Miracle of the Shroud / Blood on the shroud

[catsmate]

On a little further investigoogling, I find that the Sudarium is described as a taffeta (perpendicular warp and woof) while the Shroud is a herringbone weave. Microscopically, the Sudarium appears consistent with linens of its claimed approximate age.

Is that the weave characteristic of ~600CE? If you could point me to some images from the Sudarium I'd appreciate it.

It'd be interesting to see such a test performed, for sure. But like someone said above, the believers aren't that interested in real science.

No. The more science, the more difficult it is fro them to ignore.

To translate that to C14, it does not matter if your control is 100, 101.354, 362.521 or whatever years old. The only things that are important are that you know what the actual is supposed to be, and that the actual sample is stable, i.e. that it will be the same when you receive it. And then, when you received it, you test it. And if the machine gives a reading that is "roundabout" that of what you expect, you know that your machine is working OK.

One of the issues with radiocarbon dating, compared to say instrument calibration, is the requirement to adjust for different levels of atmospheric ¹⁴C, so there is more statistical work required to convert the instrument output to an actual value. This gives the generally scientifically illiterate believer more wriggle room, though when examined their criticisms don't stand up.

With the shroud samples, after they were cleaned (in a number of different ways) the fabric threads were combusted and the resulting gas (carbon monoxide or dioxide) was converted to carbon, as graphite. The three labs used different techniques for this.

The actual test runs took place over a period of about a month, mixing the four supplied samples (shroud and the three controls) and a number of existing blanks and standards. The labs performed between 12 and 19 runs on the samples, each consisting of multiple measurements and calculations.

The labs measured the isotope ratios slightly differently, with Oxford and Arizona using Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy only to measure the ratios of
14C to 12C and using conventional Mass Spectroscopy to measure the 13C to 12C ratio while Zurich determined both rations using AMS only.

The results were adjusted using the then standard data on historical isotope ratios and the ages calculated using a method developed by Stuiver and Polach in 1977.

The data was provided to the British Museum which performed the statistical analysis and published the results.

If you like, and don't have access, I can send you a copy of the original 1989 Nature paper.

 

[jhunter1163]

Is that the weave characteristic of ~600CE? If you could point me to some images from the Sudarium I'd appreciate it.

Here are a couple of papers concerning the Sudarium, and comparing it with the Shroud (not very critically, unfortunately-some of the comparisons are Jesus-on-toast quality). The first one includes a magnified view of the weave of the Sudarium.

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FernandezWeb.pdf

http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

From what I've been able to find, the taffeta pattern was commonly used in Roman times (as well as later) in Palestine (Pliny the Elder mentions it). Herringbone was a much higher quality and more expensive weave; IMO unlikely to be used on a burial shroud.

The shroudies seem to be saying that if the Sudarium is authentic, the Shroud must be as well. Obviously, that does not necessarily follow, except in their minds.

 

[Jabba]

From the above it sounds to me as if you had assumed that blind testing would have been necessary in C14 dating, just as it is some other fields such as drug trials with patients...

Ian,
- Again, I will try to deal with one sub-etc-issue at a time.
- I did assume that blind testing would have been necessary (or at least, useful) in C14 dating -- for one thing, my background is the behavioral sciences, and being such a subjective enterprise, we do a lot of blind testing. But for another thing, going from Gove's book, he seems to accept utility in C14 blind testing, but that it couldn't be done effectively in this case. I suspect that you don't need citations.
- Is that an adequate response to your response above?
--- Jabba

 

[Slowvehicle]

Is that the weave characteristic of ~600CE? If you could point me to some images from the Sudarium I'd appreciate it.


No. The more science, the more difficult it is fro them to ignore.


One of the issues with radiocarbon dating, compared to say instrument calibration, is the requirement to adjust for different levels of atmospheric ¹⁴C, so there is more statistical work required to convert the instrument output to an actual value. This gives the generally scientifically illiterate believer more wriggle room, though when examined their criticisms don't stand up.

