Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic or a Hoax?

[quantumcarl]

The Shroud of Turin has been in the small town of Turin, Italy, since around the 1400s. There has always been a debate as to whether it was a true representation of Jesus or a scam.

I'm not going to provide a link or a source for you to study this phenomenon (you can do that independently) but will ask you to decide on a vote concerning its origin, if you like. Thank you.

 

[HazZy]

well i do believe it's a very clever fake, however shouldn't there be a "maybe" option? i think that's the option i would choose.

 

[Iacchus32]

I when I had first heard about this twenty or so years ago, I was amazed, and thought how could somebody possibly fake that? That is until recently, on some science documentary (possible Nova), that they we were able to reproduce similar results. So at this point I'm inclined to believe it was a forgery.

 

[radagast]

Not to mention the C¹⁴ dating that tags it to be from the middle ages.

To me, before the dating, the most compelling evidence against was that if an image was imprinted, it wouldn't look like it does. What you see is a two dimensional projection, similar to a photo. The shroud would have wrapped around getting more than a simple two dimensional projection, being the sides of the face would also be part of the image, giving a very distorted looking (pie shaped) face. A simple experiment can be run to show the type of image that should have been produced. Mix a thin mixture of facial mud, smear it on your face, then lightly apply a light colored towel to your face, just as a shroud would, letting it contact the front and sides of your face. The image you get doesn't have the same type shape as the Turin shroud.

 

[HazZy]

the shroud, although not that much around the face, actually does give a 3-d image. well i shouldn't nessecarily say that since many debate it, but i know some labs have come up with a 3-d image of the person depicted in the shroud. anyways if you put paint on your face and losely place a sheet over it you get a pretty nice picture. however this just demonstrates the amount of time the artist put into this painting, i would think it was his greatest work.

i've always wondered how an artist could make an image like that though, what kind of paint would you use? i know they've found the blood to be a type of paint, but what about the paint (or whatever) used to make the person on the shroud?

 

[quantumcarl]

Many studies have been done on the shroud and how an image like the one on the shroud could have been produced.

At some point I will go and dig up some of the books I have in my library that explain the process, plus the names of the individuals who did the experiments that show the shroud to be a photograph of a dead body wearing a mask that resembles either an old jesus or an old Leonardo DaVinci.

Leonardo invented the Camera Obscura... an invention that uses a small slit in a box which projects a bright image from outside the box onto a wall inside the box. The image is projected upside-down.

It is not much of a further stretch to imagine DaVinci discovering that he could retain the image if it was projected onto a silver and tempura mix... which is a precursor to photographic film chemicals. DaVinci regularly used a silver point to draw with and used egg tempura as a medium with which to add pigment for painting.

DaVinci was in Turin during the middle ages (from which the shroud has been carbon dated as HazZy has noted.) He was there to do a portrait of the daughter of a rich merchant.

The Daughter of the rich merchant's name was... Mona Lisa.

This puts DaVinci in the town of Turin around the same time as when the shroud miraculously appeared... again.

I say "again" because there had been rumours of a shroud with the image of Jesus floating around for a long time... ever since jesus was supposedly exicuted.

The shroud was rumoured to be owned by the ruler of Constantenoples and it was rumoured to have been gifted to a Crusader who was rumoured to have brought it to the west.

This was a rumour that became a myth that became a mainstay of the elite religious leaders during the dark ages and so on.

DaVinci did not like the church. I can imagine him pulling a scam with his "magic" camera, just so it could be proven a fake, some 400 years later... when the camera would be re-invented and the process used to make the shroud "exposed", thus exposing the shroud as a fake.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by HazZy
the shroud, although not that much around the face, actually does give a 3-d image. well i shouldn't nessecarily say that since many debate it, but i know some labs have come up with a 3-d image of the person depicted in the shroud

You only get that image if you allow the shroud/cloth to only contact the front surface of the face. If it is allowed to encompass the face, as it would if wrapped around a person, then the image would be very round. You can determine a 3D image from a 2D projection, what I'm saying is that the 2D image on the shroud would not be 'picture-like' as a 2D projection would.

 

[Zero]

Yep, it is a fake...glad to see other people know it!

 

[Holodeckie]

Turin, Davinci, Carbon Dating

Those poll choices leave a lot to be desired.

I think carbon dating is flawed.

I think the blast at Hiroshima caused imprints of the people on the wall.

I saw pictures of a South American bed where the occupant was gone in a flash (alleged Alien activity) and the flash left imprints on the sheet but I cannot vouch for the validity of the source or the pictures.

I do think Davinci knew things and was probably pro-Jesus or at least sort of pro-Templar or something and anti-church-politics-money.

I saw a study I tend to believe. A female researcher did examinations of Mona and determined it was Leonardo turning himself into a woman and grinning about it.

Also fascinating stuff on his use of depth through color to make the viewer see things they would not otherwise see at varying angles ... like the smile.

All-in-all, I think the shroud is not a hoax to thumb Leo's nose at the establishment but would be more valuable examined without expectation flawing the results.

 

[megashawn]

All-in-all, I think the shroud is not a hoax to thumb Leo's nose at the establishment but would be more valuable examined without expectation flawing the results.

How do you suggest it be examined? Perhaps using a cross made of gold, on a chain held over the shroud. If it rotates clockwise, its real, if it rotates counterclockwise, its not?

I mean, every means of testing that is considered reliable is not good enough for you?

What problems do you have with carbon dating? The flood idea, that makes things look older? Well, there isn't any evidence supporting a global flood, either.

I think the blast at Hiroshima caused imprints of the people on the wall.

