Update on the Shroud of Turin - Chess Forums

tbwp10

Nov 12, 2020

0

#1

The Shroud of Turin is the most important artifact for Christianity and is the most studied artifact in the world. So much so, in fact, that the scientific study of the Shroud is a recognized field of study in itself (*Sindonology*).

What follows below is a copy-paste of a post I did today on Mind Walk's "Truly Open Forum." An individual was talking about the 1988 radiocarbon results of the Shroud of Turin saying it proved it was a medieval (forgery). I responded with a balanced assessment, saying the results don't add up because the bulk of the evidence favors authenticity, so when the lines don't cross and we have incongruent evidence we have to render an "Inconclusive" verdict (i.e., the radiocarbon results don't trump the rest of the evidence, we simply have data that suggests opposite conclusions, so we can't say anything definitive).

I also gave the example of a guy I know--the original photographer on the STURP research team that studied the Shroud. His name is Barry Schwortz and I explained how he is Jewish but is convinced by the evidence that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Christ and he thinks the radiocarbon results must be in error. His website by the way is: https://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#papers3

*Anyway, the discussion inspired me to update my knowledge on the subject and in the process I discovered that the evidence isn't as inconclusive as I thought but strongly favors that the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus. So, I posted a new, updated revised assessment on Mind Walk's forum. Here is the copy of my post. It's a little long, but it will give you an update on the current status of the Shroud:

Written in response to another post:

The Turin Shroud is a fascinating topic that could easily occupy it's own forum. It's been a while since I've done an in depth literature review, but our discussion inspired me to do so, and needless to say, the results were surprising and the physical evidence stronger than I realized.

Thus, after further review, I have to report that my position/assessment has changed to the following:

(1) The preponderance of the evidence is that the Turin Shroud is authentic.

(2) The 1988 radiocarbon results are not representative of the Shroud, and, therefore, provide us with no information about the Shroud's true age.

(3) The results of four other dating methods are consistent with a 1st century origin, and inconsistent with a medieval origin.

(4) An accurate radiocarbon test of the Shroud that employs robust protocols still needs to be done.

Provenance: In addition to the compelling historical case for the Shroud's presence in Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, and Europe (as well as pollen and a rare type of limestone travertine aragonite that locates the Shroud in the Jerusalem area), extensive DNA sequencing and analysis of the many different types of plant and human DNA (halotypes) found in dust and pollen grains on the Shroud are further consistent with the Shroud's presence in the above localities.

Image: The image is not a painting or work of art, and unlike the blood, does not show any evidence of seeping, soaking or liquid capillary flow, but superficially penetrates only a few microns into the 1 or 2 uppermost *fibers* that compose the larger linen threads. The discoloration of fibers that comprise the image is the result of an oxidative, dehydration process that has only affected the outer primary cell wall of the fibers, leaving the internal structure unaffected. The varying intensity of the image results from the density or number of fibers that are discolored in a given area, and not from any change in the color of the fibers themselves (i.e., the discoloration is the same, uniform color throughout).

Image Formation: While an exact reproduction of the image remains elusive, UV-radiation from lasers and corona discharge have been able to replicate a number of the Shroud image's properties. In particular, electrical voltage sent through a conductive mannequin (wrapped in a linen shroud matching the Turin Shroud's properties) that was designed to radiate an electrical corona discharge from the mannequin body, created an image of the body on the linen that had negative photographic effects, 3D aspects, and that only superficially penetrated the linen similar to the Shroud image (though not as detailed and accurate).

Synopsis: With the Turin Shroud we have a linen burial shroud made by technology consistent with first century linen production that enshrouded a human male body bearing anatomically and medically accurate wounds consistent with Roman scourging and crucifixion, and an additional side wound and scalp puncture wounds consistent with the gospel accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus, evidencing a *cap* of thorns (as opposed to the traditional circular *crown/wreath* of thorns).

Evidence of rigor mortis and a lack of any evidence for putrefication (body decomposition) of any kind (commonly seen in other burial cloths) indicates the body was in the Shroud for no more than 40 hours and then removed without causing any disruption (smearing, breakage, distortion, etc.) of the blood stains.

Before the body was removed, a superficial image of the body with negative photographic and 3D properties was transferred to the linen via some as of yet undetermined action-at-a-distance radiation process. Experimental evidence indicates that the electromagnetic radiation was in the UV-range, and further suggests that this radiation was emitted from the body via some type of process bearing similar (though not identical) properties to an electrical corona discharge.

