# Shroud of Turin redivivus - Not following where the evidence leads

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Created:** [November 30, 2024, 3:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910 "2024-11-30T15:47:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 45

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 1:52am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/896 "2025-01-09T01:52:01Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Again, they are non destructive so more data can be generated across the shroud.

Except that this “data” is inferior to the point that many on this forum would dispute that it counts as data at all.

(Parenthetically, I would call it ‘data not evidence’. It is data _to the extent_ that it is reported results of experiments – it is _not evidence_ as it has not been demonstrated that these experiments yield reliable results, and therefore is _not relevant_ to determining the shroud’s age. It is therefore “data” only to the same extent as me rolling dice several times and recording the results is data.)

As I said before:

> [@Tim](#):
>
> Under these circumstances, it seems _perfectly reasonable_ to “follow the evidence” and conclude that where these “other tests” disagree with carbon-dating, then they are simply **wrong**.

Therefore the reasonable conclusion remains that **Carbon dating is right and WAXS, Vanillin, _et cetera ad nauseam_ are all wrong.**

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Here is a paper that discusses the development of one of the alternative methods.
> 
> [X-ray Dating of Ancient Linen Fabrics](https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/4/171)

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Here is a paper that discusses the development of one of the alternative methods.
> 
> [X-ray Dating of Ancient Linen Fabrics](https://www.mdpi.com/2571-9408/2/4/171)

This would appear to have a number of issues:

- [Egocentric bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egocentric_bias) – people have a natural bias to over-value their own ideas and projects. This is why **third party validation** is the gold-standard.
- [Motivated reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning) – all those involved would appear to be ‘Authenticists’ – and therefore have a strong bias towards dating methods that yield a result that indicates that the shround could be authentic.
- Add to this that the publisher, MDPI, has a reputation for **weak editorial standards** – “… critics suggesting it sacrifices editorial and academic rigor in favor of operational speed and business interests.” This means that it is likely to be _inadequate_ in correcting the authors’ bias.

This means that such publications **do not constitute evidence** of the method’s reliability.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 1:31pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/897 "2025-01-09T13:31:44Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Where is the empirical calibration? The paper mentions that ancient textile has been found in Egypt ( actually, not rare ), but there is no mention of scattering methods being applied or verified against such archeological artifacts of known date.

Hi Ron  
The method is based on the breakdown of polymerisation of linen fibers being predictable over time. This is this the initial paper of one of the methods used to test the age on linen. The graphs in figure 3 show how linen of different known ages (modern to 3250 Bc) show a distinct profile.

 ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/2/b/2bfdf5081ab02216ce1b39cc23dcf009bb045e4b.jpeg)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 5:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/898 "2025-01-09T17:01:18Z")

</div>

And, of course, you being the shameless liar that you are, will simply pretend you have never seen the following discussion of why that paper is, in the words of the author, “clearly nonsensical.”

[WAXSing and waning (2) – The Medieval Shroud](https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning-2/)

“But look! Graphs! Numbers! Science! Why don’t you believe???!!!”

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 6:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/899 "2025-01-09T18:37:14Z")

</div>

Hi Faizal  
I will ignore the political rhetoric this once. You made the comment to me that I need to read the room. I suggest you take your own advice.

Thank you for posting this paper.

Farey makes the comment that sample selection and environment are important to the test results. How is this different than carbon testing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 6:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/900 "2025-01-09T18:56:53Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> This is this the initial paper of one of the methods used to test the age on linen. The graphs in figure 3 show how linen of different known ages (modern to 3250 Bc) show a distinct profile.
> 
> ![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/2/b/2bfdf5081ab02216ce1b39cc23dcf009bb045e4b.jpeg)

Can you explain how the shroud can be genuine when WAXS testing shows it dates from after 65AD?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 9, 2025, 7:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/901 "2025-01-09T19:01:51Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Hi Faizal  
> I will ignore the political rhetoric this once. You made the comment to me that I need to read the room. I suggest you take your own advice.
> 
> Thank you for posting this paper.
> 
> Farey makes the comment that sample selection and environment are important to the test results. How is this different than carbon testing?

Where is that “Ork, ork,” sound coming from?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 12:31am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/902 "2025-01-10T00:31:11Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@colewd](#):
> >
> > Farey makes the comment that sample selection and environment are important to the test results. How is this different than carbon testing?
> 
> Where is that “Ork, ork,” sound coming from?

Already answered Bill:

> … we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants.[[1]](https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/8CC26C322198300E051C49A0BA5B96D9/S0033822200056277a.pdf/investigating-a-dated-piece-of-the-shroud-of-turin.pdf)

And, as I have noted repeatedly above, the carbon-testing was performed under _far more rigorous and carefully documented_ procedures than any of the authenticist ‘tests’ were.

> … often ignoring or sidestepping any evidence the target has already presented …

“Ork, ork” indeed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![colewd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@colewd](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/colewd)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 3:40pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/903 "2025-01-10T15:40:55Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> Can you explain how the shroud can be genuine when WAXS testing shows it dates from after 65AD?