I saw pictures of a South American bed where the occupant was gone in a flash (alleged Alien activity) and the flash left imprints on the sheet but I cannot vouch for the validity of the source or the pictures.

And this has what to do with what?

As I understood it, basically any shadow that was cast left an imprint on the ground, walls, etc within the blast zone.

To the alien case, hmm.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
Those poll choices leave a lot to be desired.

Well, do the best you can with it, ok?

I think carbon dating is flawed.

The good thing about science is, it works even when you don't believe it!

I think the blast at Hiroshima caused imprints of the people on the wall.

So Jesus's corpse went forward in time, got blasted by an H-bomb, and traveled back in time, with the sheet intact...

I saw pictures of a South American bed where the occupant was gone in a flash (alleged Alien activity) and the flash left imprints on the sheet but I cannot vouch for the validity of the source or the pictures.

...or Jesus was adopted by aliens? Which one is it?

I do think Davinci knew things and was probably pro-Jesus or at least sort of pro-Templar or something and anti-church-politics-money.

And this is relevant how?

I saw a study I tend to believe. A female researcher did examinations of Mona and determined it was Leonardo turning himself into a woman and grinning about it.

Also fascinating stuff on his use of depth through color to make the viewer see things they would not otherwise see at varying angles ... like the smile.

All-in-all, I think the shroud is not a hoax to thumb Leo's nose at the establishment but would be more valuable examined without expectation flawing the results.

Hmmm...what expectations do you think 'flaw' the results? And how could expectations affect carbon dating, or the myriad other tests that have shown time and again that the shroud is a hoax?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
Those poll choices leave a lot to be desired.

I think carbon dating is flawed.

Based on what?

I think the blast at Hiroshima caused imprints of the people on the wall.

Most shadows do, but we aren't talking two dimensional shadows. We are talking a sheet, wrapped around a body and face. Take a piece of string and measure the distance between your ears (across your front of your face). This is how far apart the ears shown in the shround would appear. Take your time and think it through. This isn't a 2 dimensional projection like a mirror, picture, or shadow, but the direct image of the surface onto a shround wrapped around a body. The image will not look like a picture. If it does then the image wasn't formed on a wrapping.

I saw pictures of a South American bed where the occupant was gone in a flash (alleged Alien activity) and the flash left imprints on the sheet but I cannot vouch for the validity of the source or the pictures.

Oh well if you're going to give us alien abduction evidence to support the shroud of turin, why didn't you say so. Then of course you're right.

Humor aside, you're still talking two dimensional projections, like shadows.

I do think Davinci knew things and was probably pro-Jesus or at least sort of pro-Templar or something and anti-church-politics-money.

I saw a study I tend to believe. A female researcher did examinations of Mona and determined it was Leonardo turning himself into a woman and grinning about it.

Also fascinating stuff on his use of depth through color to make the viewer see things they would not otherwise see at varying angles ... like the smile.

All-in-all, I think the shroud is not a hoax to thumb Leo's nose at the establishment but would be more valuable examined without expectation flawing the results.

Did you remember to take your meds today?

 

[quantumcarl]

quantumfish

hello, just dipping in between bouts of fishing the vicious fish of Alberta! A fitting interlude when you consider the symbol that's been attached to the main figure of the Shroud of Turin (fish).

As promised.

I found the author's names of the very good (highly physical!) explanation concerning the Shroud of Turin.

The authors are Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. They wrote "Turin Shroud..."

here is a website with the whole gambit of books written on the subject...explanations that extend from angelic interludes (requiring qualudes:) to the records of the carbon14 dating that was done back in whenever it was done. Everything to do with the subject.

http://www.ntskeptics.org/books/shroud.htm

Happy chemtrails!

PS. To do with this Thread and Topic on PF... Clive and Lynn have written a wonderful book about Mary Magdelene as well. Cheers.

 

[Holodeckie]

pictures and unusual energy

The walls were not wrapped around the people at Hiroshima. Perhaps if they were, you would have had 3-d images.

Atomic energy changes the results of carbon dating and they do their best to incorporate that into results they get, as I understand it. Part of that is done by studying the varying rings in trees. The rings vary and they had to figure out why.

That alone (energy blasts) will lead to major problems with carbon dating where the people of expectation set out to prove a thing, not realizing that atomic blasts did not just begin with WWII. There are now accounts of ancient literature and art that tell stories of what seems to be atomic blasts and the remains are indicative of such occurrences.

I am associating it with the Turin shroud simply to say, well, what if there are phenomenon of heat and light that we do not understand with our basic belief systems? The Jesus character was not ordinary.

I'm not alone in realizing that carbon dating tends to get the results someone wants to prove.

Science does not necessarily work "whether I believe it or not". Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree for 20 years or so. Then theories get overturned. Example? Check on Freud's theories of women's orgasms versus the work done by Masters and Johnson. Freud was wrong.

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
The walls were not wrapped around the people at Hiroshima. Perhaps if they were, you would have had 3-d images.

Atomic energy changes the results of carbon dating and they do their best to incorporate that into results they get, as I understand it. Part of that is done by studying the varying rings in trees. The rings vary and they had to figure out why.

That alone (energy blasts) will lead to major problems with carbon dating where the people of expectation set out to prove a thing, not realizing that atomic blasts did not just begin with WWII. There are now accounts of ancient literature and art that tell stories of what seems to be atomic blasts and the remains are indicative of such occurrences.

I am associating it with the Turin shroud simply to say, well, what if there are phenomenon of heat and light that we do not understand with our basic belief systems? The Jesus character was not ordinary.

