1st century burial shroud found in jerusalem
James
discovery of a shroud in Jerusalem that has been carbon dated to the first
century.
Can anyone tell me where this information can be found? What article(s) are
you referring to?
~James
Bobbycindi
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_556208.html
It doesn't say a whole lot but it's a start. If you feel like it, let us know
what you think of the Shroud of Turin. (We need all the fresh insights we can
get!)
Bob
James
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020424222554...@mb-cu.aol.com...
Hello Bob.
I'm not thoroughly familiar with the shroud of Turin as some of you here are
but I know very well the team of archaeologists and scientists who
discovered and studied the first century burial shroud recently found in the
Akeldama tomb complex in the Hinnom Valley.
I actually found this newsgroup while searching for media reports relating
to news releases about its discovery that just broke this past Easter in
Great Britain.
In light of what I know about this recent burial shroud discovery I am most
certain that the shroud of Turin is a medieval artifact. Several preliminary
reasons lead me to this conclusion, the main one being the radiocarbon 14
dating that was carried out by three independent research labs and that all
confirmed separately from one another that the Turin shroud originated in
the 14th century. The tests were done with tight controls and protocols. Dr.
Doug Donahue of the University of Arizona has dated the recent Hinnom valley
shroud positively within the first fifty years of the first century CE.
Alternately, he also did the radiocarbon dating on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
which conclusively placed them within the first century BCE.
I know that carbon 14 dating is not surgically accurate but it is accurate
enough to affirm or deny a theoretical target window that other available
evidence can point to. A case in point is the artifacts found in the Judean
desert south of Qumran at the Dead Sea that were part of the Bar Kokhba
rebellion. These things found in caves included Roman artifacts, leather
pouches, reed baskets and satchels, and most importantly written documents.
Evidence within the documents themselves referred to events no later than
early second century, the scarce few Roman coins found dated to Hadrian and
Trajan, and when radiocarbon dating was performed on the objects a target
window of early second century was the result.all evidence in context
conclusively pointed to a date at the end of the Early Roman Period 132 CE.
The Bar Kokhba Revolt took place 132-135 CE.
With the discovery of this new shroud come some illuminating features about
Jewish burial in the time of Jesus. The shroud was found just south of the
city walls in the Hinnom Valley on the southern end of an escarpment that is
pitted with tombs. In the OT the Hinnom Valley is the location of child
sacrifice to the pagan god Moluk. In the 1st century the valley was a
dumping ground for refuse and the bodies of criminals. The marginalized of
Jewish society were probably here too, from the very poor to lepers. Hinnom
in Greek is translated "Gehenna" which literally means a place of continuing
misery and its where the English word hell comes from. The NT makes several
references to the geographical "Gehenna" -a place where one is cast out.
After the story of Judas Iscariot in Matthew the place was called "Akeldama"
'the field of blood.'
But what is really interesting is that all the nobles, high priests, and
dignitaries who would have lived in the upper city which is Mt. Zion would
have been able to look across the valley to their cemeteries consisting of
exquisitely constructed tombs.some being very ornate. They clearly belong to
the wealthy class of 1st century Jerusalem. Right next door not far away
from where the shroud was discovered is the tomb of Annas - the first one to
interrogate Jesus according to John. Josephus also mentions Annas. His tomb
is incredibly wrought with embossed false panels and a domed ceiling.
The shroud itself is the only one ever found in the thousand or so tombs in
the Jerusalem area. Other 1st century shrouds have been found in the Judean
desert were there is no humidity.but Jerusalem is very wet and humid for
much of the year so no other textiles have ever been found there because
they deteriorate very rapidly when exposed. This shroud was preserved
because it had been sealed in a loculus where water was channeled beneath it
in a natural cleft. Dr. Shimon Gibson and a group of students happened upon
the tomb right after grave robbers had broken into it looking for valuables.
The robbers had removed a seal on a burial shelf where the body is placed to
decompose and which afterwards the bones are gathered up and placed in an
ossuary, so it was literally only days since the shroud had become exposed
to modern atmosphere.
Parts of the shroud were so surprisingly well preserved that parts of the
body it covered were still evident such as skull bone and hair. They were
stuck to the shroud. Now.we're not talking Turin shroud here.we're talking
highly deteriorated, carbonized material but still remarkably preserved
enough to tell a story.
Medical scientists at Hadassa hospital in Jerusalem have determined through
DNA tests that the body belonged to a male. The hair showed no sign of
disease and appeared to have a sheen as if it were washed prior to burial
(indication of a Jewish burial ritual?) There were no vermin present such as
lice. This is evidence of a healthy head of hair that was taken care of. It
is also evidence of the wealth and affluent background one would expect from
someone buried in an Akeldama tomb.
Bones that were found were screened for several pathologies and one intact
bone from the shroud loculus gave demonstrative proof that the person
beneath the shroud had advanced tuberculosis. This was confirmed in London
at the University College Hospital. The man would have been in severe pain,
he would be bleeding and coughing up blood. He would have looked horrible
and died slowly.this may be why the family never went back to gather up the
bones. They just sealed him up and left him perhaps out of fear.
Several broken ossuaries had been found in the tomb but fragments revealed a
Greek name reading "Philo" and three more in Hebrew reading "Maria,"
"Shalom," and "Shlomzeon." Mary and Salome were common names in Jesus' day.