With the shroud samples, after they were cleaned (in a number of different ways) the fabric threads were combusted and the resulting gas (carbon monoxide or dioxide) was converted to carbon, as graphite. The three labs used different techniques for this.

The actual test runs took place over a period of about a month, mixing the four supplied samples (shroud and the three controls) and a number of existing blanks and standards. The labs performed between 12 and 19 runs on the samples, each consisting of multiple measurements and calculations.

The labs measured the isotope ratios slightly differently, with Oxford and Arizona using Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy only to measure the ratios of
14C to 12C and using conventional Mass Spectroscopy to measure the 13C to 12C ratio while Zurich determined both rations using AMS only.

The results were adjusted using the then standard data on historical isotope ratios and the ages calculated using a method developed by Stuiver and Polach in 1977.

The data was provided to the British Museum which performed the statistical analysis and published the results.

If you like, and don't have access, I can send you a copy of the original 1989 Nature paper.

I would appreciate a copy...

 

[Jabba]

...But I think several people here have explained by why blind testing of that sort is not necessary in the case of instrumental techniques like C14 dating. Because there is really no room in the C14 method for any subjective opinions (conscious or otherwise)...

Ian,
- Several people here have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary in C14 testing for the reason you give. What they have said makes sense, and I suspect that they, and you, are correct -- just that, without doing a LOT of time consuming thinking about it, I can't fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process...
--- Jabba

 

[Christian Klippel]

One of the issues with radiocarbon dating, compared to say instrument calibration, is the requirement to adjust for different levels of atmospheric ¹⁴C, so there is more statistical work required to convert the instrument output to an actual value. This gives the generally scientifically illiterate believer more wriggle room, though when examined their criticisms don't stand up.

To me that sounds pretty much like taking baseline readings. Correct? Pretty standard in many areas.

With the shroud samples, after they were cleaned (in a number of different ways) the fabric threads were combusted and the resulting gas (carbon monoxide or dioxide) was converted to carbon, as graphite. The three labs used different techniques for this.

The actual test runs took place over a period of about a month, mixing the four supplied samples (shroud and the three controls) and a number of existing blanks and standards. The labs performed between 12 and 19 runs on the samples, each consisting of multiple measurements and calculations.

Ah, that makes the claims of problems with the C14 dating even more ridiculous. That way it's pretty much impossible that there have been some kind of fluke that gave a wrong reading. Plus, it becomes extremely difficult to fudge the results in a way that no one would notice.

The labs measured the isotope ratios slightly differently, with Oxford and Arizona using Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy only to measure the ratios of
14C to 12C and using conventional Mass Spectroscopy to measure the 13C to 12C ratio while Zurich determined both rations using AMS only.

The results were adjusted using the then standard data on historical isotope ratios and the ages calculated using a method developed by Stuiver and Polach in 1977.

Yes, that's the real fun part, that three different labs, each of them going to that procedure, come up with the same results, but still there are people who doubt them.

It's not as if all this was done in a dirty shed in someones garden, only once...

The data was provided to the British Museum which performed the statistical analysis and published the results.

If you like, and don't have access, I can send you a copy of the original 1989 Nature paper.

That would be great! I'll send you a PM with my contact details now.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[IanS]

Ian,
- Again, I will try to deal with one sub-etc-issue at a time.
- I did assume that blind testing would have been necessary (or at least, useful) in C14 dating -- for one thing, my background is the behavioral sciences, and being such a subjective enterprise, we do a lot of blind testing. But for another thing, going from Gove's book, he seems to accept utility in C14 blind testing, but that it couldn't be done effectively in this case. I suspect that you don't need citations.
- Is that an adequate response to your response above?
--- Jabba

Can you give me the quote from Gove's book, so that I know what you are referring to?

And ... do I take it from the above that you are still saying the C14 testing was in error because the samples were not run entirely "blind"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,
- Several people here have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary in C14 testing for the reason you give. What they have said makes sense, and I suspect that they, and you, are correct -- just that, without doing a LOT of time consuming thinking about it, I can't fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process...
--- Jabba

No, Rich:

This is another attempt to get away with casting aspersions on a process you do not understand.