I'm not alone in realizing that carbon dating tends to get the results someone wants to prove.

Science does not necessarily work "whether I believe it or not". Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree for 20 years or so. Then theories get overturned. Example? Check on Freud's theories of women's orgasms versus the work done by Masters and Johnson. Freud was wrong.

If you've got even the slightest bit of evidence that fission bombs went off before Alamagordo, I'd certainly like to hear about it. I'd also like you to elaborate on just how atomic blasts alter carbon dating. Are you saying that they release carbon-14?

And please elaborate on the tree rings. Because tree rings have been used to collaborate, cross reference, and confirm the accuracy of carbon dating.

Sure, you're not the only one who thinks carbon dating is biased. Creationists and other nutty pseudoscientists do it all the time.

And the bull****ometer goes to red when you say things like "Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree". You, sir, apparently have had no involvement whatsoever with the scientific community.

And Freud was a 19th century social scientist. Little more than a philosopher. I wouldn't regard him as a real scientist at all.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
The walls were not wrapped around the people at Hiroshima. Perhaps if they were, you would have had 3-d images.

Atomic energy changes the results of carbon dating and they do their best to incorporate that into results they get, as I understand it. Part of that is done by studying the varying rings in trees. The rings vary and they had to figure out why.

That alone (energy blasts) will lead to major problems with carbon dating where the people of expectation set out to prove a thing, not realizing that atomic blasts did not just begin with WWII. There are now accounts of ancient literature and art that tell stories of what seems to be atomic blasts and the remains are indicative of such occurrences.

I am associating it with the Turin shroud simply to say, well, what if there are phenomenon of heat and light that we do not understand with our basic belief systems? The Jesus character was not ordinary.

I'm not alone in realizing that carbon dating tends to get the results someone wants to prove.

Science does not necessarily work "whether I believe it or not". Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree for 20 years or so. Then theories get overturned. Example? Check on Freud's theories of women's orgasms versus the work done by Masters and Johnson. Freud was wrong.

One phenomenon you have touched on is the discrepency found when correlating tree-ring dates and radiocarbon14 dating.

Traditionally, the results of radiocarbon14 dating are estimated approximately 50 years either side of the date attained. Tree rings can also be suspect when you take into account the fact that there is NO growth during extreme weather conditions.

Velikovski (close consultant to Einstein) goes into great detail concerning radiocarbon14 dating and the use of other methods suchas counting the tree-rings on wooden structures, tools and in petrified wood.

Velikovski's main concern was that disturbances of a cosmic nature might disrupt the carbon14 in objects and throw dating off by 300 to 500 years. The properties would be changed by the presence of a celestial body and its naturally radiant, EM fields and gravitational qualities. Certain proton alignments would also be temporarily changed. He believed Venus passed relatively closely to Earth and had this effect on many elements including the RAdioCarbon14 found in organic matter.

Velikovski claims Venus was extracted or expulsed from Jupiter around 3600 years ago and messed with the EMFs, radiation and general surface readings of this planet on its way into orbit, where it can be found today. His claims have more to do with the Egyptian dates around 1500 BC (Mose's time) than they have to do with the sequences during the later period of 1400 AD when the Shroud was created by Da Vinci.

Considering the above case, I'd say your concerns concerning the validity of the carbon14 dating done on the Shroud of Turin are unwarranted.

Concerning the image: try wrapping tin foil around your face then gently flatening the tinfoil out. You will notice a severe distortion to the original features of your face will occur. The image of the man on the shroud, however, is a perfect reproduction of how we'd see his likeness in a photograph... albeit in a negative format.

The only way the Shroud could have an imprint like the one it does is through the use of photography. There are no pigments found on the image of the dead man. The only paint pigments found on the cloth are found in the fake blood rivulets that seemingly run down the arms of the deceased. This was truly a work of art, well, a multi-media extravaganza actually!

Oops, my beer is getting cold... er... hot... er... bye.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
The walls were not wrapped around the people at Hiroshima. Perhaps if they were, you would have had 3-d images.

Atomic energy changes the results of carbon dating and they do their best to incorporate that into results they get, as I understand it. Part of that is done by studying the varying rings in trees. The rings vary and they had to figure out why.

That alone (energy blasts) will lead to major problems with carbon dating where the people of expectation set out to prove a thing, not realizing that atomic blasts did not just begin with WWII. There are now accounts of ancient literature and art that tell stories of what seems to be atomic blasts and the remains are indicative of such occurrences.

I am associating it with the Turin shroud simply to say, well, what if there are phenomenon of heat and light that we do not understand with our basic belief systems? The Jesus character was not ordinary.

I'm not alone in realizing that carbon dating tends to get the results someone wants to prove.

Science does not necessarily work "whether I believe it or not". Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree for 20 years or so. Then theories get overturned. Example? Check on Freud's theories of women's orgasms versus the work done by Masters and Johnson. Freud was wrong.

Dude, you really shouldn't try to back up a myth with pseudoscience...*grins*

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
The walls were not wrapped around the people at Hiroshima. Perhaps if they were, you would have had 3-d images.

Quite true, but we aren't discussing images on walls, but on a shroud. One that was wrapped around a person. Hence the problem. There should be a distorted image, not like a picture - as in the shroud. If you really cannot get what's being said, then powder your face with some flour, then wrap a bath towel over your face and around your head. Then image formed by the flour will not be picture-like, but much, much wider. Something NOT seen in the shroud.

Atomic energy changes the results of carbon dating and they do their best to incorporate that into results they get, as I understand it. Part of that is done by studying the varying rings in trees. The rings vary and they had to figure out why.

