Skip to comments.Turin Shroud 'could be genuine as carbon-dating was flawed' (Dying Scientist Reverses Self)
Posted on 04/10/2009 4:24:42 PM PDT by GOPGuide
New evidence suggests the Turin Shroud could have been the cloth in which Jesus was buried, as experiments that concluded it was a medieval fake were flawed.
Radio carbon dating carried out in 1988 was performed on an area of the relic that was repaired in the 16th century, according to Ray Rogers, who helped lead the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STRP).
At the time he argued firmly that the shroud, which bears a Christlike image, was a clever forgery.
"Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken.
"It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate."
In the video, made shortly before he died of cancer in March 2005, he said: "I came very close to proving the shroud was used to bury the historic Jesus."
This latest evidence, to be broadcast in The Turin Shroud: New Evidence at 8pm on Sunday on the Discovery Channel, is the latest chapter in the shroud's history.
For the last 21 years most have considered it to be a medieval fake, after the 1988 tests dated it as being made between 1260 and 1390.
The result overturned 10 years of hope among Christians that it was real, after the first scientific tests found evidence of blood and serum stains.
The earliest documented sighting of the shroud is from 1353, but last week a historian claimed in the Vatican's newspaper that she had found a "missing link" in the Holy See's Secret Archives proving the Knights Templar had safeguarded it during the 13th century.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If this is the show I watched last weekend, it is well worth the time. Two other scientists, can't remember the names, discovered that the carbon dating pieces came from a part of the shroud that had been repaired between 1200 and 1600. The woman, who said she was clueless about the shroud until she saw some pictures of it on TV made the discovery AND HAS PROVEN IT. Rogers called BS on their paper about the repair and started his own investigation. Before he died, he said, I'll be damned, they're right.
I'll probably catch it again. It was very well done.
Not exactly the type of thing one wants to say on their deathbed, although it might constitute repentance.
Looks like the liberals are having a tough time trying taking over Easter this year.
If the Shroud is fake, it is really, really good fake. An almost unbelievably good fake considering the technology of the era. I am not a Christian but I do have an open mind about this.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
HAPPY EASTER... PRAISE GOD!
Virtually all carbon-dating is flawed. It works fine if you have a closed system, but most pld stuff has been subject to distortions
That provides evidence for the presumed chain of custody.
Eventually something other than a chunk of the repair will be tested.
I think they said that the burns were repaired in 2003. The scientists are asking for those pieces that were removed during those repairs since they came from the interior of the shroud instead of the edges. I’d love to see that happen.
“Virtually all carbon-dating is flawed. It works fine if you have a closed system, but most pld stuff has been subject to distortions”
Uh-oh. You are about to be descended upon by rabid evolutionists who proclaim that Carbon-14 dating is sacred and not subject to flaws.
I recently watched a television show on this scientist. It would certainly appear the shroud is back in play.
DNA testing to prove or disprove crime is another modern article of faith, with similarly fanatical believers in its absolute reliability.
That was the same time the Pope announced he had converted to Islam
It would seem if you take the bible literally then the carbon dating is irrelevant. If you accept carbon dating for the shroud, you kinda have to accept carbon dating that shows the earth is much older than 6,000 years.
Or not. Using it to refute the age of an artifact is entirely different from using it to affirm the age of an artifact.
Carbon dating has numerous problems and so does radiometric dating. When an Hawaiian lava flow, known to have occurred in 1801, was tested, twelve times, twelve different results were reached, all varying wildly, none accurate, ranging from 140 million years to nearly 4 billion years, with an average between the twelve of 1.46 billion years. It was less than 200 years old at the time.
God doesn’t need special effects.
Wow. If I remember correctly, Rogers was a pretty hard-core shroud skeptic.
The shroud is conclusively not a painted image and has properties that could not have been known in Medieval times. So if it is a Medieval fake how was it made?
...and Happy Good Friday.
...countdown to Guinness and chocolate has BEGUN.
Either extraneous contamination, or "chain-of-custody" will do.
And the Shroud has neither one -- it was around for hundreds of years before anyone radiocarbon tested it.
...and Happy Good Friday.
Not necessarily -- God or the Devil could've fudged the data in the latter case.
But people don't like to open that can of worms for a whole variety of reasons.
...oh, and Happy Easter.
It really doesn’t matter to me whether or not the shroud is a fake - I believe Jesus Christ died and rose again. A burial cloth is irrelevant to my faith.
Happy Easter, everyone!
Thanks for the ping! And a Happy Good Friday to you!
Rock is not carbon dated. C14 has a half life of about 6000 years; radioisotope dating is mostly accurate within the first 6 or so half lifes (~36,000 years for C14). Also, you have to remember, that even if the volcano erupted 200 years ago, the rock that emerged is as old as the earth.
Yes, he was, but he was also a real scientist, who was willing to look at the evidence, and the data, and open his mind to a different conclusion than the one he'd drawn from the 1988 test results.
We saw this show last year, and it was excellent!
the question is, does it matter if it was a medievel fake or two thousand years old, who is to say that it really is the visage of christ?
As old as the earth? Why stop there? We’re talking formerly molten lava, here. I though argon was supposed to be the problem, making it look “too old.”
You are not remembering correctly. Raymond N. Rogers was a member of STURP and a real scientist. What he stated was that when the C14 tests reported ages of 1260-1390, he accepted the findings. He was not hard core as a skeptic and many of the discoveries about the chemistry on the Shroud are his. He was a stickler when it came to the various theories about WHY the C14 tests were wrong (as was I) and would vigorously point out the failings in critiques of the various theories propounded.
He THOUGHT he would be able to experimentally prove that the two scholars, Susan Benford and Joseph Marino, non-scientists, were wrong about their theory of a medieval invisible patch in the sampled area. His tests proved just the opposite of what he thought he would prove. He proved that although the main body of the Shroud is made of Linen from the Flax plant, the area tested was a mixture of original Linen and COTTON dyed to match the original cloth.
“Ask them about integrity of the sample.”
Agreed. Belief in the Shroud as the burial shroud of Jesus is just that — belief.
But so is evolution, because it has all the same problems you mentioned.
By "integrity of the sample" I was referring to contamination of the Shroud during the many years before it was available for radiocarbon dating; and various incidents during its lifetime, such as its being boiled in oil (IIRC) by folks hundreds of years ago to try to remove the image.
Such things do not make for good forensics -- the oil may have removed some of the Jerusalem area pollens, making the evidentiary nature of the pollen's presence easier to challenge by those with an agenda.
Thank you ping. It just takes time, the more we learn the more real is the Shroud.
Thanks for the ping!
Okay, the Shroud of Turin is back in the news. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a book and movie about this (hopefully better than the DaVinci Code which was boring). What’s your take on the Shroud?