The Shroud of Turin

Conversation Side Conversation
,
146

p.s. the ShroudScope
http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/shroudScope.shtml?zl=3&image=3&lon=1060&lat=2863&photomicro=t&popups=ME-29+349+30

is a fascinating website for any would-be Sindonologist (Sindonology is the science of the study of the Shroud of Turin) such as myself.

147

It’s an odd claim - why would the curators have provided samples for dating that weren’t representative of the shroud? That would be totally pointless, and completely at odds with their aim.

“Yes, we’ve dated the shroud fragments to 2000 +/- 100 years old, but since we gave the laboratories samples that weren’t representative of the shroud material, we don’t actually know whether the shroud is that old.”

148

Interesting info. What is also interesting is the serum stains on the Shroud which only UV fluorescence photography picks up. If it’s a fake then whoever produced it is a genius to hide serum stains until UV fluorescence photography was invented.

149

Maybe because they did not know this at the time samples where taken. If you watch video of Ray Rogers interview at comment 103 at about 20min mark, Ray Rogers explains this. Also, according to @Faizal_Ali in the link he/she provided, Ray Rogers and more or less the entire STURP Scientists are a bunch of Shroud supporting Pseudoscientists and the Carbon dating team are the the real Scientists.

150

Exactly.

Questions:

Could someone provide the citations to the peer reviewed publications in which vanillin content has been validated as a reliable means of dating ancient textiles.

Also, please provide the chain of provenance which demonstrates that the fibres tested by Rogers were actually from the sample of the “shroud” that was tested, and that it had not been tampered with or altered by the storage conditions in which they were kept in such a way that would have affected Rogers’s testing.

TIA

1 Like
151

More interesting reading:

152

Sorry but all the links you keep posting are not in a scientific peer reviewed journal refuting Ray Rogers work.

153

So wait, Rogers was a founder and editor of this 2005 paper that he published? This sounds like the Sternberg story all over again. Slips a paper in that validates his beliefs in a particular supernatural activity bypassing actual peer review. Thankfully the journal made it right and did a followup 10 years later even calling Rogers’ idea as a ‘pseudoscientific theory’:

There is no mass spectrometry evidence that the C14 sample from the Shroud of Turin comes from a “medieval invisible mending”

5 Likes
154

^^^ Looks like you spoke too soon.

Please cite the scientific peer-reviewed journal articles that have validated the methods by which Rogers claims to have dated the alleged repair patches. I have already asked this, but have received no answers.

1 Like
155

[mod hat on]

I looks like we’re reaching the end of constructive conversation (when both sides just trade “peer-reviewed citations or else!”). This has been a very fun thread, but unless there is substantive new information, I would suggest that we just let it be and move on to other things. There is already a ton of great information for people to digest here.

8 Likes
The Shroud of Turin, Part II (Jesus' Hairstyle)
156

If that is so, I would expect them to provide new samples for dating as soon as they did know. Yet no new samples were provided. Also, the reasons given for the samples being inappropriate aren’t consistent.

This is consistent with the carbon dating being valid and some people disliking the result. It is not consistent with the carbon dating being invalidated because the wrong samples were used.

Well, the carbon dating team are definitely real scientists, and Ray Rogers and the other STURP members supported the shroud’s authenticity both before and after the carbon dating took place.

2 Likes
157

That seems more like an excuse at this point.

It wasn’t inconclusive. They didn’t like the numbers that came out of it so they invented excuses. We have what is supposedly the most well studied artifact in history, and yet they had them cutoff a piece for carbon dating that is allegedly a medieval repair.

3 Likes
158

You need to look at the evidence more closely. The contrary scientific argument was in hibernation 17 years. If they were just making excuses those excuses would have started much earlier.

Did you look at the documentary at 103?

159

Allegedly a previously unknown mediaeval repair, not one of the known mediaeval repairs.

2 Likes
160

That makes no sense. Just because it took them 17 years to invent an excuse doesn’t change the fact that it is an excuse.

The chance to do new 14C dating is still therer, and if they had any integrity they would be supporting it.

4 Likes
161

The excuses started before the carbon dating was completed.

1 Like
162

T I don’t know if the Shroud is real or not. You are claiming that there is not a problem with sample and the information presented on this forum showed a real problem that it was from a medieval repair.

If you just assert it was an excuse without data backing up your position you are not adding any value.

Listen to the documentary, start 20 minutes in and read the post that Fazil shared. The idea that there is proof that the shroud is fake has not been established.

You are ignoring the issue that carbon 14 dating is destructive.

163

It could all be cleared up by new 14C dating, and they refuse to do it.

2 Likes
164

What is your evidence they are refusing to do it?

165

The fact that it hasn’t been done. What is stopping them?

1 Like