That alone (energy blasts) will lead to major problems with carbon dating where the people of expectation set out to prove a thing, not realizing that atomic blasts did not just begin with WWII. There are now accounts of ancient literature and art that tell stories of what seems to be atomic blasts and the remains are indicative of such occurrences.

You must have your head up your nether regions if you think Nuclear blasts had any effect on the carbon dating of the shroud, or of anything else. It is my understanding carbon 14 is produced in a reaction between nitrogen in the atmosphere and high energy neutrons (at much higher energy than produced in a nuclear blast) in the form of cosmic rays.

Disregarding the fact that nuclear detonations don't effect C14 dating, the fact the shroud's cotten/linen material was growing before nuclear bombs were invented, and has been shielded from the radiation of such explosions by the distance of at least several hundred to a thousands of miles, blows a hole in you atomic bomb theory.

I am associating it with the Turin shroud simply to say, well, what if there are phenomenon of heat and light that we do not understand with our basic belief systems? The Jesus character was not ordinary.

Maybe if you had taken science past high school you would have a greater understanding of heat and light. Heat and light don't have an effect on C14, in any way you are suggesting.

I'm not alone in realizing that carbon dating tends to get the results someone wants to prove.

I think you're much more alone than you think. You seem to be the type that treats scientific results as simple opinion - where opposing opinions are simply dismissed as biased.

Science does not necessarily work "whether I believe it or not". Scientists are a very organized group who agree to agree for 20 years or so. Then theories get overturned. Example? Check on Freud's theories of women's orgasms versus the work done by Masters and Johnson. Freud was wrong.

Psychology is an infant science - hardly along the scale of the hard sciences.

The idea that things can be wrong - as discovered by science is quite true. The aspect you seem to ignore is that scientist do not agree or want to. A scientist can make himself extremely famous by disproving a generally accepted scientific principle. If I were a physicist, and could prove that C14 dating was highly flawed (as you suggest), it would make my career - I could become a researcher at a prestigious institution and never have to do anything again. The greatests scientists in the world have all been those that overturned a generally accepted view of how things were.

 

[megashawn]

Just out of curiousity, where did you get the idea that there were atomic bombs before ww2?

Do you have any proof? References? I'd and others I'm sure would love to see that.

hahaha

sorry

can't help but laugh.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My oh my

First, the carbon dating is flawed. This is caused by an enzyme present on the fibers of the cloth. The cloth is to be cleaned and then retested. We do not currently know the age of the shroud. I have seen this confirmed in an interview with the scientist who invented carbon dating.

Also, the shroud was in two fires I think. Carbon from these fires, one of which was in the 14th or 15th century may have also skewed the results.

I can't vote until these carbon dating tests are repeated with uncontaminated material.

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
First, the carbon dating is flawed. This is caused by an enzyme present on the fibers of the cloth. The cloth is to be cleaned and then retested. We do not currently know the age of the shroud. I have seen this confirmed in an interview with the scientist who invented carbon dating.

Also, the shroud was in two fires I think. Carbon from these fires, one of which was in the 14th or 15th century may have also skewed the results.

I can't vote until these carbon dating tests are repeated with uncontaminated material.

You need to show proof of enzymes causing a flaw in Carbon14 dating. I've used carbon14 dating for over a decade and there has never been a problem with enzymes changing the Carbon14 depletion rate. You're making and taking stabs in the dark with that assertian.

I have provided more than enough material in the links above to back my claims.

Please post a link or the text from the "confirm"ing interview with "the scientist who invented carbon dating"(quote from Ivan Seeking).

All specimens taken for Carbon14 dating must be reduced to ash before the dating can be calculated (this part of the proceedure must have been mention by "the scientist who invented carbon dating").

In fact most of the specimens I have used in dating campsites and villages as old as 10,000 years BP were charcoal from cook fires.

The fact that the shroud was burnt on any date has no "skewing" effect whatsoever on the date taken from the samples provided by the church in Turin. In fact the fires simply helped to start the process of dating the cloth for the researchers.

 

[radagast]

Ivan,
Perhaps you would appear to be more than someone repeating stuff he doesn't understand if you didn't keep making these absurd claims.

Enzymes cannot affect the subatomic structures of atoms, such as C14. Now, if your saying that an enzyme was applied to the cloth, one that contained a large amount of C14, then perhaps you need to provide evidence of such. The Catholic church has had it in their custody for some time - they make no such mention of the enzyme.

This also still fails to explain the fact that the image should not appear like a photo. I'm starting to wonder how I can break it down into simple enough terms for you to understand, since you haven't addressed this yet, except to make some fairly absurd and off the way statements.

During the middle ages, there were thousands of 'holy relics' that were faked to make money. It is hardly an attack on christianity to see that this is just another of those.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
You need to show proof of enzymes causing a flaw in Carbon14 dating. I've used carbon14 dating for over a decade and there has never been a problem with enzymes changing the Carbon14 depletion rate. You're making and taking stabs in the dark with that assertian.

I have provided more than enough material in the links above to back my claims.

Please post a link or the text from the "confirm"ing interview with "the scientist who invented carbon dating"(quote from Ivan Seeking).

All specimens taken for Carbon14 dating must be reduced to ash before the dating can be calculated (this part of the proceedure must have been mention by "the scientist who invented carbon dating").

In fact most of the specimens I have used in dating campsites and villages as old as 10,000 years BP were charcoal from cook fires.

The fact that the shroud was burnt on any date has no "skewing" effect whatsoever on the date taken from the samples provided by the church in Turin. In fact the fires simply helped to start the process of dating the cloth for the researchers.