1988 Radiocarbon Results:

(1) The 1988 test did not follow recommended protocols, including at least 3 samples from different parts of the Shroud (only 1 part of Shroud was sampled) and at least 7 different testing laboratories (which was reduced to 3). There were scientists who formally protested/criticized these deviations in the same journal (Nature) that published the results *before* the radiocarbon test was even conducted.

(2) The sample was taken from the Raes corner of the Shroud, which previous scientists had identified as a contaminated section of the Shroud that was unsuitable for radiocarbon dating. Recommendations *against* sampling from the Raes corner had already been made prior to the 1988 radiocarbon test

(3) A single linear strip of linen was cut from the Raes corner and then further cut into smaller pieces and given to the 3 testing laboratories in Arizona, Zurich, and Oxford).

(4) The 1988 results showed an anomalously high Chi-Square test of 6.4, not found in the control samples. This meant that the 3 laboratory test samples were not homogenous but heterogeneous, and should not have been treated as 3 independent tests of the same thing, but single test results for 3 different things (i.e., among other things, the results of the 3 labs should not have been averaged).

(5) Additional evidence of the heterogeneity of the 3 samples has since been confirmed by multiple, independent investigators who have confirmed a statistically significant linear trend in the results that evidence a C14 enrichment mechanism that correlates with distance from the edge of the Shroud. Put another way, the tests were supposed to be 3 independent tests of the same thing. They are not. They are single radiocarbon tests on 3 different (heterogenous) samples, each of which contain different levels of C14 (so, again, it is improper to average the results). Furthermore, the amount of C14 in these samples increases with distance from the edge of the Shroud (again, showing that the laboratories were not given 3 samples of the same thing to independently test, but effectively 3 different samples).

(6) As you said, there is NO evidence of an "invisible repair/weave" in the sampled section.

(7) However, there is confirmation that secondary cotton fibers not original to the Shroud (and absent from the rest of the Shroud) have been spun *into* the linen in the Raes section (i.e., these are not external cotton fibers on the Shroud surface, but internal). There is confirmed presence of additional substances in the Raes section not found in the rest of the Shroud, including plant type gum adhesives. This evidence demonstrates that the Raes corner where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative of the Shroud.

(8) Additional evidence, including Blue Quad Mosaic and UV-Fluorescent imaging tests further confirm that the Raes area where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative, and has a different chemical composition from the rest of the Shroud.

(9) The UV-Fluorescent results are particularly noteworthy for exhibiting a near perfect correlation (99.3%) with the 1988 radiocarbon results (i.e., the radiocarbon results from each laboratory are almost perfectly predicted by the UV-fluorescence). This suggests that fluorescence predicts carbon date, and amounts to an actual measure of contamination.

The Results of Four Dating Methods are Consistent with a First Century Origin:

(1) These dating methods include: Vanillin Extinction, FTIR, Raman Spectroscopy, and Elasticity/Modulus Measures of linen fibers (i.e., "Breaking Strength").

(2) Here, I review 1 of the 4: Vanillin Extinction. The lignin in plant material (including linen fibers) includes a substance called vanillin that degrades to 0% over time. The kinetics (i.e., rate of degradation is affected by temperature). Based on these degradation rates, if the Shroud truly dates to 1290-1360 (as the 1988 radiocarbon results suggest), then about 30-40% of the vanillin should still be present. However, if the Shroud dates to the first century, then there should be no (0%) vanillin (More specifically, because degradation rates are affected by temperature, a 0% vanillin result would indicate a date of anywhere between 1,000 BC and 700 AD).

*The Raes section still contains vanillin. The rest of the Shroud, however, does not, but has 0%. This result not only provides additional confirmation that the Raes area where the sample for radiocarbon dating was taken from is atypical and not representative of the Shroud, it further shows that the rest of the Shroud is demonstrably older than the Raes section.

REVISED ASSESSMENT: The 1988 radiocarbon results were based on an atypical, non-representative sample, and, therefore, do not provide us information about the true age of the Turin Shroud. Thus, an accurate radiocarbon test that employs robust protocols still needs to be done. Scientific conclusions are always tentative, so they can be changed in the future should new evidence warrant it. However, an assessment of the Turin Shroud based on the preponderance of the evidence that we currently do have indicates that the Shroud of Turin is authentic.

MainframeSupertasker

Nov 12, 2020

0

#2

(9) The UV-Fluorescent results are particularly noteworthy for exhibiting a near perfect correlation (99.3%) with the 1988 radiocarbon results (i.e., the radiocarbon results from each laboratory are almost perfectly predicted by the UV-fluorescence). This suggests that fluorescence predicts carbon date, and amounts to an actual measure of contamination.