No one has "claimed that blind testing is unneccessary"--several people who not only understand the process, but routinely perform it, have patiently pointed out to you why blinding is not a standard part of radiometric dating, and what purpose controls serve in such procedures.

The only thing that lets you claim to be unable to "fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process" is that the labs got the "wrong" date--a date that reflects the actual age of the medieval cloth instead of the age you want, and need...

So you continue to feel justified in implying the all three labs were dishonest, incompetent, or part of a vast conspiracy. You've had twenty years to play that song. When do you intend to address reality?

 

[catsmate]

Here are a couple of papers concerning the Sudarium, and comparing it with the Shroud (not very critically, unfortunately-some of the comparisons are Jesus-on-toast quality). The first one includes a magnified view of the weave of the Sudarium.

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/FernandezWeb.pdf

http://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

From what I've been able to find, the taffeta pattern was commonly used in Roman times (as well as later) in Palestine (Pliny the Elder mentions it). Herringbone was a much higher quality and more expensive weave; IMO unlikely to be used on a burial shroud.

The shroudies seem to be saying that if the Sudarium is authentic, the Shroud must be as well. Obviously, that does not necessarily follow, except in their minds.

Thanks for that. Yes the attempt to connect the two cloths is part of the pattern of nonsense.

I would appreciate a copy...

I'll upload it to Dropbox.

To me that sounds pretty much like taking baseline readings. Correct? Pretty standard in many areas.

Similar process. A bit more complex in that levels of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere varied somewhat irregularly over time.

Ah, that makes the claims of problems with the C14 dating even more ridiculous. That way it's pretty much impossible that there have been some kind of fluke that gave a wrong reading. Plus, it becomes extremely difficult to fudge the results in a way that no one would notice.

Oh yes, the three labs performed twelve rounds on tests on twelve targets prepared from the shroud material. Plus 37 runs on the other control samples supplied, all interspersed with the labs' own samples.

Yes, that's the real fun part, that three different labs, each of them going to that procedure, come up with the same results, but still there are people who doubt them.

It's not as if all this was done in a dirty shed in someones garden, only once...

It's particularly interesting regarding the "contamination" nonsense. The labs each developed different methods and ran tests on samples cleaned in different ways, without showing significant differences.

That would be great! I'll send you a PM with my contact details now.

Greetings,

Chris

I've emailed you a copy and I'm uploading some docs to Dropbox.

 

[Belz...]

Ian,
- Several people here have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary in C14 testing for the reason you give. What they have said makes sense, and I suspect that they, and you, are correct -- just that, without doing a LOT of time consuming thinking about it, I can't fully dismiss the possibility of subjectivity sneaking into the process...
--- Jabba

You're getting less and less convincing. In other words, you still want to believe in it, evidence be damned.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Just finished reading the paper that catsmate1 sent me. After reading it i must say that it gets even worse for the believers than i initially thought. The one and only time where any tampering could have been done, in my opinion, is when they packaged the samples. This is because that's the only time where only two people, the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite, were handling them, without any photographic or video documentation. I find that extremely unlikely.

As for the dating itself, i think there can be no doubt that it is valid. Previously i thought that the three institutes were doing the dating and then sent the results back and be done with it. But that is far from what really was going on. They ran the datings, the results of which have been sent to the British Museum Research Laboratory, which in turn made the statistical analysis. At that point, not only the three labs had to be "in on it", but the research lab as well (alternatively the dating labs had to premediate the fudging and do it in such a way that the research lab could not see it).

But not only that, also the methods and calibrations used are important here. Because those, in turn, come from rather unrelated research (unrelated as in: not realted to the specific shroud but rather to the whole dating in general) and scientists.

From what i can see there is virtually no chance that any source of error went in that has gone unnoticed. The labs made boatloads of meassurements in various ways, with various preperations of the samples and controls. An independant lab then did the stats. All that based on a lot of more general research and methods. If there would be any error in this particular dating, it would mean that virtually _every_ dating done so far using these methods would be far off. But that is obviously not the case, since samples, of which the actual date was known, tested as expected.