I can't defend the argument since I am only repeating what I heard in the interview. I am sure a link exists for this but it may take a few of days to dig one up; so please give me a little time on this one. I can only say for sure who I saw and what he said.


Edit: I can guarantee that anyone who calls me liar will be made the fool.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

""This is not a crazy idea," said Harry E. Gove, PhD, co-inventor of the use of accelerator mass spectrometry for carbon dating. Dr. Gove is professor emeritus of physics at the University of Rochester in New York.

"A swing of 1,000 years would be a big change, but it's not wildly out of the question, and the issue needs to be resolved," he said."

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Ivan,
Perhaps you would appear to be more than someone repeating stuff he doesn't understand if you didn't keep making these absurd claims.

Enzymes cannot affect the subatomic structures of atoms, such as C14. Now, if your saying that an enzyme was applied to the cloth, one that contained a large amount of C14, then perhaps you need to provide evidence of such. The Catholic church has had it in their custody for some time - they make no such mention of the enzyme.

This also still fails to explain the fact that the image should not appear like a photo. I'm starting to wonder how I can break it down into simple enough terms for you to understand, since you haven't addressed this yet, except to make some fairly absurd and off the way statements.

During the middle ages, there were thousands of 'holy relics' that were faked to make money. It is hardly an attack on christianity to see that this is just another of those.

I galdly concede to making small errors [I should have specified that I thought it was an enzyme], however the main point and whatever supporting details that I can remember is accurately represented to the best of my ability - always.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Ivan,
Perhaps you would appear to be more than someone repeating stuff he doesn't understand if you didn't keep making these absurd claims.

Could you be more specific?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Could you be more specific?

Just in case this is a serious question:

Chemical events changing subatomic structure,

Nuclear explosions effecting the carbon already locked into a piece of cloth (that is shielded from the radiation of said explosion)

That a shroud would have a two dimensional projective image on it when, if wrapped around a body, should have a surface type projection (therefore not very picture like in shape).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Just in case this is a serious question:

I already posted the source for this argument. It clearly demonstrates that this argument does exist just as I said, and from the source indicated. I saw this interview within the last year so it would seem that this issue is not resolved. Why are you challenging me on the words quoted from the co-inventor of the technique used to perform the tests? I think your beef is with him.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Nuclear explosions effecting the carbon already locked into a piece of cloth (that is shielded from the radiation of said explosion)

That a shroud would have a two dimensional projective image on it when, if wrapped around a body, should have a surface type projection (therefore not very picture like in shape).

What are you talking about?

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What are you talking about?

You have already stated that nuclear explosions are one of the reasons that C14 dating is inaccurate. For it to cause us to misdate the shroud, the shroud would have to have been exposed to intense neutron radiation, or the C14 in the atmosphere, where the plant source of the fabric, would have to have been unnaturally increase by said explosions/irradiation. Since you and I both believe the cloth's plants to have grown much before the advent of nuclear weapons, that leaves neutron irradiation of the shroud itself. Since there have been no nuclear detonations within a hundred miles (much less the .1 to 1 needed) then the dating of the shroud isn't subject to the dating flaws you mentioned.

You still haven't answered why you are so insistent that this is the shroud of Jesus, since they have duplicated the process by which it was ostinsibly faked, since it was common, in the middle ages, to fake holy relics for profit, and because all the evidence points in the direction of it being a fake. It being faked doesn't, in any way, undermine the basis of christianity.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I already posted the source for this argument. It clearly demonstrates that this argument does exist just as I said, and from the source indicated. I saw this interview within the last year so it would seem that this issue is not resolved. Why are you challenging me on the words quoted from the co-inventor of the technique used to perform the tests? I think your beef is with him.

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring96/shroud.htm

The chemist and Nobel Laureate, Dr. Willard Frank Libby is credited for developing (not inventing) the technique known as C-14 dating in 1947. No co-inventor or co-developer is credited. Dr. Libby died Sept 8 1980. No mention is made of any problems he found with C-14 dating. A year before developing the C14 techniques, he showed that naturally occurring tritium is formed from cosmic rays. He also worked on the Manhattan project.

Dr Martin Kamen and Dr Samuel Ruben are the co-discoverers of Carbon 14. They discovered it in 1940. Dr. Ruben died Sept 28, 1943 in a laboratory accident. Dr Kamen, winner of the Enrico Fermi award, in 1995, died Sept 7, 2002. Again, no mention is made of any problem with Carbon 14 dating.

In response to the rather bogus research you produce. The amount of fungus and bacteria on the shroud would be insignificant to testing, unless the bacteria/fungus was eating the shroud. If they were eating the shroud, then they would test the same age as the shroud. Carbon 14 only dates living beings to the date they quit taking C14 from the atmosphere. Since only plants take C14 from the atmosphere (as CO2), they are the only ones that 'start the clock ticking' with their death. Anything that eats them will date to the point of the plants death. For most living entities, this difference is insignificant - for termites eating wood that's 2000 years old, or bacteria eating cloth 1000 years old, the difference is significant.

The reason I quesion and challenge you on this is you have taken something as true, simply because you want it to be true. Hook, line, and sinker, without questioning the source, without critical examination of the evidence, and without knowledge of the subject. I can go out in the front of my yard, stand on a soap box and claim that the scientists are lying and the world is really flat. That doesn't make it so. The reasons you've given for C14 being incorrect are bogus.


