence with the much older sudarium which had never been physically close.
That alone destroys the RC date.
7- it was pictured and documented before the dates shown incuding the damage to it.
8- the pathology is such no medieval faker could have seen it, let alone faked it.
I coud go on again.

So when you question the other physiochemical methods which clearly say much older than medieval, you cannot then consider the RC date valid. It has more holes than a fishing net.

I can only repeat. RC failed as a method against known controls , the year before the RC test.
As background RC is suspect in history - as meacham notes , a 30% failure rate means RC is only indicative not definitive. Mummy wrappings of the rylands mummy dated 1000 years younger than the body! Meacham cites numerous other examples.

Even ramsay of oxford now says, what is needed is a hypothesis that accounts all the data not just the RC data.

The simplest explanation is that area is different stuff. A more complicated explanation is nuclear enrichment, since the image itself can only be explained by body centric radiation.

But that does not explain why adler and rogers found different chemical stuff in that area to the rest of the shroud. So the "stuff" of that area is anomalous, whether or not radiation enriched it.

One of the biggest problems a new RC test would face, is the church representatives were extremely angry at the total botch the daters made of the test, in procedural terms. The fact they fiddled the data afterwards will probably exclude any of those labs from involvement again.

Would you care to claim the 1million price for explaining how it was faked? The british museum and oxford claimed it was, but turned down the chance to eran a millions or even give a hint of how they could do it, because they know they have no idea how to do it.

Of course not, it would give a result that contradicts the predetermined one.

I mean look at the table on p 865

The shroud is an outlier in ID, and outlier in IM and an outlier in Im. Only by creating a ratio unsupported by any physical argument do they get the numbers to line up the way they want.

Until this method is validated by other labs, it's worthless.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I agree on the main issue... None of this by itself is a slamdunk.
All of these methods could do with more validation. And all the other evidence included too.
I would be just as happy to see a later repudiation of this should anyone manage it.

The oddity is the only one test that has utterly failed is RC.
But that is the one that others try to hang on to! Who are a decreasing group. A survey of recent papers that most assume the RC date was invaid.

RC failed both on its own terms.
1- It failed validation against controls done by the dating team before the RC test.
2- the test protocol was ignored. the daters refused to characterise it chemically as demanded.
3- the labs refused to hand over raw data, which had to be obtained by legal process. People with nothing to hide, do not hide it.
4- we then discover why -given true data it showed it was actively fiddled from log book to paper
5- The data was not homogeneous - ie no date could be given at all
A date gradient showed there was an underlying problem. No single date can be given.
The sample failed.
The anomalous fabric in that area resulting in inability to date is evidenced physically by..
a- Adler testing taped fibres from different areas of the shroud showed the sample area was spectrally anomalous
b- UV flourescence at time of STURP shows dark, indicative of it being "different stuff". That was a core reason giving Marino and Benford reason to look deeper.
c- Rogers found intrinsic cotton (which should not be there at all) and actively spliced into a thread
d- Linen is like bamboo cane in structure - the linen in that area has different pitch, different diameter and has madder root dye found nowhere else on the shroud. Rogers also found node lignin indicative of younger linen in that area.

I could go on...
The RC dating ( which can only go with the "medieval fake" hypotheises totaly fails on other evidence.
6 - forensic correspondence with the much older sudarium which had never been physically close.
That alone destroys the RC date.
7- it was pictured and documented before the dates shown incuding the damage to it.
8- the pathology is such no medieval faker could have seen it, let alone faked it.
I coud go on again.

So when you question the other physiochemical methods which clearly say much older than medieval, you cannot then consider the RC date valid. It has more holes than a fishing net.

I can only repeat. RC failed as a method against known controls , the year before the RC test.
As background RC is suspect in history - as meacham notes , a 30% failure rate means RC is only indicative not definitive. Mummy wrappings of the rylands mummy dated 1000 years younger than the body! Meacham cites numerous other examples.

Even ramsay of oxford now says, what is needed is a hypothesis that accounts all the data not just the RC data.

The simplest explanation is that area is different stuff. A more complicated explanation is nuclear enrichment, since the image itself can only be explained by body centric radiation.