The shroud itself is a one-to-one plain weave. There is no flatness to the
fibers as in flax but is more like wool.not conclusively, but the fibers
match the characteristics of wool more than anything else. This is another
indication of wealth. Woolen garments are associated with the aristocratic
high priesthood of the 1st century plus the tomb is next to that of Annas
the high priest. All of the shroud pieces are from the same cloth. The wool
is delicate with no faults in weaving. The textile is in good condition;
there are no holes or mending. Other 1st century shroud cloths that have
survived in Israel are from arid areas consisting of a plain weave also but
the wool of this shroud was spun in the opposite direction indicating that
this textile came from Greece or Italy because this kind of spin is not
found in Israel. This is another indication of affluence because such
material was expensive to import.
Now when this shroud is compared along side the Turin shroud differences
become immediately apparent. The Turin shroud is linen, while this one is
more like wool. While linen is not so unusual the Turin shroud shows a very
complicated twill (herringbone) technique. This shroud is a very simple
weave. A twill weave is not found anywhere in the Levant in the 1st century.
On this basis alone it is very hard to accept that the shroud of Turin comes
from 1st century Palestine.
Now what is really mind-blowing is that after the crucifixion of Jesus the
character of Joseph of Arimathea shows up. He's influential. He can go to
Pontius Pilate and ask for the body. He's wealthy and inclined to be
sympathetic. So, he takes the body of Jesus and puts it in a rock-hewn tomb
close by. Now one of the Gospels says that it was his own tomb!!!! Why?
Because it was a double Sabbath and Passover was coming on. Running
throughout all the Gospels is this rush to get the body off the cross and
buried. Its got to be done quickly. So Jesus has no place to lay his head
but in the end was put in a place only the wealthy could afford. WHAT if
this was Joseph of Arimathea's family tomb? It kind of makes your head spin.
This discovery really makes the Gospel stories come alive. According to all
our evidence Jesus was buried in a tomb much like the tombs of Akeldama.
Joseph of Arimathea had all the qualifications of someone who would have
lived in the affluent quarter of Mt. Zion and would have in all
possibilities owned a tomb in the valley in which Mt. Zion overlooked.
Is it feasible? I think so. From earliest times Christian tradition and
legend maintain that between his death and resurrection Christ triumphantly
"descended into hell" to bring salvation to the captive souls in Sheol. Now
what if that tradition started because Jesus Christ was buried after his
crucifixion in the Hinnom Valley.Hell valley? It certainly is an
entertaining thought. Regardless.this person whom the shroud covered may
have very well walked around in Jerusalem and saw Jesus.listen to him
teach.he even could have been part of the conspiracy against Jesus. He may
even have been Joseph of Arimathea himself!
Everyday, archaeological discoveries such as this one are being unearthed
and studied in Israel and it suggests very strongly and positively that the
Christian faith is not something made up out thin air but that it rests upon
a historical foundation. Jesus did exist and it is deeply and sublimely
gratifying to see the components of faith, science, history, and archaeology
fit together in a way that doesn't happen often.
I know this was kind of long for my post. But I really wanted to share this
with you since you all here are interested in the subject. You may wonder
how I came by all this information. Well, I was one of the students
accompanying Dr. Gibson on the day he stumbled across the tomb entrance that
showed signs of being broken into. The rest I'll be able to tell my
grandchildren about. An ITV documentary of the find was released in Great
Britain on Easter and it has not yet been determined when it will air here
in the US. But look for it soon. I graduated in 2000 from the University of
North Carolina at Charlotte and studied under Dr. James Tabor. My degree is
in Religious Studies with a concentration on Second Temple Period-first
century Christianity. I am now working on my Masters in Biblical Studies.
Bobbycindi
taking the time to share this incredible information. There is so much here I'm
going print a copy of your post and study everything you've said. I have to
tell you that when this sort of discovery emerges the hair on my neck stands
up. It amazes me to think that more and more archaeological discoveries are
being made that verify the existence of the very individuals we read about in
the New Testament.
Am I to understand you that the actual tomb of Annas has been found? THE same
Annas from the Bible? Is there any hope of making a determination as to who the
man was with this new discovery? If it turned out to be none other than Joesph
of Arimathea that would be astonishing indeed. It really does bring history to
life to contemplate these discoveries. It's hard to deny the existence of the
most influentual man to ever walk the face of the earth when the tombs of his
contemporaries start turning up!
One of the subjects we here in this newsgroup talk about alot is carbon dating.
So it would be interesting to know more about how they went about dating this
new discovery. The results of the Shroud dating in 1988 certainly did upset the
applecart for many people who had become convinced that it was the actual
burial cloth of Jesus! I was one of them. But at the time I figured that the
Shroud did sound too good to be true. Three independant tests couldn't be wrong
so I forgot about it for a number of years.
But then, the thing made a 'resurrection' of sorts when it appeared on the
cover of Time magazine a few years ago. It was then that I found out some
interesting things about the dating I didn't realize. Most importantly, I found
out that only one tiny piece of cloth was dated and it came from an area that
was later chemically analysed and revealed to be different from the rest. The
sample was snipped from an obviously patched and rewoven area, cut into thirds,
cleaned and dated by all three labs in exactly the same way- this in disregard
of an extensive protocol that had been agreed to years in advance calling for
at least five areas to be sampled.
Many other ideas have emerged that could concievably account for a date not
matching the hoped for first century date, the latest one being the fact that
at one point in its history, the Shroud was apparently boiled in vegetable oil!
This, according to scientist who tested the idea, would have easily added
enough C-14 to the cellulose to account for the difference. But who knows?
For me, it's the coming to light of more and more historical information about
a cloth known as the Edessa cloth that leads me to believe the Shroud is
authentic. (The Edessa cloth was a relic that was as famous in its day as the
Shroud is now. It was known to have been a linen cloth bearing the miraculous
full-bodied image of Christ 'not made by human hands.' It was stolen from
Constantinople in 1204.) The fact that the Roman's had access to this cloth,
and put an image of Jesus on their coins that looks for all the world like the
face on the Shroud strikes me as being more than coincidental.
