Zone1 Good video on the Shroud of Turin

[Votto]

Apparently, there is a web site called Shroud.com for those wanting to find out scientific findings about the Shroud from the past.

The Shroud of Turin Website - Home Page

Shroud of Turin Website

shroud.com

 

[Dr.Destructo]

The shroud was debunked several years ago.
It was carbon dated back to the 1400's. The time where chemists were turning to more and more science.
And they explained in detail, how this thing was faked.

 

[Votto]

The shroud was debunked several years ago.
It was carbon dated back to the 1400's. The time where chemists were turning to more and more science.
And they explained in detail, how this thing was faked.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

The Radiocarbon Dating

Unfortunately the importance of the radiocarbon dating and its potential to give an unambiguous result was built up over a number of years. Eventually it was seen as a method that would provide definite proof of the genuineness or otherwise of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin Research Project carried out a detailed scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978. A summary of that investigation, published in Analytica Chimica in 1982 under the title “Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin”, written by L .A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, included the following statement in its conclusion, “Given the unique nature 2and complexity of the problem, the only unambiguous means to establish (the age of the cloth) is by the carbon14 method.”There were those who gave warnings of the uncertainties involved. In March 1986 Prof William Meacham, an archaeologist at the University of Hong Kong presented a paper entitled “Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties” at a symposium on the Shroud. In this he noted that the first proposal to use the radiocarbon method to date the Shroud was made in 1979. He considered that proposal seriously flawed by the lack of consultation with archaeologists and experts from other fields. He went on to warn against contamination of samples, particularly by carbon from other sources. He also made the point that a radiocarbon dating result would merely be “one further piece of evidence to be evaluated in the light of the total complex of data about the Shroud.” He gave a number of examples of anomalous dates given by various radiocarbon examinations of bones, clays and pottery. He warned that a number of factors could affect the reliability of a radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, including the transfer of cellulose pyrolysis products from the 1532 fire, carbonization of contaminant material and isotopic exchange. He proposed that at least five samples should be taken from the Shroud for the purpose of testing, to minimize such potential errors. In fact, when the testing was eventually done, only one sample was taken.He also recommended that the samples taken should be subjected to elaborate pretreatment, scanning electron microscope screening and testing (microchemical, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman) for impurities or intrusive substances such as higher order hydrocarbons and inorganic and organic carbonates. Although the actual samples tested were subjected to mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures, the elaborate screening and testing procedures recommended by Prof. Meacham were not carried out.Over the years since the radiocarbon results were announced, numerous explanations have been advanced as to why the results should be considered incorrect, ranging from conspiracy theories to bioplastic coating of the Shroud fibres and including frequent and usually unscientific explanations involving different forms of nuclear radiation.The Patch HypothesisIn 2000, a paper entitled “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin due to Repairs” was presented by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford at an international congress on the Shroud in Italy. This suggested that the sample taken from the Shroud for the radiocarbon testing had contained 16th century material spliced into it for the purpose of repairs. This had therefore altered the overall date of the sample to make it appear more modern than the original Shroud material. The authors also suggested that a section of the Shroud had been removed in 1531 and an invisible patch carefully woven into the material. They described in detail anomalies in the cloth in the area from which the sample was taken, including more pronounced discoloration in the area and the presence of starch. Further papers from Marino and Benford developed this hypothesis and produced more evidence to support it. In a paper published in 2002, “Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin”, Marino and Benford described an unauthorized radiocarbon dating test that had been carried out in 1982 using a single thread from the sample cut from the Shroud by Dr.Gilbert Raes in 1973. This thread was provided by Prof. Alan Adler, one of