Dr Libby:

http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/libby.html
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/348_3.html
http://emuseum.mnsu.edu/information/biography/klmno/libby_willard.html
http://www.ucla.edu/about/nobelwinners/libby.html

Dr Kamen and Ruben
http://in.news.yahoo.com/020907/137/1uyyc.html
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Kamen-Fermi-Award.html
http://www.etceteraweb.com/IYNC/09-05-02.father-of-C14.pdf

 

[Holodeckie]

food for thought

http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/5/19

there you go chemicalsuperfreak. That is all the work I'll do for you for free. Research it yourself and don't stop there.

 

[Holodeckie]

didn't see page 3

I see someone beat me to it.

 

[Holodeckie]

stimulate what if thinking

okay, here is a reference to what I read. It is unofficial and only from a discussion board. If you seek to research it from a reliable source, it gives plenty of data. I don't have time today and I don't need that in order to see the what ifs. So, don't ask me to do free work for you. If I were in a formal situation and paid, I'd research.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/newsletters/37325/0/collapsed/5/o/1

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
okay, here is a reference to what I read. It is unofficial and only from a discussion board. If you seek to research it from a reliable source, it gives plenty of data. I don't have time today and I don't need that in order to see the what ifs. So, don't ask me to do free work for you. If I were in a formal situation and paid, I'd research.

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat/cat/newsletters/37325/0/collapsed/5/o/1

I would trust this post as far as I could throw your standard sized elephant. Odd such a profound archeological find wouldn't make the news. It's been half a year since that post - you'd think you'd see it written up somewhere. Must be surpressed by the alien controlled media. ;)

This has virtually nothing in the detail needed to back up the claims or more importantly good references.

It also seems to violate what would be expected (other than the idea that ancient peoples had nuclear weapons). Most nuclear detonations have very high radiation levels for about two weeks, dropping inverse exponentially for the half-life of the respective isotopes produced. After a thousand years, it wouldn't be expected to be dangerously radioactive. Certainly not after over 8000 years. The higher the radiation level of an isotope, the shorter the half-life.

Just because something is in print is no reason to believe it.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/5/19

there you go chemicalsuperfreak. That is all the work I'll do for you for free. Research it yourself and don't stop there.

This site suffers from what most others suffer from, a lack of common sense.

Please name two bacteria that utilize CO2. How about just one that utilizes CO2 AND could live on a shroud in the dark. CO2 utlitizing bacteria are fairly uncommon. CO2 utilization is a plant-like trait, usually one that requires sunlight to convert the CO2 and water into food. Since the shroud has been sequestered away from light for most of the last 700 or 2000 years, depending on your choice of assumptions, it wouldn't have had light to grow. The mass of the bacteria would have to be a significant fraction of the weight of the shroud, given we are talking ratios of C12/C14. Since C14 has a HL of over 5000 years, most would still be there, even after 2000 years.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
You have already stated that nuclear explosions are one of the reasons that C14 dating is inaccurate. For it to cause us to misdate the shroud, the shroud would have to have been exposed to intense neutron radiation, or the C14 in the atmosphere, where the plant source of the fabric, would have to have been unnaturally increase by said explosions/irradiation. Since you and I both believe the cloth's plants to have grown much before the advent of nuclear weapons, that leaves neutron irradiation of the shroud itself. Since there have been no nuclear detonations within a hundred miles (much less the .1 to 1 needed) then the dating of the shroud isn't subject to the dating flaws you mentioned.

You still haven't answered why you are so insistent that this is the shroud of Jesus, since they have duplicated the process by which it was ostinsibly faked, since it was common, in the middle ages, to fake holy relics for profit, and because all the evidence points in the direction of it being a fake. It being faked doesn't, in any way, undermine the basis of christianity.

You have either confused me with someone else or you are talking through your hat. I said this and only this:

First, the carbon dating is flawed. This is caused by an enzyme present on the fibers of the cloth. The cloth is to be cleaned and then retested. We do not currently know the age of the shroud. I have seen this confirmed in an interview with the scientist who invented carbon dating.

Also, the shroud was in two fires I think. Carbon from these fires, one of which was in the 14th or 15th century may have also skewed the results.

I can't vote until these carbon dating tests are repeated with uncontaminated material.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
The chemist and Nobel Laureate, Dr. Willard Frank Libby is credited for developing (not inventing) the technique known as C-14 dating in 1947. No co-inventor or co-developer is credited. Dr. Libby died Sept 8 1980. No mention is made of any problems he found with C-14 dating. A year before developing the C14 techniques, he showed that naturally occurring tritium is formed from cosmic rays. He also worked on the Manhattan project.

Dr Martin Kamen and Dr Samuel Ruben are the co-discoverers of Carbon 14. They discovered it in 1940. Dr. Ruben died Sept 28, 1943 in a laboratory accident. Dr Kamen, winner of the Enrico Fermi award, in 1995, died Sept 7, 2002. Again, no mention is made of any problem with Carbon 14 dating.

.

I never said anything about who discovered carbon 14.

In response to the rather bogus research you produce. The amount of fungus and bacteria on the shroud would be insignificant to testing, unless the bacteria/fungus was eating the shroud. If they were eating the shroud, then they would test the same age as the shroud. Carbon 14 only dates living beings to the date they quit taking C14 from the atmosphere. Since only plants take C14 from the atmosphere (as CO2), they are the only ones that 'start the clock ticking' with their death. Anything that eats them will date to the point of the plants death. For most living entities, this difference is insignificant - for termites eating wood that's 2000 years old, or bacteria eating cloth 1000 years old, the difference is significant.

Like I said, your argument is with the source:

""This is not a crazy idea," said Harry E. Gove, PhD, co-inventor of the use of accelerator mass spectrometry for carbon dating. Dr. Gove is professor emeritus of physics at the University of Rochester in New York.