But enough about that! Again, thank you so much James for your time. Please
don't be a stranger to the group! Let us know if you find out any more exciting
things about this exciting new discovery.
Bob
James
> Am I to understand you that the actual tomb of Annas has been found? THE
same
> Annas from the Bible?
>
> Bob
Hello Bob:
While it cannot be proved conclusively that the tomb in question does indeed
belong to Annas, a general survey of the academic literature reveals that it
is generally accepted by most biblical scholars that this specific tomb
within the Akeldama tomb complex has the highest probability of being the
one belonging to him.
The site is called "Akeldama" as well as "the Potter's Field." Eusebius in
335 CE, Jerome in 400 CE, and Arculf of Gaul in 680 CE attest to its
location as well as Mark Twain in "Innocents Abroad." According to Matthew
27:5-8 the Chief Priests took the thirty pieces of silver that had belonged
to Judas and bought "the Potter's Field" for a place to bury strangers. It
is known that potter's kilns and tanneries were in the Hinnom valley outside
the city walls. The potter's furnaces were not allowed inside the city where
the smoke was considered an impurity. Tanners worked with dead animals and
were unclean according to Jewish laws of purity.
But Akeldama is hardly a cemetery for the poor stranger. The tombs here are
the most elaborate in all of Israel, which make it doubtful that the site is
actually the Potter's Field mentioned in Matthew. The ruins of one
particular tomb of spectacular dimension and architectural grandeur lie very
closely in the vicinity where Josephus in his "Wars of the Jews" (5:504-507)
describes how the Roman commander Titus built a siege wall around Jerusalem
in 70 CE:
"Beginning at the camp of the Assyrians he directed the wall towards
the lower region of the New Town and thence across the Kidron to the
Mount of Olives; then bending round to the south, he enclosed the mount
as far as the rock called Peristereon together with the adjoining hill,
which
overhangs the Siloam ravine; thence inclining westwards, the line descended
into the Valley of the Fountain, beyond which it ascended over against the
tomb
of Ananus {Annas} the high priest, and taking the mountain where Pompey
encamped, turned northwards, and proceeded."
The tomb originally had a triple-gated entrance that resembled the
triple-gate in the southern wall surrounding the Temple Mount. Inside the
main chamber is a decorated domed ceiling consisting of a deeply carved
rosette of 32 petals grouped around a whorl rosette. This one unique feature
distinguishes this tomb from all other tombs in Jerusalem from the same time
period - no other tomb from the second temple period in Jerusalem has
interior sculpted architecture like this one - in fact there is an
underground passage behind the east gate of the Temple Mount leading up to
the mount itself that has four intact Herodian domes in its ceiling - one of
these domes very closely resembles the dome in this tomb. Along the west
wall of the tomb is carved three loculi (kochim-burial cavity) the one in
the center is framed by a false door that may have resembled the great doors
of the temple itself. There is evidence that the tomb had an upper
structure. This feature would have made the tomb prominent and very visible
from a distance, which may be why Josephus mentions it, much like the tomb
of Zechariah or Absalom is today. The idea here is that the builder of this
particular tomb went to great lengths to recreate representations of temple
features to honor a person of great magnitude that was associated with the
temple cult in some way - which would have been Annas in this time period.
These facts: that there exists the ruin of a magnificent tomb right where
Josephus places Annas' tomb; That the tomb complex can be architecturally
dated to the Herodian period; Physical evidence such as early Roman pottery
sherds also date the location to the 1st century; The tombs in the area are
exquisite - meaning only one class of people could have afforded them - high
priests; This one grand tomb is surrounded by six other intricately
decorated tombs - Annas had five sons who also became high priests in the
1st century plus Caiaphas was Annas' son-in-law - these surrounding tombs
may have belong to his sons. Not far away during the construction of a water
park a tomb was broken through to and a complete ossuary (bone box) was
found bearing the name "Caiaphas." So it is strongly possible that this tomb
is indeed that of Annas.
So, there you have it. I believe that I will be out of my depth and element
when discussing the particular details of radiocarbon dating as well as the
other shrouds you mention. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard of the
Edessa shroud before. I think it would probably be wise to listen and watch
you folks thresh it all out.
Thanks for letting me join in.
~James
Bobbycindi
probably know as much about it as any of us knotheads) but when it comes to the
subject of first century Biblical history and archaeology you are a veritable
gold mine! You make me want to travel to Jerusalem and start poking around.
Based on what you've said, I think they likely did find the tomb of Annas and
Caiaphas too. Absolutely fascinating.
Something I've wondered about is if anyone has any idea of the whereabouts of
the tomb of Mary the mother of Jesus? Do you know if there has been any
speculation about this? Also, what do you make of the tomb of the Holy
Sepulchre? Have you seen it, and do you think it could actually be the site of
Jesus's tomb? I've heard that it's thought to be entirely possible.
As for the Shroud of Turin, it definately seems to be somewhat out of the
ordinary when it comes to first century burial shrouds. I don't know of any
herringbone weave shrouds turning up from that specific time and place,
although I've heard that there are earlier cloth's with such a weave. To me the
unusualness (is that a word?) of the Shroud doesn't rule out its possible
authenticity for the reason that I think Jesus must have left explicit
instructions with someone (perhaps Joseph) as to how he wanted to be buried-
perhaps even specifing linen as the material to be used. I think he fully
intended to leave his image behind as his own 'gospel' of sorts.
