# 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:** 48

<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 15, 2025, 2:54am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/956 "2025-01-15T02:54:50Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > If that were true, you would have a date and error range from the WAXS method.
> 
> We have dates of linen with know dates that show the method is reasonably accurate.

This is a **false claim Bill**. As Roy has pointed out, and as I further impressed upon you:

WAXS provides _no independent dates!_

_ **All** _ WAXS does is provide evidence that _suggests_ that some fabrics _may_ be older than others (all other things being equal). It _does not_ ~~(and most probably _cannot_)~~ [see addendum below] provide independent dates. The dates in question come from **other dating methods** being performed on comparator samples.

Addendum: _ **Correction:** _

A closer examination of De Caro _et al_ 2019 (‘X-ray Dating of Ancient Linen Fabrics’) indicates that they _do_ (at equation 8) offer an (unvalidated) method of date estimation.

_However_, I can see _nowhere_ where De Caro _et al_ 2022 (‘X-ray Dating of a Turin Shroud’s Linen Sample’) performs this equation for the shroud. The only dating appears to be by comparison to the Carbon-dating dates for samples A, D, FII & LII.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2025, 8:34am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/957 "2025-01-15T08:34:15Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The waxes test shows almost certainly there is a contamination problem with the carbon sample.

Why not the other way around, that the carbon dating invalidates the waxes test?

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The waxes primary uncertainty comes from temperature variation.

Even if there is any promise in the technique, there remain a multitude of other factors which need to be controlled. Humidity varies markedly. Has the correlation of scattering against thread tension and width while spinning and looming been examined? Has the effect of storage of flax been examined? Has the variation of growing climate and plant variety been examined? Coarse, heavy cloth against the silky fine cloth?

As it stands, it is not ruled out that a scattering trend could be contrived using four samples of cloth made in 2025.

---

<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 15, 2025, 10:04am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/958 "2025-01-15T10:04:05Z")

</div>

> [@Tim](#):
>
> I think it is time for some (more) **MATH** Bill. If _you_ want to claim that the shroud is 12-13 centuries _older_, then _ **you** _ have to **show the math** as to how this is possible. What percentage of contamination, what date of contamination, and calculations showing that this would give the date that Carbon Dating found.

@colewd can’t do maths. At all. Not even 3rd-grade\[1\] maths like basic subtraction:

[490 - 115 = 385](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/do-all-deer-share-a-common-ancestor/16040/546)  
[30000 - 28850 = 250](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/randomness-and-theology/14095/145)

I doubt @colewd has posted a single calculation, no matter how trivial, that _wasn’t_ wrong\[2\] - yet you want him to delve into percentages and exponential curves? Are you trolling for miscalculations?

* * *

1. US grades. Equivalent of primary school level in the UK. 

2. @colewd: Feel free to provide a counter-example - _if_ one exists.

---

<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 15, 2025, 10:10am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/959 "2025-01-15T10:10:30Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> > [@Roy](#):
> >
> > If that were true, you would have a date and error range from the WAXS method.
> 
> We have dates of linen with know dates that show the method is reasonably accurate. Again if the shroud was of the 14th century it would have spent its life a low temperature and would show little degradation.

You don’t have _any_ dates _from the WAXS method_. Not a single one. You have _absolutely nothing_ to show that the method is accurate.

---

<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 15, 2025, 3:12pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/960 "2025-01-15T15:12:47Z")

</div>

> [@Roy](#):
>
> I doubt @colewd has posted a single calculation, no matter how trivial, that _wasn’t_ wrong[[2]](#footnote-260506-2) - yet you want him to delve into percentages and exponential curves? Are you trolling for miscalculations?

@colewd can’t. But these guys can. And look what they found. (This is a 9 hour video, but I’ve time stamped the excerpts to the appropriate sections).

[![](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=25241)

Also, as previously mentioned, Fantis’ technique is so dependent on temperature that if he is off by just a few degrees in his (very imprecise) estimate, it produces an age consistent with the C-14 dating.

[![](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=26051)

I look forward to responses from Bill that deal with these objections. 🥴

---

<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 15, 2025, 4:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/961 "2025-01-15T16:03:31Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Why not the other way around, that the carbon dating invalidates the waxes test?

Hi Ron  
Good question. Both tests have error issues carbon mainly contamination and WAXS mainly temperature. The carbon date says the linen is from the 14th century. If the linen is from the 14th century the known chain of custody is France and Italy which have lower temperatures than Egypt which are some of the controls.