But that does not explain why adler and rogers found different chemical stuff in that area to the rest of the shroud. So the "stuff" of that area is anomalous, whether or not radiation enriched it.

One of the biggest problems a new RC test would face, is the church representatives were extremely angry at the total botch the daters made of the test, in procedural terms. The fact they fiddled the data afterwards will probably exclude any of those labs from involvement again.

Would you care to claim the 1million price for explaining how it was faked? The british museum and oxford claimed it was, but turned down the chance to eran a millions or even give a hint of how they could do it, because they know they have no idea how to do it.

This sort of post is a great example of why nobody takes you seriously. It is full of grand claims (RC "utterly failed"), with assertions about supposed insurmountable problems. But anyone who does even a little research soon finds that your assertions are nothing more than hyperbole and exaggeration. Then there are accusations of professional misconduct and "fiddling data".

Sure, there are issues with the date, but nothing close to it being "destroyed". If I want sensationalist headlines I can read a newspaper.

 

[Mountainmike]

This sort of post is a great example of why nobody takes you seriously. It is full of grand claims (RC "utterly failed"), with assertions about supposed insurmountable problems. But anyone who does even a little research soon finds that your assertions are nothing more than hyperbole and exaggeration. Then there are accusations of professional misconduct and "fiddling data".

Sure, there are issues with the date, but nothing close to it being "destroyed". If I want sensationalist headlines I can read a newspaper.

You cannot contest a single thing I said (with facts)

The point I make is less about the shroud, than the selective way that atheists/sceptics/materialists deal with evidence.

@essentialsaltes notes weaknesses in the WAX dating but they are clearly not enough to dismiss the correlation of age at high Q. The test method clearly needs additional use to get confidence in it. I agree with saltes on that. It is evidence not proof.

(that is not true of other tests, eg the lignin test that also dates the shroud to first century, it is well known that lignin disappears with age)

But a more interesting question is about saltes conclusion. How can anyone who finds fault with the WAX data have any regard for the unscientific catastrophe that was the RC date? There are more holes than fishing net in the RC date!

There are at least 20 issues each of which dismiss the RC date as either unsound or demonstrably false. I noted a selection of them.

Lets add another - the sampling was done off camera and unwitnessed in a separate ante room, and a "textile expert" could not get there on time.

It is documented that samples of four different cloths (including the shroud) entered the sampling room. But only three samples entered tubes. How can we know which was left out?

Worse - Neither the sub sample weights nor the sub sample sizes added up to the sample size/weight for the shroud! So were the samples mixed up? The discrepancy is not large. But it IS a discrepancy. Such was the shocking procedure the RC daters used. No confidence is possible in that test.

If the test had gone in the direction of AD 0, sceptics would have been all over the sampling irregularity as dismissing the integrity of the test! such is their willingness to favour only the bits that support them. I did not even have to mention the sampling fiasco in the long list that discredit the RC date!


Back to my list - First of which was the failure in trials before it ever went near the shroud as in Burleigh Tite et al. AMS could not date the trials samples correctly! It failed! There is no other word. It gave wrong dates!

The main shroud test should never have been conducted, and in any accredited lab, the equipment would have been sidelined until it had been revalidated.

At least WAX passed sample test sequence correctly!
RC could not even do that. They carried on after the equipment had failed qualification!

As for emotive words, the ACTUAL labbook data FAILED homogeneity. ie no date was possible to give . The data could not be from the same statistical distribution.
Then **magically** the data was "modified" by an "unknown transform" from lab book to paper, and the results were then homogeneous. Hoorah!

When it became apparent that some of the dataa in the nature paper did not line up statistically with other parts, van haelst whose paper is out there, smelt a rat and rightly so. But the labs point blank refused to release the data.
Ultimately it could only be obtained by legal FOI process, after the "defenders" of the RC date fiddle had left the british museum. Then we discover that lab books do not match up with the nature paper.

So you can regard it as "magical" that non homogeneous data transformed to homogenous between lab book and paper. I will call it what it was . A fiddle.

Reality is the daters were blind sided by a genuine variation and gradient in dates. They did not expect it, could not account for it, when Gove had done all he could to ensure homogeneity. He did not want separate samples from around the shroud as per protocol. As inventor of AMS He only wanted to show homogeneity.