This, of course, is just speculation on my part, but I can't see the image on
the Shroud as an accident no matter how it came about. And I certainly can't
see it as a painting! To me, it is sublimely mysterious and beautiful. I see it
as nothing less than strong evidence that the Jesus of history was no different
than the Jesus of faith. I'm amazed to think that virtually everything the New
Testament mentions as having been done to the man in the last few hours of his
life can be seen on the Shroud. The Pope said it very succinctly when he
referred to it as a 'mirror' of the gospels. Incidentally, someone once asked
him if he personally believed the Shroud to be authentic and he said he did.
(The Catholics don't take an official stand on the Shroud.)
If you're curious to know more about the relic, probably the best place to
start is Barrie Schwortz' website which is www.shroud.com. Barrie is a friend
of mine and is super interesting to talk to. He's an image specalist who, along
with a couple of dozen other scientists, was asked to study and photograph the
Shroud in 1977. He once told me that aside from the carbon dating, which is now
in doubt, (whether the skeptics admit it or not) there is not one thing about
the Shroud that is inconsistent with authenticity. Barrie's Jewish and went
into the project assuming he would walk up to the Shroud, see the brush marks
and walk away. He walked up to it, but he didn't walk away!
But I'm starting to ramble! Thanks once again for sharing with us some of your
knowledge. Hope you hear from you soon.
Bob
James
> Something I've wondered about is if anyone has any idea of the whereabouts
of
> the tomb of Mary the mother of Jesus? Do you know if there has been any
> speculation about this? Also, what do you make of the tomb of the Holy
> Sepulchre? Have you seen it, and do you think it could actually be the
site of
> Jesus's tomb? I've heard that it's thought to be entirely possible.
I am not aware of any recent or current archaeological work going on at the
moment that concerns itself with the tomb of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
There is so much that we just don't know about the time of Jesus in the
first century. Much of what we have to go on often is based on later church
legend or accounts removed by hundreds of years from the events in which
they discuss. Mary is one Biblical figure that we know very little about
historically outside the Gospels.
According to the Gnostic writing entitled the "Protoevangelium of James"
which dates to the second century Mary's parents are Joachim and Anna. There
is no way to know for sure. Luke's genealogy is thought by some scholars to
give the lineage of Jesus through Mary. Joachim is a variation of Heli or
Eliachim. The lineage and whether it is Mary's is a matter of dispute but it
does affirm the relation of Jesus to the Royal House of David.
Luke says Mary lived in Nazareth but the Protoevangelium says her parents
lived in Sepphoris which was Herod's urban capital of northern Galilee. A
distance of only 2.5 miles separates Nazareth from Sepphoris to the SE and
it is not implausible to think that Jesus with his father traveled often to
Sepphoris to work upon one of Herod's many building projects. The greek word
in the NT text that is usually translated carpenter is "tecton" and it
actually means builder. So Jesus could just as easily been a stone mason as
well as a carpenter. Later it is said that the family lived in Jerusalem and
that Mary was born were the present day church of St Anne's stands. It is
here that tradition holds Joachim and Anna are also buried. A Crusader
church in Gethsemane makes the same claim. Nearby in a bend of the main road
lie the ruins of what was once believed to be the tomb of the Virgin. It was
destroyed in 1009CE by Caliph Hakim and rebuilt by the Benedictines in
1130CE then destroyed again by Saladin who used only the stones of the
superstructure to mend the city wall. The actual crypt remains and can be
visited. As you can see there is nothing we can grip onto with confidence.
Its fun to think about though.
As for the tomb of the Holy Sepulchre, well, it has just as much a
litgitimate right to the claim as other alledged sites, maybe even more so.
In the early first century the site was a quarry and was outside the city
walls. First century tombs thought to have been located in the quarry's
western escarpment have been identified by some scholars as well as an
abuttment of inferior stone worked around by the quarrymen. According to the
Gospels Jesus was crucified on just such a feature resembling a skull with a
grave nearby. Further strength to the argument is given by the presence of
long held tradition by the Christian community which had held litugical
observances at the site until 66CE and when the site was enclosed by the
expansion of the city walls in 41CE the site was preserved. Hadrian had the
quarry filled in about 135CE for a temple to Aphrodite and when Constantine
wanted to build a church commemorating the resurrection the community
insisted that the site of Jesus' crucifixion and burial lay under Hadrian's
temple. Eusebius says that idea was confirmed when the project started
removing layers of subsoil (Life of Constantine 3:28.) The tomb of the Holy
Sepulchre is the only site in which archaeological evidence, scant though it
may be, seems to give any probability to.
As far the Shroud of Turin, I said earlier that no twill technique has been
found in the Levant from the first century. This statement needs to
clarified. I should have said that no Jewish burial shroud that we know of
from the first century demonstrates this kind of weave. Now, it must be said
that Roman fabrics from the first century do have this kind of weave but
they are tunics, cloaks, blankets, and garments of mixed cloth and the are
more commonly found at sites in Europe than in the Roman provinces of the
Middle East. It may very well be that the Turin shroud is first century and
that it is ligitmate considering practices of trade and the overlap of
culture, but in light of the narrow levitical strictures governing Jewish
culture at the time, even as to the types and manufacture of textiles the
argument still bends away from this position. Anything is possible though,
absolutely.
~James
Frank Weaver
In article <aafsbs$kqo$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
"James" <mo...@bicycling.com> wrote:
[snip]
>So, there you have it. I believe that I will be out of my depth and element
>when discussing the particular details of radiocarbon dating as well as the
>other shrouds you mention.
As it relates to the Turin 'shroud,' the issue is pretty
straightforward. Three labs independently dated subsamples of the
shroud, divided into 3-5 subsamples, along with a number of control
samples and standard blanks. Each of the shroud subsamples (12 in
all) dated from 591 to 795 years old. Once the results were
calibrated for changes in atmospheric 14C and compared, the 95%
confidence interval worked out to 1262-1388 CE.