"A swing of 1,000 years would be a big change, but it's not wildly out of the question, and the issue needs to be resolved," he said."

The reason I quesion and challenge you on this is you have taken something as true, simply because you want it to be true. Hook, line, and sinker, without questioning the source, without critical examination of the evidence, and without knowledge of the subject. I can go out in the front of my yard, stand on a soap box and claim that the scientists are lying and the world is really flat. That doesn't make it so. The reasons you've given for C14 being incorrect are bogus.

I could care less how this turns out. I have no beliefs that depend on these results.

Next, you seem incapable of quoting me correctly. Do you have a problem with keeping the facts straight?

I was first called a liar. I have produced a source to confirm my statement. I think your problem is with him.

 

[radagast]

<double post - content deleted>

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
I am sorry, I did have you confused with HoloDeckie.

My apologies.

No problem. I got a little hot before I realized that this may have happened.

Really and truly, I hold no position on this except that some controversy does seem to exist. I am holding out until further notice.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
.

I never said anything about who discovered carbon 14.

No, I included that for completeness.

Like I said, your argument is with the source:

""This is not a crazy idea," said Harry E. Gove, PhD, co-inventor of the use of accelerator mass spectrometry for carbon dating. Dr. Gove is professor emeritus of physics at the University of Rochester in New York.

Willard Libby is the sole developer of the technique of Carbon-14 dating. Which he developed in 1947. When you stated the co-inventor (and techniques are generally developed, not invented) it seemed to imply Libby. If Gore co-developed a Mass Spec method then that was apparently confused with the C14 method originally developed.

"A swing of 1,000 years would be a big change, but it's not wildly out of the question, and the issue needs to be resolved," he said."

Perhaps, but it sounds like Dr Gore was out of his area of expertise when he starts talking about bacteria and fungi affecting the dating. The vast majority of bacteria do not utilize CO2, and none of the fungi. If bacteria were growing on the shroud, they were eating it, thus the C12/C14 ratio should remain unchanged.


I realize that you haven't been arguing these points, but the idea that their is a 2D projection on the shroud still hasn't been addressed. This is the type of image someone would fake, given they are making what people would expect to see, assuming they haven't though it through.

Nor does it address that a chemical alteration of nuclear structure doesn't happen.

Next, you seem incapable of quoting me correctly. Do you have a problem with keeping the facts straight?

As I mentioned earlier, I did confuse you with Holodeckie.

I was first called a liar. I have produced a source to confirm my statement. I think your problem is with him.

I've not claimed anyone here is a liar or has lied. There are a number of people I consider to have stated things incorrectly, but I wouldn't say that they were a liar without a great deal of evidence.

 

[radagast]

<double post - content deleted by author>

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by radagast
Now I believe it is you that needs to check the correct quotations. I've not claimed anyone here is a liar or has lied. There are a number of people I consider to have stated things incorrectly, but I wouldn't say that they were a liar without a great deal of evidence.

Well, I think a review of the comments made by you and Quantumcarl will show that as much was clearly implied. But I agree; no one said this outright.

I know that I probably irritate a lot of people, but understand that I am a scientist first; all else second. I just insist on a highly biased consensus before I consider something as golden. Edit: If I discover that controversy does exist that has a credible source, then I wait to see where this goes; sometimes these things take years or even decades to resolve.

 

[quantumcarl]

Off topic.

What is Mu?

Mu is the ancient name for what the Romans called "Lemuria".

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/?id=540

This is a link to some information and photos concerning a site in southern Japan that has particular features matching the descriptions of Lemuria or Mu.

There are reports of this architecture extending 300 miles underwater just south of this "temple".

Ancient Japanese stories refer to this site as the site of the famed and fabled "Hiro".

 

[megashawn]

Scientists have unearthed an ancient city where evidence shows an atomic blast dating back thousands of years, from 8,000 to 12,000 years, destroyed most of the buildings and probably a half-million people. One researcher estimates that the nuclear bomb used was about the size of the ones dropped on Japan in 1945.

8 to 12 thousand years? Wow. Thats a long time. Tell me something. Don't you also believe in creation, bible, shroud of turin, jesus is god, etc?

According to your religous beliefs, the universe should not have existed at the time this ancient nuke was dropped.

So which is it?


Anyhow, I would highly doubt that, as was mentioned, there has been no widespread coverage of that find. Not one mention, I check news sites daily, have been for about 3 years now. No. I'd love to see some true evidence for this. Let's try yahoo shall we?

Searching for the line "Atomic Blast in Ancient India" gives us the following results:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Atomic+Warfare+In+Ancient+India+&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-top

Among the results, I see a lot of fanatic sites, conspiracy sites, personal whacko sites. The one kind of site I don't see is one with any credit for telling the truth. Not one msnbc.com or cnn.com or even news.yahoo.com. Surely something as that article you linked to claims would have had a week devoted to it on the History channel.

I think Radagast said it, don't believe it because its typed. 30 seconds worth of research turns what slight possibility of credibility that story had into 100% doubt.

Namely, because if they new how to build nukes back then, there would be more evidence of it.

Think about it. If all life on Earth is wiped out tommorow, do you really think in 10,000 years there will be little or no trace of us, or the effects are technology has created?

Do you really think they will only find the blast sites, like Hiroshima, and ponder about how us primitive humans built a bomb? No. For one, if they had the technology to build a nuke, then damnit someone would have made the logical step of creating indoor plumbing.

To many holes, to rediculous. Not to mention belief in that crazy idea totally contradicts believing a shroud was jesus.

