Shroud of Turin redivivus

[Argon]

@John_Harshman

Not only that, it had to be fine-tuned so as to predict which part of the shroud the test sample would come from. Given that, in the model, anything from much closer to the center of the shroud would have a measured date far in the future, the coincidence is amazing

Hey! IDers are all about fine tuning but this specifically points to an Ironic Designer.

Only an Ironic Designer would finely tune C14 levels in a cloth to yield a date that makes the burial shroud of Jesus look younger, but not so much that it would appear younger than physically possible.

[John_Harshman]

Remember, it has to be not just young. It has to be the age that a fake would be, 13th Century. And it has to be that age specifically for a sample taken from a particular spot, not some other spot.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@RonSewell

Shroud advocates reject the three independent carbon dates as wildly wrong even though they are in agreement with the general timeframe of the historical appearance of the shroud. The results, which they deem worthless for dating the shroud, are then from tiny and closely adjacent samples sent to independent labs with their own prep and apparatus, confidently extrapolated to a function of radiation against body mass (again disregarding internal damage).

The claim by all the people who are skeptical of the shroud C-14 results as an accurate way to confirm the date including Rogers and Ruckers is that other evidence contradicts it as a reliable method in this case. The issue is not the dating method but the condition of the sample.

What evidence helps confirm the carbon date?

[John_Harshman]

@colewd

What evidence helps confirm the carbon date?

Most importantly, the evidence you’ve already been told about: that it’s the time at which the shroud first appears and is immediately shown to be a forgery. That it would be a very odd coincidence to collect a sample that gives just that age when according to you the 14C content should vary widely over the shroud. There’s more, which you can easily try to remember from all the other times it’s been told to you, but that should be enough.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@RonSewell

From history alone, we already know the shroud was manufactured.

Not true. History offers evidence that the shroud may predate the radiocarbon date. For example, have you heard of the codex of Pray?

@RonSewell

Rucker, AcAvoy, and Lazzaro are modern day reincarnations of the original fraudsters, weaving a tapestry of fabrication just as the fakers of the middle ages

Lazzaro has performed elegant experiments showing that by irradiating a piece of linen with laser generated UV wavelength one can reproduced the same kind of coloration as that of the Shroud. No more and no less. This in itself is an interesting scientific observation (especially considering that no one before him has been successful in this endeavor) that doesn’t deserve contempt, does it?

@RonSewell

There is no justification for the authenticity of the should from history, science, and perhaps most tellingly and bizarrely, a theology which subjects a resurrected Christ to undergo physical decay.

Not true. There exist some historic as well as a plethora of scientific justifications for the authenticity of the shroud. As for theology, it is perfectly neutral on this issue.

Now, I have a question for you, assuming you believe that the Shroud has been manufactured by a medieval artist or forger. Why would this guy placed mineral dust, invisible to the naked eye, in the heel, knee and nose areas - dust containing aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate found only in rare places on earth, including Jerusalem?

[Gisteron]

@colewd

… other evidence contradicts it as a reliable method in this case.

“Me no wanna” is not evidence. And that’s about as much as any of you lot got…

[AlanFox]

@Giltil

…dust containing aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate found only in rare places on earth, including Jerusalem?

Oddly the mineral is named aragonite for the area it was first discovered: Aragon. Aragonite is widespread, certainly not unique to Jerusalem.

ETA: but travertine aragonite? Is that unique to Jerusalem? Apparently travertine is named from the area it was first discovered: Travertino in Italy.

[AlanFox]

@Giltil

dust containing aragonite

Well, the geology of tufas, travertines, and aragonites is a rich vein to tap.

Edited to correct typo

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@John_Harshman

Most importantly, the evidence you’ve already been told about: that it’s the time at which the shroud first appears and is immediately shown to be a forgery.

Hi John

How was it shown to be a forgery?

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@Giltil

dust containing aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate found only in rare places on earth, including Jerusalem?

Wikipedia (bold mine)

Aragonite is a carbonate mineral and one of the three most common naturally occurring crystal forms of calcium carbonate.

Your kitchen countertops may be aragonite, you can order Aragonite Brown Marble, sourced in Italy.

Interestingly, aragonite is fluorescent under UV light without the benefit of any neutrons. You are saying the shroud is contaminated with aragonite dust?

[AlanFox]

@colewd

Hi John

Hi Bill. Have you tried the Agamemnon mask experiment yet?

[AlanFox]

@RonSewell

Your kitchen countertops may be aragonite

Here’s an informative article on calcium carbonate.

https://mineralexpert.org/article/aragonite-mineral-carbonat

From the article

Aragonite is widely distributed over the planet, and owes its origin to volcanic activity, sedimentary accumulation, burial metamorphism in the oceans, biogenic production, and mineral-rich hot springs and caves.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AlanFox

Hi Bill. Have you tried the Agamemnon mask experiment yet?

Hi Alan
Why do think this applies to evidence for the shroud?

[AlanFox]

@colewd

Why do think this applies to evidence for the shroud?

It shows that an image formed by contact with a human head produces a distortion often referred to as “Agamemnon’s mask”. Whereas, were someone to paint an image on a cloth laid flat…

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@AlanFox

It shows that an image formed by contact with a human head produces a distortion often referred to as “Agamemnon’s mask”. Whereas, were someone to paint an image on a cloth laid flat…

No one is proposing that this is how the image was formed.

[AlanFox]

@colewd

No one is proposing that this is how the image was formed.

Well, of course not.

[RonSewell (RonS)]

@colewd

No one is proposing that this is how the image was formed.

What are you saying? Jesus body was NOT wrapped in the shroud?

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

Why would this guy placed mineral dust, invisible to the naked eye, in the heel, knee and nose areas - dust containing aragonite, a form of calcium carbonate found only in rare places on earth

… like innumerable calcium carbonate deposits which derive from shelled sea-life.

It is also part of the travertine mineral used as a common building material in italy. Where, you know, the shroud is from.

[Argon]

Another example of ‘doing your own research’ when someone only skims blogs. One would almost think RFK Jr was right about vaccines if that was the level of ‘research’ one did. Heck, your might even parrot the falsehood that the first mRNA COVID vaccines weren’t tested against an inert placebo if you read RFK Jr’s rantings instead of the original papers.

[Roy (30-year veteran)]

@Giltil

@RonSewell

From history alone, we already know the shroud was manufactured.

Not true. History offers evidence that the shroud may predate the radiocarbon date. For example, have you heard of the codex of Pray?

That’s not evidence that the shroud predates the radiocarbon date.