News of the Shroud?

[Shirtless]

I read an article that said the Shroud of Turin was being reexamined because the cloth used for the original carbon dating was severely burned. It said that the new results would go public at the end of September, and it's mid-December! I haven't been able to find any info on the Shroud that isn't from last April.

An update, or even an entire page on the shroud would be nice.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they are re-examining it to C14.
But I may be wrong...

[Kurieuo]

I never heard of this either, but I don't think much of the shroud really anyway.

Kurieuo.

[Shirtless]

Oh, you should!

I think that the scientific plausibility of the shroud being authentic is overwelming! The idea of a man from the late middle ages faking the shoud so well seems ridiculous when you look at the horribly innaccurate paintings of the crucifixion made in that time period.

[Anonymous]

"Overwhelming" is ridiculous.
There is no infermation about the shroud which is firmly extablished and universally agreed.

Anywhy I asked around (to pleople in the scientific commette for studies on the shroud- which is nominated by the church-so I suppose no atheist there) and there is no radio dating exam scheduled for the Shroud.
I guess you could have heard something old about the first radio dating.

Bye

[Shirtless]

UPDATE: 1988 Carbon 14 tests are false.

Recently, the study I mentioned earlier on the Shoud's 1988 carbon dating tests have finished. The conclusions were printed in Thermochimica Acta, a scientific journal, in January 2005.

Turns out the old tests are invalid, and the Shroud may very well be from a much older time period than previously thought. There are several reasons for this inaccuracy addressed in this article:

http://www.shroudstory.com./breaking02.htm

[Anonymous]

There is nothing unheard in the reference you linked.
It is the usual arguments.
May be true or may be biased, we cannot really infer from that indirect report.

I suppose that if they really showed the datation to be wrong we shall soon see a new datation (which is currently not scheduled).
If no datation will be scheduled I think is just because there is no serious
basis in the post.
I'll ask some expert and let you know, anyway.

[Shirtless]

August says that website "has the most extensive info on the web" dealing with the Shroud; I don't what makes it same-old, same-old. If you do ask any expert, ask him if he read that Thermochimica Acta magazine.

[Anonymous]

Permit me to join the discussion. I am the author of the Shroud of Turin Story. It is fair to say that my pages are second hand accounts. They are. But the source, Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425 Issue 1-2, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California); available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site it not. I provide links on my site if you wish to read the article. I've been corresponding with Rogers for a couple years now as well as people who work with him. I trust him completely. BTW, getting peer reviewed for such an article in a secular scientific journal was a challenge.

You might also be interested in reading Rogers' FAQ on the Shroud. It is on my site. Incidentally, I don't have the most comprehensive site on the Shroud. Barrie Schwortz' shroud.com has the best collection of documents. My site is intended to make some of the information more easily understandable. I do have a bias, which I openly discuss on my site. I think it is real and I explain why I think so.

John L. Brown, retired Principal Research Scientist at Georgia Tech's Research Institute Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory has provide independent confirmation for much of what Rogers has discovered. A link is provided to an article by Brown. I had the privledge of meeting him recently in Atlanta. I trust him completely.

There is no question that Rogers has proven that the carbon 14 dating was invalid. He has also demonstrated that it is much older, but how much older is uncertain.

Don't expect new tests in the forseeable future unless tests are done on some of the scrapings from the so-called 2002 restoration. There are serious chain-of-evidence issues with the scrapings and any tests done will be challenged. Neither the custodial Archdiocese of Turin nor the Vatican has any interest in new tests. Many in the Catholic church are upset that destructive tests were done at all on a "sacred" relic and that fragmentary material and particulate samples from the Shroud are in the hands of scientists in the U.S. and elsewhere. These samples are well documented.

I would like to see new tests. Rogers and most ethical researchers would like to see them as well. For now, we are in limbo. We cannot know how old the Shroud is scientifically. But with a good measure of history we can infer that it is genuine.

Thanks for permitting me to jump in.

Dan

[August]

Dan, thanks for the input. I am a huge fan of your site, it's well done and compelling. Please visit us again.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Dan, thanks for posting to clarify the dating issue on the shroud .

I do wonder why there's so much conflict about the shroud (?), seeing as Christ's life and death is accepted by virtually every historian, including those with no axe to grind! For example, Atheist historical scholar Michael Grant, no supporter of the Christian faith, states in his Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, "Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars." I would agree with JP Holding that "one must ignore a great deal of evidence, and treat what evidence is left most unfairly, in order to deny that Jesus existed." (http://www.british-israel.ca/reliability.htm).

Given that there is already a great deal of evidence for Christ, I really do not see that the shroud has much to offer, except perhaps some icing . Those who are overly skeptical to the point of nonsense, will continue to be so... I'm just wondering what would it mean to you if the shroud was disproved to your satisfaction? I just can't see the fuss, although the shroud is certainly intriguing and it would be nice to know the truth.

Kurieuo.

[Anonymous]

Thermochimica Acta [...] it not.
I provide links on my site if you wish to read the article.

I was not criticising the original paper. Just I missed the link
[I'll go through the original paper tomorrow.] and I have no reason to believe it to be bad.
I was just noticing that the report you link adds no new fact (while maybe the Thermochimica Acta paper does.)

I was just noticing that rumors about biological contaminations, or about improper choice of the thread to analyze are around since right after the dating result amd until last week they were without any reasonable back up. [I always considered these rumors amusing since it was not the atheistic scientists associateion which held the analysis but a commission cohopted by catholic church, and I personally find almost unbelievable that they made such a huge mistake as getting the thread fron a patch.
I hope the paper shed some light on how it could happened.]

If something really new has been found I'll have no difficulty in admitting the dating to be wrong (even because it does not proves the shroud not to be medieval).
I just need some time to read the material.

BTW I agree the church may resist to a new datation. I was surprized of the first dating. I would be surprized of a second.
However, without a new datation we are left without a firm datation, not as I think all you want to imply with a confirmation of the shroud anchient origin.

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to a story on the Discovery Channel Website: Turin Shroud Older Than Thought
It reads in part:

Jan. 25, 2005 — The Shroud of Turin, the piece of linen long believed to have been wrapped around Jesus's body after the crucifixion, is much older than the date suggested by radiocarbon tests, according to new microchemical research.

Published in the current issue of Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer- reviewed scientific journal, the study dismisses the results of the 1988 carbon-14 dating.

Dan Porter[/url]

[sandy_mcd]

Are there any recent developments in this area?

[Byblos]

Are there any recent developments in this area?

A ton.