For comparison, the first written record of the shroud is dated 1389.
It refers to an earlier investigation in the 1350's that concluded
the cloth was a fraud. There is also a medal, believed to a souvenir
medallion and dated to about 1356, that depicts the shroud and the
coat of arms of its owner who died in 1356.
On the other side of the coin, the symbolism contained within the
shroud image did not become prevalent until around 1260 (see Nicholas
P. L. Allen, "Dating the Manufacture of the Shroud of Turin: An
Exercise in Basic Iconography,"
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/dating.html).
Add to this your comments about weave manufacture and the fact that
the shroud is larger and better preserved by far than any piece of
Second Temple era linen ever recovered and the radiocarbon result
was somewhat anticlimactic. At 1325 +/- 63 years, it falls
comfortably within the range already established by every other means.
However, unlike all the other methods, radiocarbon dating lends
itself readily to a soundbite. When that soundbite came out, it sent
the shroud societies and devotional guilds into financial tailspins.
It took years for shroud devotees to devise a series of
rationalizations sufficient to get contributions up again.
Currently, the common ones are: (1) an inexplicable radiation 'event'
triggered some never-seen-before-or-since nuclear reactions that
redated the cloth; (2) invisible repairs were made just where the
sample was taken; and (3) an extremely large (> 60% by weight) amount
of bacterial contamination collected on the shroud and escaped removal
during the cleaning process preparatory to C-14 dating. Take your
pick.
>In fact, I don't think I have ever heard of the
>Edessa shroud before.
No surprise, there. It's fictional, stitched together out of dubious
legends by shroud devotees embarassed by the 13 century gap in its
provenance.
>I think it would probably be wise to listen and watch
>you folks thresh it all out.
>
>Thanks for letting me join in.
Hey, you've already contributed nicely to our little kaffee klatch.
Truth to tell, I had my doubts at first about this Gibson guy and the
yarn he served up, especially given the timing. It wasn't until you
fleshed it out with details that I knew described Second Temple
burial customs (i.e., shelf burial followed by secondary burial in
ossuaries) that I began to accept the story as genuine. Still a
little sensational, but that's what attracts people to Biblical
archaelogy, myself included.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPNIJTqyjdWYzk1A5AQFSBgf/TsDmuflG8FxTQ1FiDw/JX7wWs/W+/7mR
+83yMJO6m5n2i7AQiMlhkBqJ3crwPHYiB+DQ19JY+rH+AQy1iq86UP7vTEXq27Fu
xHa5bCx34XSrVL5mxd7ti/EoiXxY5/lL0VlS9Dy/DncoyWfSpK7LXPx6Vw+NN7ZK
1PdxVA7AaLFPa+6WIOm3TT/7/FU6TPeXJWixVg19K2MhfSL+hQ/9yi1SfQFamyqL
WsrQqJwIFzvD6kMv6HV+4go3ZmhOIOd3brmug7+Bz0cO+btBN6ri7T05eLOEYa5V
LC5DTfFl/5Mgn8FvMkFW8ICKCez7e10Hx6JO+mc+c/X950Ir/qg0NA==
=zJvm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
'88 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.
"I hope Harry Gove will forgive me for the following remarks- but in my
judgment, the radiocabon dating efforts fail to qualifiy as good science at the
fundamental level. Altough Gove cannot be blamed for the actual mechanics of
the sampling procedure, he does bear some general responsibilities as I will
soon show. My criticism is not of AMS technology nor of the labs involved- they
did a good job testing their samples and, given the basic assumptions of their
testing, achieved results with great precision. But are their results accurate?
When on the evening of November 21, 1987 I had dinner with Prof. Luigi Gonella,
it became patently clear that he wanted to go with one lab and one sample only.
And implied that that sample would come from one place: the Raes' corner! When
we had parted my concern had turned to alarm."
Skipping a few lines;
"Following recent studies by Adler, (1996) it appears that the Raes's corner IS
INDEED DIFFERENT IN CHEMICAL COMPOSITION FROM THE REST OF THE SHROUD. Gove,
according to his book, (1996) had pushed hard to divest STURP's and others'
proposals from the radiocarbon testing so that science could achieve the dating
first."
Gove himself has since indicated that he believes the sample taken was
anomalous. (TLC video In Pursuit of the Shroud) Biochemist Alan Adler had this
to say about the 1988 carbon dating of the Shroud in an interview with Tom Case
in 1994:
"Because you took only one sample. So you can talk all you want about how
reproducible the date is, but you can't talk about how accurate it is. You have
know way of knowing if the area you took the C14 sample from represents the
whole cloth. That's an area which has obviously been repaired. There's cloth
missing there. It's been rewoven on the edge. They even cut part of it off,
because it was obviously rewoven on the edge. The simplest explanation why the
date may be off is that it's rewoven cloth there. And that's not been tested."
In light of what Ray Roger's recently had to say about the 'Raes' corner' in a
paper currently undergoing peer-review, it seems to me that there can be little
doubt that the 1988 carbon dating should be ignored. Especially considering
that there has surfaced plenty of historical evidence to indicate that the
Shroud was in Constantinople long before it appeared in France. (I'll get to
that shortly)
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020503121831...@mb-mg.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Here's what Paul Maloney had to say in 1998 at the Dallas symposium about the
>'88 carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.
As with all such misgivings, they curiously appear only after the
fact. AAMOF, none of them turn up until *years* after the dating was
published. You'd think that, at the very least, someone might have
stood up the day after to say "I told you so," instead of relying at
first on that ridiculous radioactive redating scheme for 6 years.
