As far as I can tell they are pursuing non destructive test methods. The accuracy of these are an issue for precise dating at this point.
Getting someone to cutoff and destroy more shroud when the first attempt was inconclusive could be a challenge.
Itâs even more of a challenge, since the first attempt was so conclusive. It is understandable that the owners of the âshroudâ donât want to inflict further damage to the relic in a futile attempt to appease believers who will never accept a negative result no matter how conclusive.
So that is where things will have to be left.
1 Like
I would be interested for you to detail why you think this is true. The paper by Ray said repaired shroud is what was tested. Are saying that claim was false? Based on what?
Yes.
This will give you an idea.
http://llanoestacado.org/freeinquiry/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm
tl;dr: Vanillin content is just another non-standard, made up test by âshroudâ enthusiasts to try explain away the clear and conclusive result of the C-14 dating.
1 Like
It is a little hard to believe that if youâre a team of scientists given the single best shot at putting a date on the shroud, you decide to sample the wrong part.
7 Likes
Regarding your link. The author accuses Ray Rogers of having priori beliefs about the Shroud. Where is the evidence for this. Thereâs a lot of baseless accusations in that link with no evidence backing them up.
Who âdecidedâ to sample the worst part?
Are you going to claim conspiracy on this? That researchers intentionally chose the region that was the worst part to cover-up The Truth-TM? Or do you mean something else?
1 Like
I think the link is a typical public skeptical attack against science that tries to confirm an unfavorable ideology. The part to look at is the middle where he talks about whether the sample is mixed old and new material.
It appears that he does not have evidence here as he has not examined the samples.
A big question is if this scientist was just a biased pro shroud person. Why would he wait 17 years to come up with pseudoscience to counter the aging claim.
1 Like
I was asking Jordan Mantha what he meant.
This appears to be the meat of the argument. Thoughts. @Jordan Thoughts
I have no evidence to disprove Rogersâ claim that the Raes sample fibersâsupplied to him by Luigi Gonella and supposedly taken from the original Raes sample adjacent to the radiocarbon samplesâare from the Shroud ("I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella . . . "; p. 189). But I question this claim also, since this was also undocumented and unsanctioned. The samples used by the academic radiocarbon labs to date the Shroud, on the other hand, were officially removed, witnessed, and sanctioned. Are Rogersâ two tiny threads truly from the same sample as the ones used for radiocarbon dating? If not, Rogersâ entire argument is invalid, since Rogersâ claim is that the radiocarbon samples have completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud, and he purports that his two tiny threads are representative of the radiocarbon-dated samples. He could only know this if the threads he tested were actually from the same sample used for radiocarbon dating, and we must trust the words of Rogers and Gonella for this (for Rogersâ word, see below).
In addition we now have (2017) raw data from the experiment that shows substantially more site to site measurement variation from the samples than from the controls indicating a hybrid thread as claimed.
@Jordan
It would be worth while for you to look at and comment on the methods in the video at 103. You can start 20 minutes in. The results were confirmed at Los Alamos labs after Ray died.
His use of the verb âproveâ is extremely strong evidence.
Can you give more evidence besides the use of one word Ray Rogers had priori beliefs about the Shroud which affected his research.
Can you give any evidence that Ray Rogers did any research?
If you do not believe Ray Rogers has done any research then what are you claiming?
What research did he do, Lou?
@Mercer If you do not know what research he has done then what is your argument? You addressed me when I was responding to someone else.
What a conversation!
My 2cents say that it is real.
Well, that was before I learned about the shadowshroud experiment today, now I see a tiny sliver of hope tht it might not be real. However you may feel about the sturp group, there is one thing that they confirmed for sure and it is that it was definitely the image part of the shroud that was darkened (dehydrated!), and not the other way around, as it is the case with the shadowshroud experiments. The image is actually pixelated, it is made up of tiny dots, and their density defines the local darkness of the image.
What convinced me that the carbon dating had to be wrong is the fact that the linen of the cloth was bleached BEFORE weaving, which leaves an uneven criss-crossy pattern on the final product which is clearly visible and an undeniable fact about the shroud. This way of bleaching went EXTINCT in the 4th century, after which linen was always bleached AFTER weaving, which produced a more even colouring of the final product. No medieval forger couldâve known or wouldâve cared about this detail, mouch less take the time to reproduce the old process of bleaching, which means that the supposed forger either used a 1000+ year old huge piece of unused linen cloth (in which case the carbon dating is wrong), or the image itself is is fourth century or earlier (because it is fused into the peculiarly bleached linen), in which case the carbon dating hasnât got a whole lot to say about the date the image was made.
Counting carbon atoms however could go wrong, and in archeology it does happen from time to time, which is why it is a well-known practice in the field of archeology to disregard the carbon dating when other strong facts about the object in question disagree with the results of C-14 dating.
1 Like