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.
You are simply wrong when you say that te Raes sample contacted ANY of the c-14 test area. Had you scrolled down below your diagram, you would have seen that the c-14 sample (actual photo) was bounded by a piece of fringe that was removed and the Riggi sample. It did not contact any part of Raes.
Once again:King Umberto, the owner of the shroud in 1973 specifically requested that all samples be returned to the reliquary with the main shroud after it was tested. September 1995: Cardinal Saldarini issues statement declaring any Shroud samples in circulation other than those taken with official permission for the tests of 1978 as unauthorized. He remarks that 'if such material exists
the Holy See has not given its permission to anybody to keep it and do what they want with it' and he requests those concerned to give the piece back to the Holy See. This statement seems clearly to be directed at the samples taken by Professor Giovanni Riggi in April 1988, portions from which were procured in all good faith by Dr. Garza-Valdes. http://www.shroud.com/history.htm
You are aware that this study said there was NO blood on the shroud?
Rogers specifically states in it that Gonella gave him threads from the center of the c-14 test area.
Which is just as I have been telling you.
Pardon me, but I have been misremembering Gonella and confabulating him with the Custodian of the Shroud. My apologies. Professor Luigi Gonella is the current scientific advisor to the Custodian of the Shroud, Cardinal Severino Poletto of Turin. Gonella operates under the Cardinal's authority who operates under the Pope's authority.
September 1995: Cardinal Saldarini issues statement declaring any Shroud samples in circulation other than those taken with official permission for the tests of 1978 as unauthorized. He remarks that 'if such material exists the Holy See has not given its permission to anybody to keep it and do what they want with it' and he requests those concerned to give the piece back to the Holy See.
There have been changes in things since 1995. It was ten years later and there is a different Cardinal who is the Custodian of the Shroud. His science advisor is Professor Luigi Gonella.
It is true that certain portions of the samples that are in circulation are not currently "authorized" by the Catholic Church, but they do exist and have a chain of custody. The threads you specifically mention are those that were used by Dr. Garza-Valdes who put forward the bio-plastic coating hypothesis which were obtained from Professor Riggi. They do not refer to the threads Rogers received from Gonella, an official source with the Custodian of the Shroud.
You are an wrong. Contact is not important in this issue but you are still wrong. Let's assume that you are correct, although it is BECAUSE a patch was sewn into the Shroud to replace the cut out Raes sample, that the 0.2" wide section was cut away... to remove the seam and portions of the patch. The original sample was STILL CUT adjacent to the Raes sample location. You are maintaining that that 2 tenths of an inch was sufficient to divorce the material of the C14 sample from the material of the Raes sample. Absurd.
If that is the case, are you then also maintaining that although the Raes threads are DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT from the Main body of the Shroud, the change over from cotton containing Raes threads to 100% Linen Shroud threads... invisibly... occurred in that small, 2 tenths inch trimmed off area? if so, then you are admitting that the Shroud materials are not homogenous throughout its composition and therefore invalidating the C14 tests.
However, that is irrelevant because the second Arizona sample was taken directly adjacent, without removal of any compromised strips, and completely sharing one sideyou see the curved edge? with the Raes sample. It was the MIDDLE portion that was retained as the control... your so-called "Riggi sample." Here is a photograph with the sample areas drawn in from your own source:
The lower segment, closest to the edge, is the second sample that the Arizona lab was given. Your source comes to the conclusion that:
...the statistical characteristics of the data from each radiocarbon lab appear to indicate that, in the case of the Oxford lab measurements, they were drawn from a statistically different population.
That means that the samples were NOT the same. This conclusion is a confirmation of a previous scientist's work that also concluded that the C14 samples were not statistically similar enough to have come from the same source.
You are an Atheist apologist who cannot understand good science when it hits him in the face.
Yes. However, its findings have been superseded by more definitive tests done by scientists who are experts in the field of blood and hemoglobin. The Italians used simplistic forensic presumptive testing that is designed for blood that is fairly newly deposited and more suited to convicting a murderer than archaeological studies. They simply do not work for old, denatured blood that has been fractionated into meth-hemoglobins. Those researches have been peer-reviewed, published, and duplicated. I have already, on another thread, supplied you with the links on the articles... which you obviously ignore in favor of much older work, now disproved. I will not post those links to you again. It is obviously a waste of time.
No. The alleged threads that Rogers used ARE NOT the same as the sample used by Dr. Garza-Valdes. Valdez used the Riggi sample. Rogers got his threads from Gonella who he says claimed to have taken them from the center of the C-14 testing area. There is NO record of these threads ever existing prior to Rogers' article and NO chain of custody. Photpmicrographs show whole pieces without missing threads.
Have you figured out why Rogers' statement that he could give an age range for the shroud based on his bogus vanillin test can't be true?
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
The Bible is the foundation for the Christian faith, not some phony cloth with an obscure image on it, regardless of how old it is.
Wow. Bummer, man; especially since the Vatican will not permit any more destructive tests.