[snip]
>When on the evening of November 21, 1987
Curiously, he said not one word about these misgivings BEFORE the
dating. The only person who has, William Meacham in 1986, confined
his 'misgivings' to generic matters applying to the cloth as a whole.
IOW, he was disturbed by the very fact that the cloth would be carbon
dated at all.
>"Following recent studies by Adler, (1996) it appears that the Raes's corner IS
>INDEED DIFFERENT IN CHEMICAL COMPOSITION FROM THE REST OF THE SHROUD.
Again, these discoveries appear after the fact, when there's a
desperate need to preserve appearances at all costs.
But we've already seen what constitutes the so-called evidence for
this claim. There is, for instance, this paper by Ray Rogers.
[snip]
>In light of what Ray Roger's recently had to say about the 'Raes' corner' in a
>paper currently undergoing peer-review,
As we've previously seen, there is no way the evidence he cites can
support his conclusions. His evidence shows that the 'Raes corner'
(i.e., the C-14 sample area) values fall right in the middle of
measures for the 5 shroud threads, and is *indistinguishable* from
3 of them.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPNXMyayjdWYzk1A5AQHd4Af+LVfEO+Fefs8Pu15FINFmdcaDF99HKOM+
4Nb7knF3emmSwkijrkHX/CapSbqEDtYawKpQMWmBATwmo2yrLDHIsfbNr/40GcVJ
doH8ZJEOwPcyeBPwRJdZypTlTWcdA9iPHqnAGfqd5iLQL9yeJ4MWj+zY4dB6wSSm
+oqKGIM1smHbP8+Vj43BOBmwNM1Wf9Ue5gRqvEnGzwOccYbZZXsi9bPGMaMMJhHN
iZpn4s1BgZrp/wGql8ruFwmJtf3MhEAbjcTESnkeWnCwub6LRqNX/eVhO3zvEQPF
wiMjbKXWu/O41gj5r2UZFZ8BUaumICXaiO5SmNROrNFytixtJM25Hg==
=A8Q3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
sample was cut (I can't remember which) to tell him that the carbon date,
whatever it turned out to be, might well prove to be precise without being
accurate. (You don't have to take my word on this if you don't want to, but
that is the case.) The fact is, more than one area of the Shroud should have
been sampled and it wasn't.
This is common sense! I was just looking at my backlit half-size negative and
here's what you see where the 1988 sample was removed; it is now a tiny
triangle of replacement material that is immediately adjacent to the long seam
that runs the length of the Shroud. But the seam appears two or even three
times as heavy in this area because this is where a larger patch (roughly three
by five inches) had previously been attached to the Shroud. In other words,
they took a sample that HAD to have included rewoven threads! (Unless they
sowed the patch into the Shroud without touching it.) And they knew this! They
even ended up pulling some of the reinforcing threads out of the sample with
twizzers because they could see they didn't match!
You say that these complaints came about after the fact. This is absolutely not
the case. This is what Alan Adler had to say in his interview with Tom Case;
"Well, before that meeting. I was at that meeting too, as the chemical advisor.
It was written up in Archaeological Chemistry IV. Bill pointed out all the
things that you could screw up if you didn't have an archaeologist involved in
the sampling, to advise you what to do and what not to do before you start
sampling. That was all in the original protocol. THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT. They
wrote a different protocol. THEY DIDN'T EVEN FOLLOW THAT. When asked why they
took the sample where they took it, the answer was: "Well, it was cut there
before." Now that was the stupidist argument in the world for taking one sample
from the place where they took it. Because that area is an area that's been
repaired; they know it's by a water stain; they know it's by a scorch; they
know that people have found previous chemical evidence that that area is
peculiar. But nevertheless, that's what they did. And that's why we have a date
that all sorts of people don't believe. Because they don't believe the accuracy
of the thing."
I would also point out that even if it turned out that the area sampled was all
original material, there are other reasons to suspect that the date arrived at
might well be wrong. At first I laughed at the linseed oil idea the Russian
scientists recently pointed out. (The Shroud was supposedly boiled in linseed
oil in the early sixteenth century) But apparently, this really COULD have
changed the date by many centuries by adding C-14. (See the link to this in the
post '2000 year old shroud found in Jerusalem' 4/26)
The fact is, the Shroud simply doesn't lend itself well to carbon dating for a
number of reasons which is all the more reason to rely on other historical
evidence. And more and more of that is coming to light revealing that the
Shroud did indeed exist long before a very wise and very brave knight turned up
with it in France in the 14th century- a knight whose name was the same as an
earier templar who was burned at the stake for not revealing the nature of an
image of a beared face he and the other templars revered. Was this a great
uncle perhaps? Very likely according to Ian Wilson.
Bob
Bobbycindi
out that the templar connection is fascinating. Especially with the discovery
of a very ancient shroud-like face on a wooden panel at Templecombe England- a
known templar hang out.
Bobbycindi
sample had come from. The 1988 sample was taken from directly adjacent to and
above this area- still right next to the extra heavy seam on the Shroud.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020506001130...@mb-cd.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>In fact a letter was sent to the Pope either right before or right after the
>sample was cut (I can't remember which) to tell him that the carbon date,
>whatever it turned out to be, might well prove to be precise without being
>accurate.
IOW, they did the same thing Meacham did -- set themselves up to
reject the results if they didn't like them but without committing
themselves to anything it would be too embarrassing to retract if
the date just happened to turn out as they wished.
[snip]
>In other words,
>they took a sample that HAD to have included rewoven threads!
Funny that no one in STURP relaized this until AFTER they were sure
carbon dating would definitively expose the emptiness of their claims.