the STURP scientists, who noted that one end of the thread contained what he described as appearing to be a “starch contaminate”. The dating was carried out by Dr. George Rossman, a mineralogist at the California Institute of Technology, who cut the thread in half and tested each end separately. He found that the non-contaminated end of the thread dated to 200 AD and the starched end to 1,200 AD. [Editor’s Note: Years later, Rossman and the California Institute of Technology officially and vigorously denied any such test was ever performed and stated the facility did not have the technology necessary to perform such testing].3This hypothesis was supported by Ray Rogers and Anna Arnoldi in a paper published in 2002, entitled “Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review”. This paper included a report from Rogers on examinations that he had carried on Raes threads that he had received in 1980 from Prof Luigi Gonella at the Turin Polytechnic. He reported that:All the Raes threads show colored encrustations on their surfaces. He suggested that Madder root dye was a highly probable contributor to the color of the coating.The Raes samples show a unique splice. One thread, a photograph of which was included in the paper, showed distinct encrustation and color on one end while the other end is nearly white.Photographs of the Shroud carried out by STURP in 1978 using low energy X-rays at high resolution, a pure ultraviolet source and by transmitted 3200 degrees K illumination had shown anomalies in the area from which the radiocarbon sample was taken and suggested that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition to the main part of the cloth.Rogers concluded that “The combined evidence from the chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography and residual lignin proves that the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth.”Further and previously unpublished photographs of the Shroud, taken by STURP using Quad-Mosaic Photography (state-of-the-art NASA technology) at the time, were published in the scientific journal Chemistry Today by Marino and Benford in 2008 in a paper entitled “Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud”. These also showed anomalies in the radiocarbon sample area, leading the authors to conclude that “The Quad-Mosaic images (together with other evidence they referred to) support Roger’s assertion that a surface dye was added to the Shroud in the area of the 1988 radiocarbon sampling to disguise an undocumented repair.”They also made the very important point that the weaving technique that they postulated was used in the patch required an “overlap and intermixing between the newer patch material and the existing material via the integration of frayed edges into the damaged textile and vice versa. The unavoidable interweaving required ofthis invisible mending technique would, most assuredly, have created heterogeneity in the C-14 sample area.” In other words, there would not have been one part of the sample being of 16th century origin and a separate part being older. The entire sample would have included both new and old material. An estimate based upon weave-pattern changes had suggested that 60% of the radiocarbon sample consisted of 16th century thread. If it is assumed that the remaining 40% were of 1st century origin, this would have yielded a radiocarbon date for the Shroud of the early thirteenth century.A retired microscopist from the Georgia Technical Research Institute in Atlanta, John Brown, published a paper entitled “Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads from the Shroud of Turin” in 2005. He reported on microscopic examinations that he had carried out on Raes threads using a scanning electron microscope. He noted cotton fibres that had been found by previous investigators and clearly identified encrustations in the fibres in particular. His paper included photographs taken at high magnification that clearly showed the encrustations.The Patch Hypothesis of Marino and Benford has been criticized by other researchers, notably the textile expert Mme Mechthild Flury-Lemburg, who maintains that the weaving technique described by Marino and Benford did not exist in Europe in the mid-sixteenth century and that there is no reweave in the Shroud. However, the 4examinations carried out by Rogers and Brown, as well as the photographic studies cited, provide strong evidence (but not proof!) in support of the hypothesis.An Alternative Method for Dating the ShroudRay Rogers published a paper entitled “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” in the journal Thermochimica Acta in 2005. In this he described how the age of linen could be estimated through the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin in the linen. He produced a chemical-age predictive model and estimated that, if the Shroud had been stored at a constant 25 degrees C during its history, it would have taken approximately 1,320 years to lose 95% of its vanillin. Lower temperatures would result in slower vanillin loss. If the Shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390, as the radiocarbon tests had suggested, it should have retained 37% of its vanillin in 1978.Rogers tested a number of threads for vanillin – a simple chemical test. The Raes threads from the Shroud, the Holland cloth attached to the Shroud (of mediaeval origin) and other mediaeval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. A sample from the main part of the Shroud, as well as samples from the Dead Sea Scrolls did not give the test. On this basis Rogers suggested that the Shroud must be between 1 300 and 3 000 years old, far older than indicated by the radiocarbon tests.In this paper Rogers also reported that he had examined both Raes threads and threads taken from the radiocarbon sample that he had received from Prof. Luigi Gonella. He stated that a gum/dye/mordant coating is easy to observe on these yarns, whereas no other part of the Shroud shows such a coating. His chemical analysis of the coating on the threads led him to conclude that it was a pentosan, most likely in the form of gum Arabic. This has been used over the centuries in tempera paints and would suggest that the radiocarbon sample had been dyed, probably intentionally, in his view, on pristine replacement material to match the colour of the older sepia-coloured cloth. This gum is water soluble and would have been removed by the cleaning procedures used on the dated samples. Rogers concluded that “The radiocarbon sample was… not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the Shroud.”Rogers’ paper attracted the attention of the international media. On 27 January 2005 the BBC News carried a report on the paper under the heading “Turin Shroud ‘older than thought’“ and quoted Rogers as saying “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic.”A Robust Statistical Analysis of the Radiocarbon ResultsYet further doubt on the validity of the radiocarbon tests has been cast by a paper published in May 2010. Entitled “Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments” it was written by three Italian scientists and a British statistician, Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti and Fabio Crosilla. This is a highly technical paper but the conclusion is unambiguous. The authors referred to the fact that twelve tests had been run at the three laboratories carrying out the radiocarbon testing and that they were presumably all testing the same thing – the age of a single sample of cloth cut from the Shroud. They concluded that “Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of strong linear trend the twelve measurements of the age of the Turin Shroud cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity. The statement of Damon, Donahue, Gore and eighteen others (1989) that ‘The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval’ needs to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence produced by our use of robust statistical techniques.”Or, to be put it in blunt language, statistically, the radiocarbon results from the three laboratories don’t add up.5What Went On in Turin?When Jull published his paper and announced that he had examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample retained by the University of Arizona, some eyebrows were raised among Shroud researchers, as it was not known that a portion of the sample had been kept. Indeed, the paper by Damon et al published in Nature in February 1989, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, gives the firm impression that the entire sample received by Arizona was used for dating purposes. The paper stated that “The Arizona group split each sample (the Shroud sample and control samples) into four sub-samples” and went on to describe the cleaning process undergone by each of the four subsamples.The paper also described the process of cutting the samples from the Shroud and their packaging as follows:“The Shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (approx. 10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the Shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each approx 50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr. Tite.”This is also misleading. Four pieces were cut from the strip, of which two were sent to Arizona. This is clearly shown in the diagram of the cutting made by Dr. G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the Shroud. (Fig 1).At a symposium in Paris in September 1989, Prof Testore of the Turin Polytechnic stated that the original piece cut from the Shroud was 16 x 81 mm and that “The first half was cut in three pieces: 52,0, 52,8 and 53,7 mg.” He did subsequently correct this and stated that the three samples were taken from the smaller half of the piece, weighing 52,0, 52,8 and 39,6 mg. As this was not sufficient a small piece of 14.1 mg was cut off from the other part.The cutting was recorded on video and photographs were taken, so there could have been no doubt as to exactly what was done. It just seems strange that there seems to have been an attempt to create an impression that only three pieces were cut

