Skip to comments.New: Shroud of Turin carbon dating proved erroneous ( performed on non-original cloth sample)
Posted on 09/28/2008 8:19:34 AM PDT by dascallie
PRESS RELEASE: Los Alamos National Laboratory team of scientists prove carbon 14 dating of the Shroud of Turin wrong
COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 In his presentation today at The Ohio State Universitys Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were definitely not linen and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that the  age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case. Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair. LANLs work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
Conference Scientist responds to Raleigh News and Observer story on the Shroud of Turin
T. V. Oommen writes in a letter published by the paper:
I am responding to the Aug. 29 article Scientists debate shrouds date. As a scientist involved in the shrouds study and research, and as a participant in the recent Ohio Shroud Conference where I made a presentation on Shroud coins dating by image extraction, I can emphatically say that there is plenty of evidence for the antiquity of the shroud as of first century origin.
There were several presentations on the erroneous dating of the shroud by the 1988 radiocarbon(C-14) dating. The area where the samples were taken was from a medieval patch with cotton, which appeared to blend perfectly with the linen shroud. If this is true, the main body of the shroud should show an ancient date. The theory that the entire shroud could show a more recent date because of the newer carbon generated during fiery events remains to be proven.
Some other scientists also propose similar views; for example, that powerful radiations from the resurrection event must have generated C-14. So another carbon dating of the shroud may not resolve the issue.
The coin identification I presented showed Pontius Pilate coins issued AD 30/31 placed on the eye area, which implies the shrouds age is very close to that. Read more about it at www.ohioshroudconference.com.
In defense of the scientists, the Vatican did not allow them to take a representative sample of the shroud.
What difference does it make? Do we really need to spend good money on this. If people believe it’s real, fine. If they don’t fine.
Not my money.
One of the biggest enigmas of our age I’d say. Foundation for the miraculous and Christian belief system.
It is looking more and more like it is an authentic artifact from the time of Jesus’ death...with an inexplicable image embedded into it. That really shakes up the reality map of some people.
Yes I’d say it worth out time and investment without a doubt.
One’s faith shouldn’t be incumbent of the Shroud ~ which I happen to believe is real.
By the same token, if it were proved not to be of Christ’s time that should also not refute one’s faith.
It seems to me that there are a lot of factions that have an interest in this who are not greatly concerned with the truth.
>It seems to me that there are a lot of factions that have an interest in this who are not greatly concerned with the truth.>
As in all things these days unfortunately ( ie, Obama religion).
Seems we are living in a relative scale of what is deemed “true” and “untrue” nowadays.
I don’t think taxpayers are paying for this.
But I’m happy to hear this. I’ll take any good news I can these days.
A relic isn’t everything, but neither is it nothing.
Personally, I’d like all the answers we can get, while we can still get them; before the muslims carbonize Turin, Rome, and all of Christian Europe.
Sorry the shroud has zero to do with my faith, and while I can't speak for others, I suspect it has zero to do with theirs.
who’s we? I didn’t know that you’d ponied up any money for this project.
Faith alone is all that is required. In addition, it's nice that science has never been able to replicate the shroud image using the most modern of techniques.
I was in northen Italy last Novemeber on business and visited Turin. The church is in the downtown area and was sadly closed. The feelings I had walking by the church was simply awe inspiring.
Not your money jack. None of your business. Don’t waste our time eh!
Yes, I over spoke....it is not alone the foundation..I should say, it is emblematic of the foundation ( the ressurection).
Further, I also agree whether this relic was proven or disproven, faith is not anchored by that data point, faith is infinitely more complex—however the shroud relic is quite mystical and inspiring. Possibly a divine bit of evidence of the miraculous.
That the previous testing was flawed isn’t new, but I don’t recall the detail of the cotton fibers in previous articles.
The Shroud remains a fascinating puzzle. I see you already pinged Shroudie.
It is rather interesting, but it should not much affect one’s belief system either way. It would be nice if this relic indicated that Jesus was resurrected (I don’t see how a relic can prove anything, however). I do think the Roman Catholic and Eastern churches make too much of relics, because this this can be abused to distract people from things more important. I am not saying every such thing is abused, just that there is a real danger of abuse. Some Protestants have the same problem, selling prayer cloths that are supposed to heal people, etc. Not that I put the Shrowd at the same level as what some fake preacher is selling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.