You mean, a microscopic measure of contamination? Or is it that the C14 machines could have just made a slight error giving rise to the 99.3%?

tbwp10

Nov 12, 2020

0

#3

Great question. Has nothing to do with the lab equipment, but the samples themselves, which were not homogenous, uniform samples, but had statistically significant differences in the amount of C14 that increased with distance from the edge of the Shroud. Completely unexpected.

We would expect 3 samples of linen within a few centimeters of each other to have identical to nearly identical C14 content that we could then just average together (which they erroneously did anyway). Instead, analysis of the results shows that the 3 samples truly did have different levels of C14 that increased with distance from the Shroud, as if they were samples from 3 different linen shrouds entirely (even though they were from the same linen cloth and right next to each other!).

Thus, the fact the level of C14 increases as one moves farther away from the edge of the Shroud shows that there had to be some sort of mechanism or process that was contaminating the cloth (by somehow introducing exogenous C14).

The even crazier thing is that the fluorescent test results correlated with this linear contamination trend from the edge of the Shroud (i.e., change in C14 level) to 99%. The fluorescent test indicates changes in composition, so there was a 99% correlation between the radiocarbon results and the changes in composition; again, reinforcing the conclusion that some type of systematic contamination mechanism was at work enriching the level of C14.

MainframeSupertasker

Nov 12, 2020

0

#4

Does it necessarily have to be contamination? As the detector moves farther away from the edge of the Shroud, the detector will come nearer to the human body, which can have some amounts of C14. As humans, we have some amounts of C14 and that decays away as we decompose. So it is natural to assume that the C14 content will increase as the detector moves away from the edge of the Shroud towards the center?

tbwp10

Nov 12, 2020

0

#5

All 3 samples were still very close to the edge of the Shroud (the single linen strip that was cut into smaller pieces to send to the 3 labs was itself only about 20 centimeters long total). No change in C14 would be expected at all within this small 20 cm strip of linen. So, this is something that happened to this small section of the cloth at some time during the history of the Shroud. Recall that additional plant gum adhesives, other substances were found in these areas as well as added cotton fibers that were spun into the linen at sometime during the Shroud's history. I suspect the addition of these foreign substances that weren't original to the Shroud have something to do with the skewed radiocarbon results.

MainframeSupertasker

Nov 12, 2020

0

#6

Oh that makes sense. You're claiming that 20cm was too small to expect any change in C14, but what is observed shows some change, hence it's contamination.

And that contamination came from foreign substances which were not original to the Shroud. Nevertheless the Shroud is genuinely old.

Gotcha.

My question was a bit different and probably not related to this particular artifact. Can the C14 from the human contaminate the cloth?

tbwp10

Nov 13, 2020

0

#7

In theory any exogenous source of carbon can skew readings. Radiocarbon dating is very accurate but it's extremely tricky business (even more so than other radiometric dating methods). There are a myriad of different ways to skew results, including residual carbon in the laboratory equipment that can never be completely expunged, varying background carbon, different carbon reservoirs in marine, and freshwater environments, atmospheric nuclear tests from 60-70 years ago, calcium carbonate in shells, etc., etc., etc.

Today, radiocarbon dating is sophisticated science and laboratories have sophisticated controls and callibrations they do to control for all of the aforementioned variables. The science is very refined and there are different protocols and sample cleaning preps for every different kind of substance depending on whether you're dating textiles or bone or charcoal or shells or wood, etc., etc., etc. And then, of course, there are some things that you can't use radiocarbon dating for at all--like fossils---because it gives totally useless numbers/results.

So in answer to your question, yes, in theory carbon from humans can contaminate artifacts. However, today's protocols and prep and cleaning methods and calibrations and checks and cross-checks to control for such things are so good that any contamination even from a human source would be removed prior to testing, and if by chance it was missed the checks and cross checks would indicate that there was a problem with the results and that the results aren't reliable (like the Chi-Square test showed with the 1988 results for the Shroud).

MainframeSupertasker

Nov 13, 2020

0

#8

Ah that makes sense, thanks

tbwp10

Apr 3, 2023

0

#9

For anyone interested in a FREE ebook download on the Shroud of Turin....

Here's the direct link I went to. Signed up for free vip list for updates on the Shroud of Turin and then received email link to download free book. (Not a gimmick, not a spam site). Book is in pdf format. Table of Contents shown below.

Link