What an eye-opener! Again, thanks to catsmate for giving me access to the paper. Previously i thought the believers were just somewhat misguided because the overall process was rather "simple" and they didn't really understand some terminology like calibration or control.

Just imagine what effort and premediation it would have required to fudge the dating. The sheer number of people, methods and institutions involved. Each and everyone of them risking their professional careers in the process. To me it's borderline insane to think that any fudging could have happened. There is virtually no place where any personal bias could have any effect.

The only point, imho, is where they packaged the samples. This is the only time and place where someone could have switched the samples without anyone else noticing it. But that would have no impact on the dating itself, it would just mean that something else underwent C14 dating. And as said, i think it highly unlikely that those two did that. Plus, one institute was able to identify the shroud cloth, which means that the samples were what they are supposed to be.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Belz...]

Shows you how much Jabba needs the shroud to be authentic.

 

[Jabba]

Can you give me the quote from Gove's book, so that I know what you are referring to?...

Ian,

- I'm just learning how to scan these things on my latest printer, so some stuff is getting left out -- but, I think that it's still coherent enough to translate.
- P 152, There were further comments on the question of blindness, tl11
number of labs to be involved and whether every lab should l',t 'l a shroud sample. I remarked that the motivation of the peo1•lt at my lab might be lost if we did not get a piece of the shrouc l Otlet said he disagreed-not all labs should get a shroud samplt • He was worried about the publicity that any dating of this ki11d was going to attract. This could be avoided if one did not ev1'II know whether or not one was dating the shroud. Evin said l11 agreed with Otlet that no lab should know whether or not it h 111I
a shroud sample.
- P154, More importantly, I realized, the lineal density of the warp and weft threads was now known to all the delegates. Unraveling the shroud sample would no longer be sufficient to render the sample blind. It was extremely unlikely that a control sample could be found with warp and weft threads that had the same lineal densities. The question of a blind measurement was t.!2_W moot. The laboratories would know whether or not they had a d sample. The only way around this would be to unravel the samples, clip the warp and weft threads very short and even untwist and separate the individual strands of the threads themselves . No prudent carbon dater would accept such masses of fluff. Cleaning them would be difficult and chancy and it would be too easy for some unscrupulous person along the chain to add sufficient additional fluff to change the age. Neither I nor anyone
else at the workshop then or later pointed this out.
- P 157, Chagas then asked Harbottle whether he thought all seven labs
should actually get a shroud sample and Harbottle said he thought six samples to six labs with one getting a dummy sample would suffice. Control samples-probably two per lab-should also be provided (a distinction was being made between control samples and shroud-like dummy samples). He later changed his mind and opted for one shroud sample and one control sample for each of the seven labs. This suggestion had come from Duplessy. Donahue then correctly observed that blindness is increased by using two control and one shroud sample for each lab. (As mentioned above, blindness was impossible because the shroud could be identified even.if it were unravelled-but no one spoke up.) Flury-Lemberg flatly stated that it would be impossible to find a shroud-like dummy.

--- Jabba

 

[Jabba]

No, Rich:

This is another attempt to get away with casting aspersions on a process you do not understand.

No one has "claimed that blind testing is unneccessary"--several people who not only understand the process, but routinely perform it, have patiently pointed out to you why blinding is not a standard part of radiometric dating, and what purpose controls serve in such procedures...

Slowvehicle,
- I almost agree with your statement. I should have said that several knowledgeable people have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary, and have given me their reasoning.
--- Rich

 

[Akri]

Otlet said he disagreed-not all labs should get a shroud samplt • He was worried about the publicity that any dating of this ki11d was going to attract.

So the argument for blinding was based on publicity, not scientific accuracy.

