Also the body position depicted is impossible to maintain. And the image is what would be produced by a painting, not by a cloth draped over a body emitting fluids.
Cadavers undergoing nuclear fusion don’t account for those anomalies.
Plenty to choose from.
Sorry, I’m not going to engage with this. Read other people’s messages, they have talked to you about this too. I don’t want to be roped further into the discussion.
There are far more mundane and likely possibilities for C14 dating of the shroud to be in error than ‘resurrection-associated neutron bombardment’. That certain shroud proponents are be happy to reach for a cause like this as an explanation (essentially a miracle of physics), let alone ‘one worth testing’ makes it hard for me to take them seriously scientifically.
Contamination? Patching? Fine. Those are scientifically accessible mechanisms that have been characterized with repeatable phenomena. Basic science: No miracles need be involved.
Resurrection being accompanied with neutron flux? What the heck are they smoking? Dang, why not invoke speed of light decay like Setterfield to explain radio-isotope based dates that young earth creationists don’t like?
Seriously colewd, for a time you almost had me thinking you were coming at this rationally and with a nod to science. And then you try to present this particular nonsense. This idea is easily the worst ‘hill’ of all the shroud ‘research’ ideas on which to place a flag and try to make a stand.
This again demonstrates that no matter how terrible and nutty, there a few ideas invoked on the service of defending a pet conclusion that colewd will toss aside. It’s like watching a compulsive hoarder – Can’t let anything go…
Come on Bill, give it a try. Lie down and cover your crotch with your hands. See if you can reach without keeping your elbows straight.
I did miss it, and for this I apologise (and have deleted the offending comment).
@Giltil has made no mention of cotton or of repair.
Where is the age and the proportion of the cotton established?
One report I’ve seen is that, in one of the samples, there were only “two or three fibres that looked out of place”, these were taken for closer examination and were found to be cotton fibres and “quite old”.
This is important because it is the the age and proportion of contaminants that affects the degree to which they skew the dates, and it requires a very large amount of contaminant to do so:
HE Gove, the author, “helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project.” (per Wikipedia)
He also states on the ‘repair’ hypothesis:
No.
Rogers (2005) proposed a method for cross checking the dates of ancient textiles by measuring the loss of vanillin from residual lignin at the growth nodes of linen fibers. The tests he performed on the Shroud threads suggested to him a much greater age than the results Damon et al. (1989) obtained. However, Rogers’ method has limitations and his results have not yet been widely accepted.[1]
Even accepting (for the sake of argument) this unpublished paper’s completely speculative and unsubstantiated assumption, that of the resurrection causing a neutron burst, this paper and its hypothesis is full of holes:
The claimed “36 years per cm” is based on a sample of only three data points – so is NOT even remotely statistically significant. And as those three data points are very close together, it would be unreasonable, even if this figure were statistically significant, to extrapolate that this figure would hold for the entire shroud.
The ‘distances’ in this regression appear to be taken from Figure 6, for which no sources is cited. (Additionally, as the Arizona sample was in the form of two pieces, from opposite ends of the sample strip, it is unclear how its ‘distance’ should be calculated.)
Although there is (McAvoy 2021) evidence of fluorescence immediately after neutron exposure, there appears to be no evidence that this would persist for 2000 years.
There appears to have been no effort to rule out alternate causes of fluorescence.
All told, this ‘paper’ appears to be motivated reasoning, not science.
It seems to be another part in Shroud-enthusiasts’ ‘throw any old crap at the wall to see if something will eventually stick’ tactics – quantity, and speculative and unsubstantiated hand-waving, over solid evidence and rigorous analysis.
No. The issue is the fission. What in the body was fissile, and why would Jesus’ body undergo fission at the resurrection? Without that, nothing else contingent matters.
Yes. I’ve been reading up on neutron radiation and neutron sources, trying to find a, not-too-insane, answer to those questions.
I’d also like to add a further question – how radioactive would Jesus have been after his resurrection if the hypothesised neutron burst had occurred? Jesus as Radioactive Man:
Also, would the neutron radiation have damaged the shroud in ways that would be detectable?
Hi Bill
Does the fact that the sample that was used for carbon dating was taken from the bottom-left corner of the Shroud squares with your hypothesis ?
Are you saying that the reviewers that assessed Roger’s paper are researchers that don’t worth their salt? If yes, what are your evidence for this claim?
Given that the study you linked in your reply at 3 doesn’t consider the vanillin test at all, it is irrelevant to the issue of whether this test counts as evidence that the shroud may be older than the age given by the carbon dating.
You are asking literally for what is written in the very passage you are replying to. It could be that you are sealioning, or it could be that you are genuinely struggling with reading comprehension, or something else altogether. I shall not make that judgement one way or the other, but I shall also not indulge you on this, what ever it is.
Given the poor controls on Rogers’ own study I don’t think anybody should place any confidence even on the results reported therein to begin with. But, even if we were to take them at face value, we are left with several problems:
Therefore, respectfully, it would appear this vanillin test is proving overtly unreliable at least in this case. To consider it an alternative, therefore, much less one that should take precedence over demonstrably dependable methods, is… unwarranted, to say the least.