After all, if they had said *in advance* 'this piece is rewoven. It
can't be reliably carbon dated,' there sure would have been egg on
their faces if it turned out to be 30 A.D. So, they didn't. They
hedged their bets all around.
[snip]
>sampling. That was all in the original protocol. THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW IT. They
>wrote a different protocol. THEY DIDN'T EVEN FOLLOW THAT.
It's important to understand what those protocols really were about.
The STURP protocols that Adler got so incensed about required that 7
different labs test 5-7 samples *each* taken from every conceivable
area of the shroud -- blank, scorch, water stain, image, and 'blood.'
It's not merely that 3-4 dozen samples are far more than necessary or
even reasonable. As STURP well knew, the Turin Archdiocese resisted
carbon dating for a long time because of the amounbt of material
conventional techniques required. In that context, STURP's effort to
push protocols that demand even more material in total than
conventional C14 dating, and advocate cutting up the image to boot,
look suspiciously like deliberate attempts to intimidate the
Archdiocese out of C-14 tests altogether.
After all, what Marvin Mueller wrote about the Archdiocese of Turin
in 1982 goes triple for STURP and Co.:
"Any replicated date more recent than about A.D. 300 would
establish that it is not the burial cloth of Christ. However,
since an artist might well have bothered to obtain ancient linen,
a date of even A.D. 30 +/- 100 could not rule out forgery. Hence,
the church hierarchy has little incentive, and considerable
disincentive (unless its faith in the shroud is very strong) to
permit radiocarbon dating."
Now we can understand a bit better why Harry Gove was so intent on
cutting STURP out of the C-14 negotiations. The protocols STURP was
pushing and that Adler complains so mightily were not followed WERE
NEVER MEANT TO BE FOLLOWED. They were apparently meant only to scare
the holy bejeezus out of the Archdiocese so it wouldn't adopt more
workable proposals like Gove's.
So when Gove finally managed to broker an agreement for reasonable
test protocols, STURP and Co. went to Plan B. They started to hint
that they wouldn't accept the tests unless they came out 'right,'
without getting too specific about why just in case they wanted to
back off from their doubts.
[snip]
>Because that area is an area that's been
>repaired;
'Discovered' after the fact. Not a single STURPie mentioned this
little problem beforehand.
>they know it's by a water stain;
'Discovered' after the fact. Not a single STURPie mentioned this
little problem beforehand.
>they know it's by a scorch;
'Discovered' after the fact. Not a single STURPie mentioned this
little problem beforehand.
>they
>know that people have found previous chemical evidence that that area is
>peculiar.
'Discovered' after the fact. Not a single STURPie mentioned this
little problem beforehand.
[snip]
>I would also point out that even if it turned out that the area sampled was all
>original material, there are other reasons to suspect that the date arrived at
>might well be wrong. At first I laughed at the linseed oil idea the Russian
>scientists recently pointed out. (The Shroud was supposedly boiled in linseed
It is (a) yet another in the long line of 'newly discovered' ad hoc
rationalizations; (b) a joke from the chemical standpoint; and (c) a
trivial matter to clean off oils in the NaOH baths used.
[Bob inserts yet another random point of shroud mythology -- SNIP]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPOCFt6yjdWYzk1A5AQEDPgf/VrGKWxeGhOsz+2jCgcBOwOStv7v3LoOO
f+AcC5cU3DffVBVALkqJX9qq20/NIydCq7VE3mtdhb/Q7vmueLCwccPdEpmUXFqP
wT4htoHFZ8nERyzQT5G2Yz/YsQeUseQ/9iR4HWHBf/bSi4j96uQfEDOsV87Nq+Dt
AbJG++v7j8TDCfcnwMQ+H7qntxDCC6l9IShJUzZioVTnWGhg5OvjX/Dt/41BjgPl
dvck6kRY18nG6gyJtidr/sevlM01njQD9qqTIw12nCMQUhKKQrFqioVnSM+iAbi5
F2p7CYJQzSGLsSNMhzSQGuaWOiNcNB42m4UxDRUO+bGjI/OoVDxOPQ==
=a7Uh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
turned out to be such a good thing in light of the fact that he's now convinced
that there was "no way" that the guys who did the dating could have come up
with an accurate date? I have to say, I respect the man for his honesty.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Bob...I've asked you (or others) this several times, but with no answer.
When Dr. Gove said "no way", what was the SPECIFIC REASON for this assertion
on his part.
Bobbycindi
convinced that the man was on to something. Namely the 'bioplastic' coating
that Valdes claims was also responsible for the 800 year difference in the
linen wrappings vs. the bones of Manchester mummy 1770. According to Valdes,
the coating on the Shroud linen was much thicker than that found on the mummy
wrap.
I not so sure, although Mattingly seems to agree. And Mattingly seems pretty
sharp. (He had a most excellent presentation at the Shroud conference along
with a demonstration of just how prolific microbes are.)
I have no idea why the date came out the way it did, but my guess is that it
was a combination of things ae. biological contaminants, newer patching
threads, linseed oil, 'biofraction' from the 1532 fire, radiation, aliens from
Mars, who knows?
It needs to be done over and done properly this time.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Hey, Bob...did you see any 'bioplastic' coating on the fibers photographed
by either McCrone or those magnified much larger than given in her text by
Ms. Nitowski? Don't think you did. What would Dr, Gove (not a microscopist,
as far as I know) say about that? If Garza-Valdes convinced Gove then that
was a class-A rip-off! You need not put out that assertion again as it has
no credibilty. Garza-Valdes has no evidence at all that will stand up to
peer review...zip! I've already debunked this clown in earlier posts! If Dr,
Mattingly "buys it", he's been ripped off too! And, even if Garza-Valdes was
right, where does this leave those who rely on the mending and patches
stuff? Please, don't give us this 'could be a mix of all bad things' stuff
(all going in the direction needed, of course)...that is another cop-out.