 

[Zebra]

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/oxley.pdf

The Radiocarbon Dating

Unfortunately the importance of the radiocarbon dating and its potential to give an unambiguous result was built up over a number of years. Eventually it was seen as a method that would provide definite proof of the genuineness or otherwise of the Shroud. The Shroud of Turin Research Project carried out a detailed scientific examination of the Shroud in 1978. A summary of that investigation, published in Analytica Chimica in 1982 under the title “Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin”, written by L .A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, included the following statement in its conclusion, “Given the unique nature 2and complexity of the problem, the only unambiguous means to establish (the age of the cloth) is by the carbon14 method.”There were those who gave warnings of the uncertainties involved. In March 1986 Prof William Meacham, an archaeologist at the University of Hong Kong presented a paper entitled “Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties” at a symposium on the Shroud. In this he noted that the first proposal to use the radiocarbon method to date the Shroud was made in 1979. He considered that proposal seriously flawed by the lack of consultation with archaeologists and experts from other fields. He went on to warn against contamination of samples, particularly by carbon from other sources. He also made the point that a radiocarbon dating result would merely be “one further piece of evidence to be evaluated in the light of the total complex of data about the Shroud.” He gave a number of examples of anomalous dates given by various radiocarbon examinations of bones, clays and pottery. He warned that a number of factors could affect the reliability of a radiocarbon dating of the Shroud, including the transfer of cellulose pyrolysis products from the 1532 fire, carbonization of contaminant material and isotopic exchange. He proposed that at least five samples should be taken from the Shroud for the purpose of testing, to minimize such potential errors. In fact, when the testing was eventually done, only one sample was taken.He also recommended that the samples taken should be subjected to elaborate pretreatment, scanning electron microscope screening and testing (microchemical, mass spectrometry, micro-Raman) for impurities or intrusive substances such as higher order hydrocarbons and inorganic and organic carbonates. Although the actual samples tested were subjected to mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures, the elaborate screening and testing procedures recommended by Prof. Meacham were not carried out.Over the years since the radiocarbon results were announced, numerous explanations have been advanced as to why the results should be considered incorrect, ranging from conspiracy theories to bioplastic coating of the Shroud fibres and including frequent and usually unscientific explanations involving different forms of nuclear radiation.The Patch HypothesisIn 2000, a paper entitled “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin due to Repairs” was presented by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford at an international congress on the Shroud in Italy. This suggested that the sample taken from the Shroud for the radiocarbon testing had contained 16th century material spliced into it for the purpose of repairs. This had therefore altered the overall date of the sample to make it appear more modern than the original Shroud material. The authors also suggested that a section of the Shroud had been removed in 1531 and an invisible patch carefully woven into the material. They described in detail anomalies in the cloth in the area from which the sample was taken, including more pronounced discoloration in the area and the presence of starch. Further papers from Marino and Benford developed this hypothesis and produced more evidence to support it. In a paper published in 2002, “Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin”, Marino and Benford described an unauthorized radiocarbon dating test that had been carried out in 1982 using a single thread from the sample cut from the Shroud by Dr.Gilbert Raes in 1973. This thread was provided by Prof. Alan Adler, one of the STURP scientists, who noted that one end of the thread contained what he described as appearing to be a “starch contaminate”. The dating was carried out by Dr. George Rossman, a mineralogist at the California Institute of Technology, who cut the thread in half and tested each end separately. He found that the non-contaminated end of the thread dated to 200 AD and the starched end to 1,200 AD. [Editor’s Note: Years later, Rossman and the California Institute of Technology officially and vigorously denied any such test was ever performed and stated the facility did not have the technology necessary to perform such testing].3This hypothesis was supported by Ray Rogers and Anna Arnoldi in a paper published in 2002, entitled “Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A Review”. This paper included a report from Rogers on examinations that he had carried on Raes threads that he had received in 1980 from Prof Luigi Gonella at the Turin Polytechnic. He reported that:All the Raes threads show colored encrustations on their surfaces. He suggested that Madder root dye was a highly probable contributor to the color of the coating.The Raes samples show a unique splice. One thread, a photograph of which was included in the paper, showed distinct encrustation and color on one end while the other end is nearly white.Photographs of the Shroud carried out by STURP in 1978 using low energy X-rays at high resolution, a pure ultraviolet source and by transmitted 3200 degrees K illumination had shown anomalies in the area from which the radiocarbon sample was taken and suggested that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical composition to the main part of the cloth.Rogers concluded that “The combined evidence from the chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography and residual lignin proves that the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main part of the cloth.”Further and previously unpublished photographs of the Shroud, taken by STURP using Quad-Mosaic Photography (state-of-the-art NASA technology) at the time, were published in the scientific journal Chemistry Today by Marino and Benford in 2008 in a paper entitled “Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud”. These also showed anomalies in the radiocarbon sample area, leading the authors to conclude that “The Quad-Mosaic images (together with other evidence they referred to) support Roger’s assertion that a surface dye was added to the Shroud in the area of the 1988 radiocarbon sampling to disguise an undocumented repair.”They also made the very important point that the weaving technique that they postulated was used in the patch required an “overlap and intermixing between the newer patch material and the existing material via the integration of frayed edges into the damaged textile and vice versa. The unavoidable interweaving required ofthis invisible mending technique would, most assuredly, have created heterogeneity in the C-14 sample