I agree. I’m a believing Christian who’s always thought the Shroud of Turin is not important. It’s an historical fact that Jesus existed and was crucified, so we don’t need the Shroud to “prove” that. And, as for Jesus’ being the Son of God, and authentic Shroud of Turin doesn’t prove that anyway. When religious people tout the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, they risk undermining the faith (if the Shroud ends up being inauthentic). Leave it all up to scientists, if they even care.
I know why YOU think it can't be true. However, not all of the Shroud was exposed to such high temperatures for a long enough period. There are qualitative changes that occur to Linen when it is heated that hot.
I am also aware that Rogers cannot prove a negative... that there is no vanillin on the Shroud... because you would have to look at every possible location and exclude vanillin being located there. However, there is a database of fiber samples taken from every square inch of the shroud and a statistically significant portion have been assayed and show no vanillin.
Rogers got his threads from Gonella who he says claimed to have taken them from the center of the C-14 testing area.
This is NOT a criminal case, Soliton. No further photomicrographs are needed. There are thousands of threads on the Shroud that have NOT been photomicrographed. I bet you have never seen a photomicrograph of your Riggi Sample. I saw one once but cannot find it now. The photo you provided of the Arizona sample is sufficient to show that there are visible changes in the weave from one area to the next. Your demand that there must be a "chain of custody" for the scientific research to be valid is absurd.
Rogers requested threads from Gonella, the scientific advisor to the Custodian of the Shroud. Gonella sent him threads. Both men agree this was done. Rogers reports he did his research using those threads as well as threads from the Raes sample. Why do YOU have a problem with it as though your life were hanging on the technicality that a photomicrograph was not taken at the time of collection? There is no "Smoking gun" here for you to worry to death. It is a non-issue except to YOU.
I agree. Blessed are those who believe without seeing, but for those who need more, should we turn our back on opportunities?
“There are qualitative changes that occur to Linen when it is heated that hot.”
I’m no deep researcher on this like you guys. But two things to consider:
1. Even at our current technological level, we may not be able to fully conceive what exactly happened to that piece of cloth.
2. Do we know how skilled they were at hoaxes way back when?
This is quite a mystery, isn’t it?
NO! Gonella wasn't the scientific adviser to anyone at the time. He was acting as a private citizen. Riggi, Gonella's assistant, was also not involved officially and neither was Rogers. This was their own little fraudulent show. Rogers states specifically that the warp and woof threads were supplied by Gonella, and Rogers, ONLY Rogers, claimed that they came from "the center of the c14 sample area. The Turin custodian does not accept Rogers' findings
As mentioned repeatedly before. Turin officials requested that ALL non-1978 samples be returned to the Turin in 1995 . They REFUSED to authenticate the sample provided by Riggi to Garza that led to the "bioplastic film" nonsense. McCrone said that the threads had definitely NOT come from the shroud.
Riggi worked for Gonella. They were the goofs that simplified the protocol for testing the samples for c-14 testing. The new flawed Gonella-Riggi protocol was lambasted by the testing labs and others, but they were in charge. They were publicly disgraced when the C-14 came back with a medieval date. Gonella was furious and accused the British Museum team as "acting like dogs". I can find no record of him being a Turin official after 1989.
To this day Turin has refused to validate Rogers' TA work. Gonella was either peddling fake threads or was in possession of stolen property.
NO! Rogers claimed that there was NO vanillin on the shroud. He also claimed to be able to determine an age range for the shroud (1300 t0 3000 years old). He in essence used the slow depletion of vanillin in lignin as an hour glass. Once the flax was cut, the vanillin began to dissipate. He calculated that it would take a minimum of 1300 years for all of the vanillin to be completely depleted so it was "unlikely" that the shroud was younger.
If you accept his vanillin aging theory, then the shroud is older than approximately 1300 years. Unfortunately for Rogers, he did what pseudo-scientists frequently do--He overreached by saying that the shroud is between 1300 and 3000 years old.
If you walk into a room and find an hourglass with all of the sand in the bottom, you can reasonably conclude that the hour glass was turned over more than an hour ago, but unless you know when the last grain of sand slipped to the bottom, you cannot say WHEN the glass was turned over. If it had some sand in it, you could give a range of less than one hour and greater than some time ago. If all of the sand is in the bottom of the hourglass, however, you cannot set a range.
Rogers states that the vanillin glass was empty. All of the vanillin had been depleted at some unknown time in the past. If that time was 1 AD. His dubious analysis would provide an age range 1300 to 3000 B.C.! He simply assumed the vanillin ran out the minute before he did his tests. His tests actually have a range of 1300 to whenever flax evolved-- tens of thousands of years. Real peer review would have caught such an obvious mistake.
This actually the opposite of the truth. The Italian team actually used highly sensitive tests specifically for blood. They were actually MORE sensitive for old blood because it is more concentrated.
Adler et al didn't use tests specific for blood, but for components of blood. Nickell et al have shown that these tests show positives for the kind of paint Rogers admitted were on the shroud.
Could you point me to some documentation on this database? I have read 13 books and untold articles on the shroud in the last month or so and can find no mention of it. Was it created during the modern restoration?