 

[Lucian]

Just finished reading the paper that catsmate1 sent me. After reading it i must say that it gets even worse for the believers than i initially thought. The one and only time where any tampering could have been done, in my opinion, is when they packaged the samples. This is because that's the only time where only two people, the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite, were handling them, without any photographic or video documentation. I find that extremely unlikely.

As for the dating itself, i think there can be no doubt that it is valid. Previously i thought that the three institutes were doing the dating and then sent the results back and be done with it. But that is far from what really was going on. They ran the datings, the results of which have been sent to the British Museum Research Laboratory, which in turn made the statistical analysis. At that point, not only the three labs had to be "in on it", but the research lab as well (alternatively the dating labs had to premediate the fudging and do it in such a way that the research lab could not see it).

But not only that, also the methods and calibrations used are important here. Because those, in turn, come from rather unrelated research (unrelated as in: not realted to the specific shroud but rather to the whole dating in general) and scientists.

From what i can see there is virtually no chance that any source of error went in that has gone unnoticed. The labs made boatloads of meassurements in various ways, with various preperations of the samples and controls. An independant lab then did the stats. All that based on a lot of more general research and methods. If there would be any error in this particular dating, it would mean that virtually _every_ dating done so far using these methods would be far off. But that is obviously not the case, since samples, of which the actual date was known, tested as expected.

What an eye-opener! Again, thanks to catsmate for giving me access to the paper. Previously i thought the believers were just somewhat misguided because the overall process was rather "simple" and they didn't really understand some terminology like calibration or control.

Just imagine what effort and premediation it would have required to fudge the dating. The sheer number of people, methods and institutions involved. Each and everyone of them risking their professional careers in the process. To me it's borderline insane to think that any fudging could have happened. There is virtually no place where any personal bias could have any effect.

The only point, imho, is where they packaged the samples. This is the only time and place where someone could have switched the samples without anyone else noticing it. But that would have no impact on the dating itself, it would just mean that something else underwent C14 dating. And as said, i think it highly unlikely that those two did that. Plus, one institute was able to identify the shroud cloth, which means that the samples were what they are supposed to be.

Greetings,

Chris

Perhaps Dr. Tite said, "Hey, look over there! Is that the Holy Ghost? Oh, no. I guess it was just a pigeon flying past the window." That would give him just enough time to substitute a medieval sample of identical size and appearance for the real shroud sample.

 

[Dinwar]

Actually, according to the Bible, there were two cloths; one around the body, and one around the head.

Fair enough. I misspoke: what I meant to say was that it's impossible for there to be a head-cloth and for the shroud Turin to both be the burial cloth. That's because the shroud of Turin has a face.

The one and only time where any tampering could have been done, in my opinion, is when they packaged the samples. This is because that's the only time where only two people, the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite, were handling them, without any photographic or video documentation. I find that extremely unlikely.

Particularly since they both have vested interests in not doing so. The archbishop has a clear bias towards the shroud being a 1st century artifact (even if he doesn't believe it himself, finding out that it was from the first century would make the shroud and his territory much, much more significant), so any alteration on the archbishop's part would almost certainly be towards an old date. And the scientist would be destroyed if they falsified the samples. This is the kind of thing that makes one's career evaporate in a haze of lawsuites.

Also, we know that there wasn't any tampering. At least one shroud sample dated to the 13th century wasn't blinded--meaning that people involved knew it was from the shroud. This is proof that there was no tampering.

The shroudies are attempting to set up a situation where there's no posibility of them accepting the shroud's authenticity. If the samples are blinded, they can always claim that they were replaced. If they're not, they can claim that the lack of blinding invalidates them. If there's any time at all when the samples aren't under constant survelance, they'll claim "That's when the switch took place!"

- I almost agree with your statement. I should have said that several knowledgeable people have claimed that blind testing is unnecessary, and have given me their reasoning.

Yes, and you--a person who thought until this thread that radiometric decay was linear and who didn't know what a control sample was even used for--are the deciding factor. I'm sorry, Jabba, but that's just insane. You demonstrably don't know enough to evaluate the situation. You have two options if you care about honesty: try to learn the situatiion, or admit you have no clue what you're talking about and stop talking about it. Either are perfectly fine options. What you CAN'T do is demand that we accept your ignorant ravings as valid arguments.