So again I ask, which is it? 8,000 year old Earth or nukes blowing up 8,000 years ago?

 

[Chemicalsuperfreak]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
[ That is all the work I'll do for you for free. Research it yourself and don't stop there. [/B]

When you make a claim, especially a ludicrous claim, you have to be prepared to back it up. When I ask you to explain how atomic blasts effect C-14 dating you give me a link to a small book review on the topic of a certain mass spectroscopy technique. Only one line in this review mentions Hiroshima and Nagasaki and it has nothing to do with C-14 dating.

Now I'll ask you again to explain how it works and this time please don't be giving me links that don't give me any information and pretend that you're answering me.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
What is Mu?

Mu is the ancient name for what the Romans called "Lemuria".
...

"What is Mu?" is a zen koan. Though you're answer was quite interesting, somehow I don't think it will help me answer the koan.

 

[quantumcarl]

Scamp

Originally posted by radagast
"What is Mu?" is a zen koan. Though you're answer was quite interesting, somehow I don't think it will help me answer the koan.

Actually the whole of our ignorance surrounding the Shroud of Turin produces the effect of a koan... (in hind-sight said he)

Of the 10,000 various vantages concerning the shroud and its origins and purpose, each and every aspect or point of view is correct in specific and respective ways.

It's impossible to prove that someone did not imprint their image on the shroud and it is impossible to prove Leonardo did not create a photograph and dress it up to arrive at the fabled jesus burial shroud.

In fact both of these extreme explanations can exist simultaniously as valid sources in the creation of this work of genius.

How is this possible?

Cause and effect... they don't always follow what we consider a natural progression or what other's call "sequence".

Da Vinci pulled the old frozen fish in the safety deposit box practical joke. (That's where you deposit a frozen fish in a Safety Deposit Box at a bank you don't like... for the next few months no one can figure out what smells so fishy)

However, the frozen fish joke only becomes noticed as a joke a few days after its deposition. Da Vinci's Shroud was not disclosed to be his work (and his discovery of photography) (according to people like me) until 600 years after his death.

Leonardo, by my reckoning, was a true Scamp!

 

[Holodeckie]

more what if

http://www.cosmictribune.com/ct/Extraterrestrial/Arch/2003/0327.html

This lady is award winning and the article points out research done on burns on a sheet by an alleged abductee.

There is tremendous controversy surrounding the fellow in either an elaborate campaign to discredit him or ... he is a hoaxster.

Nonetheless, he claims a past of having healing abilities, lights, etc.

I do find it interesting that some of the discrediting photos don't take into account effects of time and lighting in the room. They seem more bent on making people assume it proves inaccuracy.

I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I believe in investigating things personally before I have a solid bias. The various web sites about him are as different as night and day.

ChemicalSuperFreak: If you can't think your way around what they are saying about atomic blasts and why I mentioned H&N blasts making imprints ... I'd only exhaust myself to offer explanations. As far as giving you formula or logged lab time on the issue -- not going to happen. I don't earn my living in the field. I'm just speculating due to some things I have read, and, no, I don't have to prove that to satisfy your demands unless you intend to set me up in a lab, pay me, and buy me a degree (while I do the hard work). Then I'd be happy to look into it further on your demand.

I'm amused by people who insist on old steadfast rules, rhetoric, and feign the inability for reading comprehension when links are given. I refuse to believe someone who cannot even put 2 and 2 together (even if you disagree with the results) would be on a physics forum.

PS, if you decide to look at the link, the information I'll clue you to is what the scientist is saying about examining and testing the fibers and how unlike anything else it was in his experience.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Holodeckie
ChemicalSuperFreak: If you can't think your way around what they are saying about atomic blasts and why I mentioned H&N blasts making imprints ... I'd only exhaust myself to offer explanations. As far as giving you formula or logged lab time on the issue -- not going to happen. I don't earn my living in the field. I'm just speculating due to some things I have read, and, no, I don't have to prove that to satisfy your demands unless you intend to set me up in a lab, pay me, and buy me a degree (while I do the hard work). Then I'd be happy to look into it further on your demand.

I don't know what ChemSupFreak said about blasts and it's relevance to the shroud, but I will reiterate what I've said.

Imprints after the Hiroshima/Nagasaki blasts were shadows - hence why they were two dimensional projections onto a surface.

The shroud, if it were as represented, would be a three-dimensional surface projected onto a two-dimensional plane. It wouldn't look like a picture (as in the shroud) any more than the skin removed from an animal would look like a picture of the animal, or why a map of the Earth doesn't look like a picture of the Earth - they are both examples of a three-dimensional surface projected onto a two-dimensional plane.

I'm amused by people who insist on old steadfast rules, rhetoric, and feign the inability for reading comprehension when links are given. I refuse to believe someone who cannot even put 2 and 2 together (even if you disagree with the results) would be on a physics forum.

There is a difference between reading something, and accepting it hook, line, and sinker, just because you want it to be true. To me, the shroud doesn't have much significance - either way. "I don't have a dog in that fight" as it's so colorfully put. It sounds a lot like the researcher you mentioned is biased. If you look hard enough for something, you can find it, not matter if it doesn't really exist.

As to old steadfast rules - things like unusual claims require strong evidence - yep, I stick to that one pretty strongly. If you mean that when something smells like it came from the distal end of a bull that I ask for evidence, Again guilty as charged.

Do you have any scientific training, in the areas that this is being investigated in? If not, how do you evaluate the research you read? Has the research been published in peer-reviewed journals?

These are important questions, unless you are an expert in the field and can evaluate the data yourself. Otherwise, you're just taking someone else's word on this stuff.