The Shroud of Turin

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

Why do you doubt it? This seems quite strange to me, given all the evidence that support this thesis!

It’s been demonstrated scientifically beyond all reasonable doubt the cloth was produced in the 1300’s. That means it can’t be an artifact from 2000 years ago. Not that scientific evidence will ever sway a True Believer.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

This is because so much very specific details reported in the Gospels about the crucifixion of Jesus are also recorded on the Shroud.

What details recorded on the shroud are unique to the crucifixion of Jesus and exclude the tens of thousands of other known crucifixions done by the Romans in that time frame?

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@DaleCutler

Wrong! See my reply just above.

Also my earlier link to the same. Sorry, I sniped you.

[structureoftruth (Matthew Dickau)]

@T_aquaticus

Even assuming that you are right about the carbon dating analysis, the most reasonable conclusion is that we don’t know the age of the shroud. You would need a dating technique that accurately dated the shroud to the time of Jesus in order to claim that it is authentic.

Or at least a chain of historically reliable sources tracing the artifact back to the first century… the absence of such seems glaring in this case.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@AllenWitmerMiller

POSTSCRIPT 2: I see you’ve added a video. I hope to view it later this weekend after I’m in and out.

The video is quite long, about 75 min. If you are short of time, you may first read the piece below, which is a nice but short summary of the evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud.

Verified Scientific Facts supporting the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin

@AllenWitmerMiller

I have also pondered the small possibility that a genuine crucifixion shroud from centuries of Roman rule might have been preserved into the Middle Ages and eventually “helped along” with the strategic placement of blood and other features in order to conform to expectations based upon the Biblical text

This hypothesis doesn’t work because we know that the image was formed after the blood stains.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@vjtorley

In the light of the above evidence, I think it’s time for Shroud backers to admit that theirs is a lost cause.

In light of the evidence below, I am wandering whether it is not the Shroud doubters that should admit that they were wrong to dismiss the authenticity of this remarkable artifact.

stlschneiderpaper.pdf

…and here is the conclusion of the article:

Weighing the Evidence
We began our journey discussing the 1988 carbon date and the nature of truth, especially the question how you tell what is true from what is not true. The tests of truth was given as direct observation (witness), correct interpretation (understanding), correspondences with other known truths (correlation and other explanatory principles), and coherence (It all fits together.). We have told a story, not without flaws, but which generally follows these principles which we can sum up with the following diagram.
Figure 21: A Network Summary Of Our Journey. There is one anomaly in our story with is the 1988 Carbon Date. Thus the story is not complete but the preponderance of evidence and the high coherence suggests that the shroud is authentic.

Summary and Conclusions
We have touched a large proportion of the material that applies to the 1988 carbon dating as well as the journey that the shroud must have taken if it is authentic from first century Jerusalem to its appearance in Lirey, France. The shroud has been shown to be a remarkable and totally unique object with an image that is simply unexplainable as a 14th century forgery. Such a forger is quite impossible. There is little question that the carbon dating technology was professionally applied, but it depends on the sample being representative in order to be accurate in dating the cloth and there is a massive amount of evidence that the samples were not only not representative but had been modified and manipulated with intrusives, dyes, and that the dating actually follows closely the UV fluorescence. Thus the conclusions are:
21

1. The carbon dating was of samples that were not representative of the cloth as a whole and so are not appropriate for determining the cloth’s age.
2. The preponderance of evidence not only suggests authenticity but further exposes the overwhelmingly unlikely possibility that the image could be accounted for by a forger.
3. Mysteries remain as to exactly how the shroud got to Edessa, and where it was between Athens and Lirey. Also the details of the skewing of the carbon date need to be further explored so that the reason for the anomalous sample can be fully discerned.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@structureoftruth

Or at least a chain of historically reliable sources tracing the artifact back to the first century… the absence of such seems glaring in this case.

You will find such chain in the reference I offer to@vjtorley at 71.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Timothy_Horton

It’s been demonstrated scientifically beyond all reasonable doubt the cloth was produced in the 1300’s. That means it can’t be an artifact from 2000 years ago. Not that scientific evidence will ever sway a True Believer.

Beyond reasonable doubt? Are you sure? Please have a look at the reference I give at 71 and you will see that they are very good reasons to doubt the conclusions of the 1988 carbon dating.

[Faizal_Ali]

He said beyond reasonable doubt. There are, of course, lots of unreasonable people out there.

[Faizal_Ali]

If the C14 testing was botched, as you claim, then the solution is simple and obvious: Repeat the testing.

What am I missing here?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

• The carbon dating was of samples that were not representative of the cloth as a whole and so are not appropriate for determining the cloth’s age.
• The preponderance of evidence not only suggests authenticity but further exposes the overwhelmingly unlikely possibility that the image could be accounted for by a forger.
• Mysteries remain as to exactly how the shroud got to Edessa, and where it was between Athens and Lirey. Also the details of the skewing of the carbon date need to be further explored so that the reason for the anomalous sample can be fully discerned.