Are there any other cases? It would appear that this “vanillin test” was confected purely for the shroud.
Or, more specifically, purely as a means to avoid admitting that the only validated dating method gives an answer they don’t like.
Addendum: we cannot even be sure that Rogers’ samples are from the shroud:
These included an article by American chemist Raymond Rogers, Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), who was involved in work with the Shroud since the STURP project began in 1978. Rogers took 32 documented adhesive-tape samples from all areas of the shroud and associated textiles during the STURP process in 1978.[3] He received 14 yarn segments from Luigi Gonella (from the Department of Physics, at the Polytechnic University of Turin) on 14 October 1979, which Gonella told him were from a sample removed by Gilbert Raes of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in 1973. On 12 December 2003, Rogers received samples of both warp and weft threads that Luigi Gonella claimed to have taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. The actual provenance of these threads is uncertain, as Gonella was not authorized to take or retain genuine shroud material,[44] but Gonella told Rogers that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.[3]
“… At least in this case”, I said. I suspected it is the only case, anyway, and that its only point was to cope with the Shroud’s dating obviously precluding its authenticity. Still, I was just allowing for the possibility that the vanillin test has been or may someday be used for something else or even return somewhat plausible results – what do I know. I am not aware of this ever being attempted so far, and am too lazy to try and find out (expecting to have to sift through quite some pages of results about the Shroud before any hopes of getting to something else, anyway), but given there is no plausible way so far proposed for the carbon date to be wrong here, the least I can say with some confidence is, as I did, that “at least” in this instance, the vanillin test is useless.
I don’t understand at all what you are saying here. Can you clarify please?
Hi Gil
Yes I think so. I need to spend more time with the paper as I yet don’t understand the methods he used.
Why this hypothesis is important is it also answers the 700 AD carbon date for the Sudarium which had been my biggest issue for skepticism. Rogers hypothesis does not address this issue IMO. The Sudarium is a key part of the puzzle due to blood type and blood patterns matching.
Any help you could provide with this hypothesis would be appreciated.
Added: Here is an interview with Rucker. The last 13 minutes he goes through the evidence that STURP team surfaced that he thought was relevant.
By the way, did the resurrection flash neutrons know to carefully avoid the Sudarium, so as not to skew its carbon date same as they did with the Shroud? How exactly did they redirect themselves?
Or perhaps it was just a coinky-dink that it concentrated in one cloth but completely bypassed the other. The one in a hundred chance of blood types matching is maybe asking too much, but neutrons intelligently selecting directions precisely enough to hit specific nuclei, that’s totally on the table, I guess.
Or was the Shroud linen originally infused with some boron-aluminium alloy, so it would absorb absorb all the neutron radiation before it could reach the Sudarium? By what magic process did it later transmute so that no test today reveals the neutron radiation shielding materials built into it originally?
On an unrelated note, just looking at the Sudarium’s Wikipedia article, there’s been a massive paragraph dumped onto it in late September, talking about an episode of TV. The past four years until these very recent days, have all been minor formatting, reference, or expression edits. This is the first massive new and poorly worded text wall in quite some time. A couple weeks back also, two links were added to the end of that paragraph, in a fashion totally inconsistent with how one would normally reference things on Wikipedia. The links themselves, wouldn’t you know it, are exactly the same MDPI and ResearchGate links to the X-ray Dating article referenced in this thread. Small world, isn’t it? 
When an idea is proudly displayed after being pulled glistening and still warm, directly from the output end of someone’s alimentary canal, well … Don’t expect much deep reflection about whether the idea makes sense. Toddler-like, they’re just happy to have made something to show.
Like the spaghetti analogy mentioned in an earlier comment, it’s like flinging stuff against the wall. But… they don’t bother to check whether it sticks. The is no filtering going on. It’s only the possibility that something could stick that matters. Having done that, it’s ‘Mission accomplished! Don’t bother to examine more closely’.
Honestly, there are people investigating the shroud that have done good scientific work and have performed solid experiments. Solid, diligent scientists. …And then there are legions of daffy ‘enthusiasts’ whose contributions make the field look overwhelmed by idiots.
And not to discount that there are also an abundance of idiots cosplaying as skeptics. But, that results from work done on “the most researched human artifact” barely make waves in the general scientific community may indicate the perceived robustness of the claim that it’s the burial shroud of Christ.
In any case, Vatican doesn’t seem in a hurry to conclusively investigate the object in their possession. Perhaps they’re waiting for better technology.
The sudarium did not wrap Jesus’ head at the moment of resurrection, but was removed when he was placed in the shroud.
John 20:6-7: Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head.The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.
The passage you give here, taken from a publication that doesn’t talk at all about the vanillin test, refers to another publication that doesn’t talk either at all about the vanillin test! Then how on earth do these publications support your contention that the vanillin test doesn’t count as evidence that the Shroud may be older that the age given by the carbon dating?