Alas the shroud itself is not homogeneous in that area. It is clearly made of different stuff to much of the shroud. They were stuffed by their own rhetoric and measurements, so they fiddled them to save face. The world bought into their myth.

You only have to read the book of correspondence between the daters to know that they did not act in good faith.

RC date is an outlier of all other tests and data.
The question is only why it was wrong ,not whether it was wrong.
The RC date was a bad day for science.
They cheated when they did not get the result they expected. The world should condemn them for it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You cannot contest a single thing I said (with facts)

The point I make is less about the shroud, than the selective way that atheists/sceptics/materialists deal with evidence.

@essentialsaltes notes weaknesses in the WAX dating but they are clearly not enough to dismiss the correlation of age at high Q. The test method clearly needs additional use to get confidence in it. I agree with saltes on that. It is evidence not proof.

(that is not true of other tests, eg the lignin test that also dates the shroud to first century, it is well known that lignin disappears with age)

But a more interesting question is about saltes conclusion. How can anyone who finds fault with the WAX data have any regard for the unscientific catastrophe that was the RC date? There are more holes than fishing net in the RC date!

There are at least 20 issues each of which dismiss the RC date as either unsound or demonstrably false. I noted a selection of them.

Lets add another - the sampling was done off camera and unwitnessed in a separate ante room, and a "textile expert" could not get there on time.

It is documented that samples of four different cloths (including the shroud) entered the sampling room. But only three samples entered tubes. How can we know which was left out?

Worse - Neither the sub sample weights nor the sub sample sizes added up to the sample size/weight for the shroud! So were the samples mixed up? The discrepancy is not large. But it IS a discrepancy. Such was the shocking procedure the RC daters used. No confidence is possible in that test.

If the test had gone in the direction of AD 0, sceptics would have been all over the sampling irregularity as dismissing the integrity of the test! such is their willingness to favour only the bits that support them. I did not even have to mention the sampling fiasco in the long list that discredit the RC date!


Back to my list - First of which was the failure in trials before it ever went near the shroud as in Burleigh Tite et al. AMS could not date the trials samples correctly! It failed! There is no other word. It gave wrong dates!

The main shroud test should never have been conducted, and in any accredited lab, the equipment would have been sidelined until it had been revalidated.

At least WAX passed sample test sequence correctly!
RC could not even do that. They carried on after the equipment had failed qualification!

As for emotive words, the ACTUAL labbook data FAILED homogeneity. ie no date was possible to give . The data could not be from the same statistical distribution.
Then **magically** the data was "modified" by an "unknown transform" from lab book to paper, and the results were then homogeneous. Hoorah!

When it became apparent that some of the dataa in the nature paper did not line up statistically with other parts, van haelst whose paper is out there, smelt a rat and rightly so. But the labs point blank refused to release the data.
Ultimately it could only be obtained by legal FOI process, after the "defenders" of the RC date fiddle had left the british museum. Then we discover that lab books do not match up with the nature paper.

So you can regard it as "magical" that non homogeneous data transformed to homogenous between lab book and paper. I will call it what it was . A fiddle.

Reality is the daters were blind sided by a genuine variation and gradient in dates. They did not expect it, could not account for it, when Gove had done all he could to ensure homogeneity. He did not want separate samples from around the shroud as per protocol. As inventor of AMS He only wanted to show homogeneity.

Alas the shroud itself is not homogeneous in that area. It is clearly made of different stuff to much of the shroud. They were stuffed by their own rhetoric and measurements, so they fiddled them to save face. The world bought into their myth.

You only have to read the book of correspondence between the daters to know that they did not act in good faith.

RC date is an outlier of all other tests and data.
The question is only why it was wrong ,not whether it was wrong.
The RC date was a bad day for science.
They cheated when they did not get the result they expected. The world should condemn them for it.

You don't help yourself by just doubling down. You'd do better to admit that, while the RC date is questionable, it has not been shown to be incorrect. It is your strident claims of misconduct and absolute rebuttal of evidence which make you no better than a cheap newspaper. You decry others' lack of honesty, then rely on a less than honest tirade to try to make a point.