Hi Roy  
All test methods have errors. The waxes primary uncertainty comes from temperature variation. The carbon primary uncertainty comes from contamination to the sample. A 65 year error is trivial.

The waxes test shows almost certainly there is a contamination problem with the carbon sample.

If you read carefully the paper that Faizal posted Hugh makes an issue that there is uncertainty in the chain of custody prior to its documented origin in France. He is assuming an ancient age in his analysis. If the shroud originated in the Middle Ages as the carbon sample is indicating the polymer breakdown would be much less than the other medieval linens from the Middle East due to the lower temperatures in both France and Italy.

Thanks Roy for making your argument pertaining to the waxes method.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 5:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/904 "2025-01-10T17:19:29Z")

</div>

For those who cannot possibly get enough of the “shroud”, the following 9 hour (!) video was live-streamed a few days ago. It seems quite comprehensive. For our purposes, the WAXS article, and some of its many problems, are discussed at 6hr 46min:

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/d/8/d82b6ce558352928a74e8b58b109819a12e8e280.jpeg "Unravelling The Shroud of Turin | Bad Apologetics 30") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSc6KeqpDNs&t=24403)

The final half hour of the video provides a useful summary of the various possible explanations of features of the "shroud.

Enjoy.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 5:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/905 "2025-01-10T17:21:29Z")

</div>

> [@Puck\_Mendelssohn](#):
>
> Evidence, evidence, evidence. You haven’t got ANY. You have an artifact KNOWN AT THE TIME OF ITS PRODUCTION to be a fraud, which dates to that time, over a thousand years too late to be authentic.

When you say that we have an artifact known at the time of its production to be a fraud, I guess you are referring to the work of Ulysse Chevalier, right? Well, let’s see.  
Ulysse Chevalier, a French medieval scholar, is credited with the discovery in French archives, at the end of the 19th century, of a copy of the letter-memorandum from Pierre II d’Arcis, bishop of Troyes, addressed to antipope Clement VII, as well as the papal bulls settling the conflict. He concluded that the shroud was nothing more than a medieval work whose maker, a painter identified during Henri II de Poitiers’ first investigation in 1355, had confessed.  
From there, you think the matter is settled, don’t you? But you’re going too fast, much too fast, as shown by Emmanuel Poulle, a french historian and archivist, member of the Institute and director of the Ecole des Chartres.  
Indeed, in 2006, Poulle re-examined the case file and demonstrated, with minutes and deeds to back it up, that Ulysse Chevalier was not being entirely intellectually honest, since he had deliberately disregarded the definitive texts of the bulls of antipope Clement VII, which renounced any mention of an identified forger, despite the pressing request of the Bishop of Troyes, eager to get rid of these disturbing and lucrative pilgrimages to a tiny village in his diocese, to the detriment of his cathedral’s funding.  
To sump up, your absolute confidence that the shroud was known at the time of its production to be a fraud is not warranted.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 5:22pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/906 "2025-01-10T17:22:47Z")

</div>

> [@Gisteron](#):
>
> Incorrect. If we have no information about how and when the tests in question are applicable, nor about their accuracy, then what they yield cannot be considered “data”. Doing more of them therefore does nothing to accumulate data.

Absolutely. If we were to have Bill lick various parts of the “shroud” and tell us how old he thinks it tastes, that would likely be non-destructive (depending on how careful Bill is about oral hygiene), but it would not necessarily give us data any more useful than Fanti’s WAXS method.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 5:38pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/907 "2025-01-10T17:38:32Z")

</div>

I watched one hour of it when it was streamed, somewhere around the middle. Then forgot what I watched. I just don’t have enough of a hardon for the shroud, pro or con, to waste any more time on it. But in fairness to myself I think that’s how most shroud “research” is done by shroud apologists anyway.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 6:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/908 "2025-01-10T18:01:29Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> To sump up, your absolute confidence that the shroud was known at the time of its production to be a fraud is not warranted.

The hypocrisy here is that almost everyone who believes in the “shroud” also believe Jesus rose from the dead, just because people from around the time wrote that it happened.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gisteron](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/gisteron/32/15845_2.png) [@Gisteron](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Gisteron)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 6:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/909 "2025-01-10T18:11:08Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> To sump up, your absolute confidence that the shroud was known at the time of its production to be a fraud is not warranted.

Are you saying we at last agree about the time of the shroud’s production? Because frankly, I’ll give you how ever much debate about its authenticity you say there was between then and now. If we can agree the shroud is as young as the thirteenth or fourteenth century, that’s quite enough to settle ours here.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mercer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@Mercer](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Mercer)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 6:19pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/910 "2025-01-10T18:19:50Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> > [@Giltil](#):
> >
> > To sump up, your absolute confidence that the shroud was known at the time of its production to be a fraud is not warranted.
> 
> The hypocrisy here is that almost everyone who believes in the “shroud” also believe Jesus rose from the dead, just because people from around the time wrote that it happened.

It also seems that misrepresenting the strength of the silly evidence cited to support the authenticity of this graven image is being done to compensate for the lack of evidence supporting the Resurrection.