If you look at the paper that Faizil posted Hugh Farey had to assume chain of custody beyond France and Italy to argue that a higher temperature was responsible for the breakdown in the linen fibers.

The is a big challenge to validity of the carbon date being 14th century.

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> Even if there is any promise in the technique, there remain a multitude of other factors which need to be controlled. Humidity varies markedly.

Humidity is a factor but much less of one than temperature in the model. The biggest assumption in the WAXS model is the storage temperature.

---

<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 15, 2025, 4:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/962 "2025-01-15T16:11:03Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> If you look at the paper that Faizil posted Hugh Farey had to assume chain of custody beyond France and Italy to argue that a higher temperature was responsible for the breakdown in the linen fibers.

Wrong. Among other things, he showed that de Fantis’s group’s _own data_ provides dates that contradict _their own data_ when applied to the other samples from which the calibration curves were drawn. e.g. the Masada fabric, which should have an aging factor of 0.7 by de Fantis’s method, actually had one that went off the scale of the chart.

That’s pretty funny, don’t you think? What a bunch of clowns.

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Humidity is a factor but much less of one than temperature in the model. The biggest assumption in the WAXS model is the storage temperature.

Yeah. They decided that the _average temp and humidity_ _in the entire country_ provided an accurate measure of this. How ridiculous. Especially when most of their samples for calibration were drawn from mummies that had laid in tombs for centuries.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2025, 4:36pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/963 "2025-01-15T16:36:48Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The biggest assumption in the WAXS model is the storage temperature.

How do we know that assumption is valid? Have other factors such as initial conditions and manufacture been tested?

> [@colewd](#):
>
> Both tests have error issues carbon mainly contamination

That has not been demonstrated, and appears implausible.

---

<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 15, 2025, 4:45pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/964 "2025-01-15T16:45:55Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> > [@RonSewell](#):
> >
> > Why not the other way around, that the carbon dating invalidates the waxes test?
> 
> Hi Ron  
> Good question. Both tests have error issues carbon mainly contamination and WAXS mainly temperature. The carbon date says the linen is from the 14th century.

When does the WAXS dating say the linen is from?

Do you accept that date?

> [@](#):
>
> The is a big challenge to validity of the carbon date being 14th century.

If you reject the WAXS date, how can it be a challenge to anything?

---

<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 15, 2025, 4:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/965 "2025-01-15T16:55:45Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> How do we know that assumption is valid? Have other factors such as initial conditions and manufacture been tested?

I have not looked at the testing data on this so I don’t know. I have not seen this disputed, have you?

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> That has not been demonstrated, and appears implausible.

Specifically to the shroud I agree. It is known that various contaminations can add C-14 such as bacteria. Certainly a rework would add C-14 to the sample.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2025, 5:29pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/966 "2025-01-15T17:29:00Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> I have not seen this disputed, have you?

No, but comprehensible initial conditions are vital to any dating technique. It is up to the proponent, not critics, to validate the technique.

---

<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 15, 2025, 5:37pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/967 "2025-01-15T17:37:39Z")

</div>

Hi Ron  
From De Caro et al

> A new method for dating ancient linen threads by inspecting their structural degra- dation by means of Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) [14] was recently applied to small linen samples taken from ancient fabrics, previously dated with the radiocarbon method. **Our work showed that when the ancient fabrics are preserved by environmental contamination—i.e., when they were kept in the tombs where they were found—X-ray and 14C dating agree well** [14].

[Turin shroud x ray dating.pdf](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/uploads/short-url/AywjqilC0BDVH6cdgJLXq9dzfj.pdf) (3.9 MB)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2025, 5:48pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/968 "2025-01-15T17:48:13Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> when they were kept in the tombs where they were found—X-ray and 14C dating agree well

That is hardly surprising, given that the calibration for scattering was mostly based on 14C dated objects.

That still would not account for initial variability factors.

---

<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 15, 2025, 5:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/969 "2025-01-15T17:56:42Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> That still would not account for initial variability factors.

I agree.

The problem is for the medieval hypothesis where chain of custody is known yet the shroud is showing significant polymer breakdown.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:07pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/970 "2025-01-15T18:07:26Z")

</div>

> [@RonSewell](#):
>
> That is hardly surprising, given that the calibration for scattering was mostly based on 14C dated objects.