1. Empty hand-waving excuse. There is no evidence to support the claim samples used for 14C dating were all 14th century repairs and not representative of the original cloth.
2. Empty bluster. There is no evidence for the shroud’s authenticity and plenty if was a 14th century forgery. The claim the image is impossible to forge is more unsupported bluster.
3. All the mystery about the shroud’s location from 33AD to the late 1300’s is easily explained by the fact the shroud is a 14th century forgery. There has been no demonstration of any “skewing” of the carbon data.

Let’s not forget anatomical analysis which show the “body” in the shroud would have to be from a “human Gumby” stretchable person.

Sorry I know you desperately want to believe but lame excuses to hand-wave away all the data indicating the shroud is a forgery won’t cut it.

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

you will see that they are very good reasons to doubt the conclusions of the 1988 carbon dating.

Please present these reasons here and support your claims with evidence.

So far you have made two very different claims - that the 14C results were statistically invalid because the independent results weren’t close enough to each other, and that the 14C dates are valid but came from 14th century repaired areas and not the original cloth.

Want to get your story straight and get back to us?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Timothy_Horton

Giltil: This is because so much very specific details reported in the Gospels about the crucifixion of Jesus are also recorded on the Shroud.

What details recorded on the shroud are unique to the crucifixion of Jesus and exclude the tens of thousands of other known crucifixions done by the Romans in that time frame?

Gil I’m still waiting for your answer to this one.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

@Timothy_Horton

Please present these reasons here and support your claims with evidence.

Many reasons are presented in the reference I gave at 71.

But for now, I would just like to point out the two methodological problems with the carbon dating study that justify to doubt its conclusions:
a) The carbon-dated fragment was most likely taken from a patch repaired in the sixteenth century (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040603104004745?via%3Dihub)
b) Recent statistical analyses of the raw data that were used for the radiocarbon study indicate that its conclusion is badly flawed.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467)

And please note that contrary to what you seem to think, these 2 problems are not mutually exclusive. Both can exist. No problem here.

[Faizal_Ali]

And yet you claim this “shroud” is one of the most scientifically investigated objects in all of history.

Again, please try get your story straight before you expect us to respond to it.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Giltil

b) Recent statistical analyses of the raw data that were used for the radiocarbon study indicate that its conclusion is badly flawed

How did it happen that all the labs were off to the same extent?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Giltil

b) Recent statistical analyses of the raw data that were used for the radiocarbon study indicate that its conclusion is badly flawed.(https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/arcm.12467 )

Hi Gilbert
Can you describe why examining the raw data changes the conclusion? Is there a large variation from the mean?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

From the paper: I assuming the number like (906) means age and ± means confidence range. Do you agree?

							Mean
Oxford 2 Raw	980 ± 45	915 ± 45	925 ± 32
Arizona 2 Raw	906 ± 48	970 ± 56	813 ± 50	980 ± 38	878 ± 37		927 ± 32 ©
Zürich 2 Raw	890 ± 59	1036 ± 63	923 ± 47	909 ± 47	863 ± 47		916 ± 26 (a)
Oxford 3 Raw	1955 ± 61	1975 ± 50	1990 ± 33
Arizona 3 Raw	1827 ± 47	2030 ± 43	1949 ± 55	1972 ± 37	2126 ± 46		1995 ± 46 ©
Zürich 3 Raw	1984 ± 50	1855 ± 49	1903 ± 49				1913 ± 38 (a)
Oxford 4 Raw	785 ± 35	710 ± 29	790 ± 32
Arizona 4 Raw	724 ± 42	778 ± 88	764 ± 45	602 ± 38	825 ± 44		722 ± 48 ©
Zürich 4 Raw	739 ± 63	676 ± 60	760 ± 66	583 ± 47	649 ± 47		665 ± 31 (a)

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

But for now, I would just like to point out the two methodological problems with the carbon dating study that justify to doubt its conclusions:

You didn’t provide any evidence of problems, just rote repeated your earlier claim there are problems. That will convince absolutely no one.

Oh, you’re still dodging this question too:

@Timothy_Horton

Giltil: This is because so much very specific details reported in the Gospels about the crucifixion of Jesus are also recorded on the Shroud.

What details recorded on the shroud are unique to the crucifixion of Jesus and exclude the tens of thousands of other known crucifixions done by the Romans in that time frame?

Well? Do you have an explanation or not?

[Timothy_Horton]

@Giltil

b) Recent statistical analyses of the raw data that were used for the radiocarbon study indicate that its conclusion is badly flawed.

How is it all three labs botched the shroud dating but all three got the control samples (samples 2, 3, 4) dates which closely matched their known historical age?