That’s just another reason why the Shroud of Turin is such an inexplicable miracle !!!
Among the most innovative critiques were those published in 2010 by statisticians Marco Riani, of the University of Parma in Italy, and Anthony Atkinson, of the London School of Economics. In a recent interview with National Geographic, they noted that the laboratories conducting the carbon-14 tests were in full agreement on the ages of control fabrics from an ancient Egyptian mummy, a medieval Nubian tomb, and a medieval French ecclesiastical vestment. Yet raw data from the same tests on the shroud yielded results that differed by more than 150 years.
The published carbon-14 findings were the mean results drawn from the combined data of the three labs. It was assumed that the data were “homogeneous”—near-identical age estimates based on repeated measurements of the samples, each of which had been divided into four segments for testing.
But when computers crunched through all 387,072 ways to cut the samples, they identified a marked pattern of variations. “The dating which comes from a piece at the top edge [of an uncut sample] is very different from the date which comes from a piece taken from the bottom edge,” Riani explains.
“Our research does not prove that the shroud is authentic, nor that it is 2,000 years old,” he cautions. But it does call into question the carbon-14 report’s assertion of “conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is medieval.”
Unfortunately, I can’t answer you for I don’t have access to the article because it is currently behind a pay wall.
But you may find answers to your questions by looking at the press release of the conference issued on 24 May 2019 that was organized to discuss the new evidence obtained by reassessing the raw data of the 1988 study
And here is how the press release end:
At this point, what emerges? The conclusions we reach, says Torrisi, are:
No doubts should remain: the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud reported in Nature was not correct due to the strong data heterogeneity.
The sampling scheme does not offer the correct statistic representativeness of the linen. The heterogeneity among the measures provided by the laboratories depends on the area where the pieces of fabric have been cut.
The raw data confirm unequivocally the presence of heterogeneity of the results between the three laboratories.
Several statistical tests, parametric and non-parametric, show that the homogeneity problems of the data regard both raw and official data.
To increase our knowledge, new multidisciplinary studies should be proposed with the purpose of gathering more data to offer a complete vision of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the full Shroud, in order for researchers to work on reliable data.
A new dating is therefore necessary.
OK, so carry out the new dating, and let us know the results. What’s the hold up?
1 Like
Thanks for the article. It confirms what I posted. I agree with the conclusion and think you have posted a very interesting case…thanks.
To increase our knowledge, new multidisciplinary studies should be proposed with the purpose of gathering more data to offer a complete vision of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the full Shroud, in order for researchers to work on reliable data.
A new dating is therefore necessary.
LOL! A press release by the same True Believers regurgitating their same claims is not evidence.
Besides even if the claimed “non- homogeneity” error range was 1305 +/- 165 years instead of the calculated 1305 +/-65 years the cloth would still be medieval.
Oh, and Gil you’re still dodging this question:
The more you dodge the more you admit you have no way of tying this particular cloth to Jesus.
3 Likes
So much for @Giltil’s claim that this is one of the most thoroughly examined artifacts in all of history. Well, actually, we killed and buried that claim here long ago. But now even the apologists he is citing himself are saying more testing is needed. Huh.
Do you understand the detailed issues?
Yes.
The “shroud” is a fraud.
Some religious zealots refuse to accept this.
Pretty simple, really.
2 Likes
Happy you appreciate this conversation.
What do you know about this testing technique?
Scientists’ Tests Suggest Turin Shroud Dates To Time Of Jesus’ Death
Carol King | Saturday, March 30, 2013 - 10:10
1 Google +0 0 2
Scientific experiments carried out at the University of Padua indicate that the Turin Shroud dates to the first century AD.
The results of the experiments add weight to the traditional claim that the linen cloth showing an imprint of a crucified man is the one that Jesus’ body was wrapped in when he was taken off the cross.
‘Vatican Insider’ reports that the scientists conducted three new tests, using infrared light, Raman spectroscopy and a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. Scientists used a machine to examine the shroud’s fibres and test traction, to study tiny fibres alongside approximately 20 samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD. The results contradict those published in 1988 gained from Carbon-14 testing, which suggested the shroud is a fake dating to medieval times.
The recent tests were conducted at the University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities. They agree that the shroud dates to the time when Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem and say the results are 95% certain.
References to show that these are accepted dating techniques?
Why not just re-do the carbon dating? Maybe because anyone in a position to do so knows that the first tests were correct.
1 Like
Not sure. The carbon method destroys the shroud as you burn the material and count electron loss. That requires testing at the edge of the shroud which was repaired 400 years ago. The problem is the 400 year old repairs using more recent cotton fibers is muddying up the analysis.
I am not sure what to think at this point but there seems to be legit concerns with the carbon dating done in 1988. The raw data variation of the shroud between sites did not match the control.
It was wider variation indicating possible measurement of hybrid material.
I think the test method I cited is able to scan a much wider area as it is not destructive like c-14.
1 Like
No, there isn’t. The tests were published by the most respected journal in science. No one connected with the testing has suggested the results were inaccurate. And those in charge of the “shroud” have not suggested retesting, which indicates they have no concerns about the original testing. After all, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain from a new test.
Except it seems to be some made up method that is not used by anyone in the field. Why don’t you cite the peer-reviewed scientific journal in which these results were published, so we can determine for ourselves?
2 Likes
No, there isn’t. The tests were published by the most respected journal in science. No one connected with the testing has suggested the results were inaccurate
The results were inaccurate because of the materials they were testing are not indicative of the shrouds age. The material had both original and repaired fiber. This is why they developed a non destructive test.
Please cite where the labs that tested the samples stated this.
Who did? How has this been validated?
Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
1 Like
Well, infrared and Raman spectroscopy are very common and well respected tools in the forensic analysis of art. They allow investigators to determine they chemical makeup of the “paint” and “canvas”. Imaging versions of these techniques allows people to see paintings beneath paintings (i.e. artists reusing or forgers trying to hid stuff).
I would say IR/Raman would be a very appropriate tool to investigate the shroud. You can’t age directly using it (like you can C-14) but it could help determine if it was a forgery.
2 Likes
Don’t know if this was posted already but regarding dating on Shroud please watch this video:
1 Like
These are not reliable dating techniques.
2 Likes