Also, I want to point out that we haven't claimed anything. We've PROVEN it. I've even cited profesional standards issued by the EPA. You don't need to take our word for it--we've all provided you the means to check our facts.

 

[Christian Klippel]

Perhaps Dr. Tite said, "Hey, look over there! Is that the Holy Ghost? Oh, no. I guess it was just a pigeon flying past the window." That would give him just enough time to substitute a medieval sample of identical size and appearance for the real shroud sample.

Yeah. Not only that, he would have had to have psychic abilities to know exactly what part of the shroud would end up as a sample to make/get a substitute that looks identical and fools everyone.

But who knows, maybe he is psychic and sneaked in the night before the sample was taken and invisible weaved in the piece of medieval cloth at the axact location that the it would be taken from the next day.

I guess in a believers mind that would make perfect sense...

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

... And the scientist would be destroyed if they falsified the samples. This is the kind of thing that makes one's career evaporate in a haze of lawsuites.

This is something that can not be stated often enough, i think. Those people have good jobs and are well respected. They have a reputation to loose. For a scientist that is a career ending thing. They are not car sales men who may get away with the occasional fudging, even if caught. The implications of being accused of scientific misconduct are huge.

Since so many people were involved and around it would make a very high risk thing to do so. There is a big difference between writing down a few bogus numbers for test results, done by a single individual when no one is around, and between trying any tampering when there are lots of people around, lots of controls in place, and everyone knows about what is to be done and how.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Slowvehicle]

Ian,

- I'm just learning how to scan these things on my latest printer, so some stuff is getting left out -- but, I think that it's still coherent enough to translate.
- P 152, There were further comments on the question of blindness, tl11
number of labs to be involved and whether every lab should l',t 'l a shroud sample. I remarked that the motivation of the peo1•lt at my lab might be lost if we did not get a piece of the shrouc l Otlet said he disagreed-not all labs should get a shroud samplt • He was worried about the publicity that any dating of this ki11d was going to attract. This could be avoided if one did not ev1'II know whether or not one was dating the shroud. Evin said l11 agreed with Otlet that no lab should know whether or not it h 111I
a shroud sample.
- P154, More importantly, I realized, the lineal density of the warp and weft threads was now known to all the delegates. Unraveling the shroud sample would no longer be sufficient to render the sample blind. It was extremely unlikely that a control sample could be found with warp and weft threads that had the same lineal densities. The question of a blind measurement was t.!2_W moot. The laboratories would know whether or not they had a d sample. The only way around this would be to unravel the samples, clip the warp and weft threads very short and even untwist and separate the individual strands of the threads themselves . No prudent carbon dater would accept such masses of fluff. Cleaning them would be difficult and chancy and it would be too easy for some unscrupulous person along the chain to add sufficient additional fluff to change the age. Neither I nor anyone
else at the workshop then or later pointed this out.
- P 157, Chagas then asked Harbottle whether he thought all seven labs
should actually get a shroud sample and Harbottle said he thought six samples to six labs with one getting a dummy sample would suffice. Control samples-probably two per lab-should also be provided (a distinction was being made between control samples and shroud-like dummy samples). He later changed his mind and opted for one shroud sample and one control sample for each of the seven labs. This suggestion had come from Duplessy. Donahue then correctly observed that blindness is increased by using two control and one shroud sample for each lab. (As mentioned above, blindness was impossible because the shroud could be identified even.if it were unravelled-but no one spoke up.) Flury-Lemberg flatly stated that it would be impossible to find a shroud-like dummy.

--- Jabba

...Not one word of which indicates in any way that anyone was of the opinion that the control samples were "ineffective"; or even that the impossibility of blinding control samples in any way would, or did, influence the results.

Not to mention, you still have to address the fact that Gove supports the ¹⁴C date, (and has publicly stated the cloth is too recent to be the True Shroud^TM