But then I’m no psychiatrist. 😉

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 8:05pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/911 "2025-01-10T20:05:29Z")

</div>

> [@Giltil](#):
>
> > [@Art](#):
> >
> > I must re-state - older samples will produce vanillin, continuously and until lignin is no longer present. Only young samples will not have vanillin. Thus, Shroud enthusiasts who point to low vanillin levels as as an indicator that some parts of the Shroud are older than others are wrong, and in fact are getting their arguments backwards
> 
> There is very likely something wrong in your reasoning for Rogers detected no vanillin in very old samples from the dead see scrolls whereas the holland cloth (produced in Europe between 1532 and 1534) and other medieval linens gave the test for vanillin. So no, « Shroud enthusiasts » aren’t getting their arguments backwards.

@Giltil, remember, the vanillin has to come from somewhere. Even the group who wants to use vanillin to date the Shroud states (I gave a quote earlier in this thread) that vanillin is derived from lignin. If samples supposedly very old do not have vanillin, there are only a few explanations, and none of them are kind to the proposition that vanillin levels reflect the age of materials:

If an old sample has no vanillin, then perhaps it has no lignin. This means it is not appropriate to use such samples to infer the ages of other materials.

If an old sample has no vanillin, then perhaps it never had any. Perhaps something in the production of the material interferes with the chemistry of vanillin generation from lignin. Such materials cannot be used to infer the ages of other materials.

Perhaps the “old” material (such as those associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) is not really old. What is their history? How many times have they been repaired, replaced, and otherwise tampered with? No matter the explanation, such materials cannot be used to infer the ages of other materials.

No matter the explanation, the common theme here is that the vanillin test is not a valid estimator of the age of materials.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 10:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/912 "2025-01-10T22:11:28Z")

</div>

I had forgotten about this thread. Rediscovering at nearly 900 comments is like coming home from a long trip and discovering that life has evolved from the dish of leftovers I forgot to throw out from the frig before I left.

So, did everyone enjoy their holidays? 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Art](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/art/32/3805_2.png) [@Art](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Art)\
**Post date:** [January 10, 2025, 11:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/913 "2025-01-10T23:03:06Z")

</div>

> [@Dan\_Eastwood](#):
>
> Rediscovering at nearly 900 comments …

There will be a quiz.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\
**Post date:** [January 11, 2025, 8:05am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/914 "2025-01-11T08:05:02Z")

</div>

> [@Art](#):
>
> If an old sample has no vanillin, then perhaps it has no lignin. This means it is not appropriate to use such samples to infer the ages of other materials.

Yes, but the shroud, the holland cloth and the medieval pieces of linen examined by Rogers have lignin.

> [@Art](#):
>
> If an old sample has no vanillin, then perhaps it never had any. Perhaps something in the production of the material interferes with the chemistry of vanillin generation from lignin. Such materials cannot be used to infer the ages of other materials.

The initial reservoir of vanillin on a linen cloth comes from natural chemical processes occurring during the retting and drying of flax fibers. The lignin doesn’t continuously produce vanillin after this point—it’s a “one-time supply.”  
So, there is absolutely no reason to believe that no vanillin reservoir was present on the shroud when it had just been manufactured.

> [@Art](#):
>
> Perhaps the “old” material (such as those associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls) is not really old. What is their history? How many times have they been repaired, replaced, and otherwise tampered with?

Well, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated by different methodologies: they are very old, dating from approximately 300 BCE to 70 CE.  
I don’t think there is any debate whatsoever on this issue.

So none of your hypothesis works.

Now, here is the rationale with the vanillin test.

- just after a piece of linen is manufactured, it has a vanillin reservoir associated with it.
- the loss rate of vanillin in a linen cloth far outpaces its production rate from lignin. As mentioned above, the lignin on the cloth doesn’t continuously produce vanillin after the manufacturing process —it’s a “one-time supply.”
- Once the initial lignin-derived vanillin depletes, very little new vanillin is produced unless the material is exposed to specific catalytic conditions, making the absence of vanillin a key marker for age.

> [@Art](#):
>
> No matter the explanation, the common theme here is that the vanillin test is not a valid estimator of the age of materials

As explained above, your claim is unwarranted. Moreover, don’t forget that Rogers’ idea regarding the vanillin test has been peer reviewed.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Faizal\_Ali](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/faizal_ali/32/12416_2.png) [@Faizal\_Ali](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Faizal_Ali)\
**Post date:** [January 11, 2025, 1:34pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/915 "2025-01-11T13:34:04Z")

</div>

> [@Rumraket](#):
>
> I watched one hour of it when it was streamed, somewhere around the middle. Then forgot what I watched. I just don’t have enough of a hardon for the shroud, pro or con, to waste any more time on it.

Oh, believe me, I have no intention of watching the whole thing. But it is time stamped, so one can just dip in wherever they want. I did watch the part about the WAXS study because it was pertinent to this discussion. And the first section on the historical documentation of the relic is interesting. There is actually much more of this than I realized (none of it, of course, prior to the 13th century, imagine that.)

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910.md?page=44)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910.md?page=46)