area.” In other words, there would not have been one part of the sample being of 16th century origin and a separate part being older. The entire sample would have included both new and old material. An estimate based upon weave-pattern changes had suggested that 60% of the radiocarbon sample consisted of 16th century thread. If it is assumed that the remaining 40% were of 1st century origin, this would have yielded a radiocarbon date for the Shroud of the early thirteenth century.A retired microscopist from the Georgia Technical Research Institute in Atlanta, John Brown, published a paper entitled “Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads from the Shroud of Turin” in 2005. He reported on microscopic examinations that he had carried out on Raes threads using a scanning electron microscope. He noted cotton fibres that had been found by previous investigators and clearly identified encrustations in the fibres in particular. His paper included photographs taken at high magnification that clearly showed the encrustations.The Patch Hypothesis of Marino and Benford has been criticized by other researchers, notably the textile expert Mme Mechthild Flury-Lemburg, who maintains that the weaving technique described by Marino and Benford did not exist in Europe in the mid-sixteenth century and that there is no reweave in the Shroud. However, the 4examinations carried out by Rogers and Brown, as well as the photographic studies cited, provide strong evidence (but not proof!) in support of the hypothesis.An Alternative Method for Dating the ShroudRay Rogers published a paper entitled “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” in the journal Thermochimica Acta in 2005. In this he described how the age of linen could be estimated through the rate of loss of vanillin from lignin in the linen. He produced a chemical-age predictive model and estimated that, if the Shroud had been stored at a constant 25 degrees C during its history, it would have taken approximately 1,320 years to lose 95% of its vanillin. Lower temperatures would result in slower vanillin loss. If the Shroud had been produced between 1260 and 1390, as the radiocarbon tests had suggested, it should have retained 37% of its vanillin in 1978.Rogers tested a number of threads for vanillin – a simple chemical test. The Raes threads from the Shroud, the Holland cloth attached to the Shroud (of mediaeval origin) and other mediaeval linens gave the test for vanillin wherever lignin could be observed on growth nodes. A sample from the main part of the Shroud, as well as samples from the Dead Sea Scrolls did not give the test. On this basis Rogers suggested that the Shroud must be between 1 300 and 3 000 years old, far older than indicated by the radiocarbon tests.In this paper Rogers also reported that he had examined both Raes threads and threads taken from the radiocarbon sample that he had received from Prof. Luigi Gonella. He stated that a gum/dye/mordant coating is easy to observe on these yarns, whereas no other part of the Shroud shows such a coating. His chemical analysis of the coating on the threads led him to conclude that it was a pentosan, most likely in the form of gum Arabic. This has been used over the centuries in tempera paints and would suggest that the radiocarbon sample had been dyed, probably intentionally, in his view, on pristine replacement material to match the colour of the older sepia-coloured cloth. This gum is water soluble and would have been removed by the cleaning procedures used on the dated samples. Rogers concluded that “The radiocarbon sample was… not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the Shroud.”Rogers’ paper attracted the attention of the international media. On 27 January 2005 the BBC News carried a report on the paper under the heading “Turin Shroud ‘older than thought’“ and quoted Rogers as saying “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud relic.”A Robust Statistical Analysis of the Radiocarbon ResultsYet further doubt on the validity of the radiocarbon tests has been cast by a paper published in May 2010. Entitled “Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin: Partially Labelled Regressors and the Design of Experiments” it was written by three Italian scientists and a British statistician, Marco Riani, Anthony C. Atkinson, Giulio Fanti and Fabio Crosilla. This is a highly technical paper but the conclusion is unambiguous. The authors referred to the fact that twelve tests had been run at the three laboratories carrying out the radiocarbon testing and that they were presumably all testing the same thing – the age of a single sample of cloth cut from the Shroud. They concluded that “Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of strong linear trend the twelve measurements of the age of the Turin Shroud cannot be considered as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity. The statement of Damon, Donahue, Gore and eighteen others (1989) that ‘The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval’ needs to be reconsidered in the light of the evidence produced by our use of robust statistical techniques.”Or, to be put it in blunt language, statistically, the radiocarbon results from the three laboratories don’t add up.5What Went On in Turin?When Jull published his paper and announced that he had examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample retained by the University of Arizona, some eyebrows were raised among Shroud researchers, as it was not known that a portion of the sample had been kept. Indeed, the paper by Damon et al published in Nature in February 1989, “Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”, gives the firm impression that the entire sample received by Arizona was used for dating purposes. The paper stated that “The Arizona group split each sample (the Shroud sample and control samples) into four sub-samples” and went on to describe the cleaning process undergone by each of the four subsamples.The paper also described the process of cutting the samples from the Shroud and their packaging as follows:“The Shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (approx. 10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the Shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each approx 50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr. Tite.”This is also misleading. Four pieces were cut from the strip, of which two were sent to Arizona. This is clearly shown in the diagram of the cutting made by Dr. G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the Shroud. (Fig 1).At a symposium in Paris in September 1989, Prof Testore of the Turin Polytechnic stated that the original piece cut from the Shroud was 16 x 81 mm and that “The first half was cut in three pieces: 52,0, 52,8 and 53,7 mg.” He did subsequently correct this and stated that the three samples were taken from the smaller half of the piece, weighing 52,0, 52,8 and 39,6 mg. As this was not sufficient a small piece of 14.1 mg was cut off from the other part.The cutting was recorded on video and photographs were taken, so there could have been no doubt as to exactly what was done. It just seems strange that there seems to have been an attempt to create an impression that only three pieces were cut

i have been there and seen it