There are other reasons that is not unexpected.

The video below discusses both of the WAXS, papers, though so far, I have only watched the discussion of the 2019 paper. It’s from the channel of Dr. David A. Falk. Who is he?

> I am your host, Dr. David A. Falk, a professional Egyptologist who will answer your questions about Ancient Egypt and the Bible, and the ways that they relate to each other. I hold four graduate degrees in the fields of archaeology , Biblical studies and theology, and Egyptology. My Ph.D. is in Egyptology from the University of Liverpool.

IOW, orders of magnitude more qualified than literally anyone who is claiming the “shroud” is authentic.

I’ve linked the video to where he discusses the serious methodological flaws with the WAXS paper, some of which have already been discussed. But to summarize.

- Inadequate sample size. The data points are literally centuries apart, with nothing from the period between Medieval and modern.
- No blind sampling. The investigators knew the age of the fabric samples before estimating the ages. Unbelievably shoddy technique.
- Data smoothing was used to bring the results in line with what they wanted.
- Very small delta for the results. This makes is essentially useless (even if we assume the test is valid in the first place) for anything prior to the Common Era. It can’t distinguish 2000 years old from 5000 years old.
- The measurement is performed by subjective interpretation of visual data. There is no objective data produced. This only exacerbates the effects of the lack of blind testing.
- Constant room temperature and humidity is assumed, and based on the average temperature of an entire country, which is obviously ludicrous. Falk recounts Egyptian digs where the temperature was 53 degrees C, not the comfortable 22.5 degrees that the Fanti group requires.
- The study does not take into account the effects of bleaching which can age a fabric by hundreds of years. All the samples, unrealistically, are assumed to be unbleached.
- There is no calibration curve. Instead, the data is simply normalized by an equation. No doubt carefully chosen to produce the desired result.

[![](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/uploads/peacefulscience/original/3X/0/7/077d88704659514765cd905c5eb998ebd15f1776.jpeg "Manna Machine Alert!!! X-Ray Dating the Shroud of Turin (Aug 26/2024)") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f-tQJJS9Qs&t=1541)

Provided for the edification of anyone genuinely interested in whether there is any good reason to suspect the “shroud” is authentic. And to increase the cognitive dissonance of others like Bill&Gil.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:09pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/971 "2025-01-15T18:09:10Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The problem is for the medieval hypothesis where chain of custody is known

And, once again, Bill shows what a shameless liar he is.

Please provide the historical documentation of “chain of custody” from the death of Jesus to the 13th century.

We’ll wait.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:18pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/972 "2025-01-15T18:18:00Z")

</div>

> [@Faizal\_Ali](#):
>
> And, once again, Bill shows what a shameless liar he is.
> 
> Please provide the historical documentation of “chain of custody” from the death of Jesus to the 13th century.
> 
> We’ll wait.

Where are you going with this? You have no clue what you are arguing against.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/973 "2025-01-15T18:21:37Z")

</div>

Watch that video I just posted. It will clear up much of your confusion. Or maybe just make you feel very uncomfortable. Not sure which.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:46pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/974 "2025-01-15T18:46:29Z")

</div>

First the political rhetoric (shameless liar) shows you are extremely biased. I am not sure why you are afraid the shroud may be real. Since you are attempting to bring evidence to the post unlike most I am not ignoring you.

Second the video shows a criticism of the methods which are the same as Hugh was trying to make. Some of the criticisms are valid if we are trying to nail down a precise date for the shroud.

The problem is that none of these criticisms address the results that WAXS falsifies the medieval hypothesis because of the very large differences in polymer breakdown from what you would expect from a medieval sample.

The problem here is not subtile. It is a difference in measurement that is much larger than one would expect from a medieval shroud with a chain of custody starting in France and finishing in Italy.

---

<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 15, 2025, 6:47pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910/975 "2025-01-15T18:47:52Z")

</div>

> [@colewd](#):
>
> The problem is that none of these criticisms address the results that WAXS falsifies the medieval hypothesis because of the very large differences in polymer breakdown from what you would expect from a medieval sample.

I had promised myself that I would avoid underestimating your stupidity.

I regret that I have not kept that promise

[Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910.md?page=47)

[Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/shroud-of-turin-redivivus-not-following-where-the-evidence-leads/16910.md?page=49)