Gove's "no way" comment is useless drivel!
Bobbycindi
have that a good boiling in oil would have done the trick. I note that Ian
Wilson seems to think the Shroud is unnaturally shiny. As you may or may not
know, it was reported by one guy (whose name I'll look up and post if you like)
that the Shroud was in fact boiled in oil as a test to see if the image would
hold up. It was also apparently steamed a number of times.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <B90694F...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
>On 5/14/02 12:36 AM, in article 20020514003656...@mb-fk.aol.com,
[snip]
>Bob...I've asked you (or others) this several times, but with no answer.
>When Dr. Gove said "no way", what was the SPECIFIC REASON for this assertion
>on his part.
As I recall, Ken, it was the conclusion of a conditional statement.
IF there was as much bioplastic coating as Garza-Valdes claims there
is, THEN there would be no way the carbon date could be accurate.
And if pigs had wings, they could fly.
Some while after that comment, Gove wrote a book, "Relic, Icon, or
Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud." I haven't been able to find
his book anywhere, but a few months ago I did post the link to its
press release at
http://www.rochester.edu/pr/News/NewsReleases/scitech/gove.html.
The release makes clear just what Gove *really* thinks about
Garza-Valdes' claims.
"Some scientists, who continue to insist on the shroud's
authenticity, have suggested that the carbon dating was skewed
by contaminants on the shroud.
Gove questions these claims. 'The shroud would have to be 70
percent contaminants for the dating to be so far off,' he says."
Bob, being Bob, hears only what he wants to hear and goes into total
denial when confronted with the falsity of his assertions. He'll
keep saying that Gove "now" says there's "no way" the date could be
accurate until the Last Trump blows. The facts that (a) Gove NEVER
said what Bob claims he did; and (b) Gove has plainly said he believes
Garza-Valdes to be full of it simply will not penetrate Bob's
consciousness.
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPOeriayjdWYzk1A5AQGhNQf7BZtuPSCI3JpechQDq72QpohbhRU8HtHi
SS5YOWm6RV1MATZEDznDzw43dEMlNyFMCRNiLttPsZGHtUZg7MvV9u4ugvBvRMIT
GTJOzw0RbLGTBejFlVIJevZ1QSFCZB4o6kB81/72mrVgBlJSllP/NWJA01NDLhzU
VCJFAh4ecrV3Cca5efPwahetkEGfM9OMy7kbI+EA0KJx3aRW4OINZpZs8o5t5k9j
knkQ2D4Yc5sp17QNkFmvBAWiX83wgH9gOKW9KT9R0drN8fAsAmcMcn09KdASUQF8
EWFPArdJtd2FTk+ywU5cnnW+Lsud0goWad4d9gTsaMmOgtBOTUF4dA==
=HE0S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
about and maybe you'll get something right accidentally. Unfortunately though,
Gove did say what I said he did. Just order the video 'In Pursuit of the
Shroud' (available at Amazon.com) and watch his lips as he says it. The man is
convinced that the carbon dating is wrong.
Bob
Bobbycindi
symposium)
"Another hypothesis that has been presented is that of L.A. Garza-Valdes (1999)
and his colleagues: the presence of a bio-plastic coating caused by microbial
organisms. Wilson (1998) has wholeheartedly accepted this approach and,
interestingly, even H.E. Gove suscribes to this possibility. (1996, p. 308:
Gove, et al., 1997) When I asked Dr. James A. Poupard, director of the Clinical
Microbiology lab a SmithKline Beacham, he gave a thumbs-up view of the study.
But he emphasized that much more research needed to go into this before it can
explicate in detail any role it would have played in contaminating the
radiocarbon samples from the Shroud."
(But as for me, I'm beginning to think the boiling in linseed oil did it!)
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Hey, Bob, why do you keep repeating that old, out-of-date stuff? Didn't you
READ what Frank wrote?
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
> (But as for me, I'm beginning to think the boiling in linseed oil did it!)
>
> Bob
Which of the myriad of tests done of the Shroud by Heller & Adler allows you
to believe that linseed oil was involved?
Which of the myriad of tests done of the Shroud by Heller & Adler allows you
to believe that the Garza-Valdes 'theory' has any merit?
Bobbycindi
watch his lips as he specifically states that the carbon dating has to be wrong
came out in '98. Which is more out of date?
Gove may or may not believe that there was enough 'bioplastic' coating to have
skewed the dating 1300 years. But he seems firmly convinced the coating is
there. I recently read where the Shroud sample taken in '88 weighed twice what
it should have. (I'll see if I can find this and post it.) Also, according to
Garza-Valdes the coating on the Shroud threads he examined was 'much thicker'
than that found on the Manchester mummy wrap. (The mummy wrap dated nearly a
thousand years younger than the bones.)
But like I said, even I'm not entirely convinced that the bioplastic coating
would have been substantial enough to account for 1300 years. For one thing
Alan Adler had a problem with the idea- for the same reasons you do ae,
chemical analysis has not confirmed it. What I do know is that the Hungarian
Pray Manuscript shows that the Shroud was indeed in existence at a time (1192)
when a burial shroud of Jesus existed in Constantinople- one that sounded
exactly like the Shroud now in Turin. What I also know is that 150 years after
the French stole the relics in Constantinople, the Shroud turned up in France.
Bob
Bobbycindi
"I was most disappointed (a monumental understatement)" he writes "I wanted the
job to be done right. Using only three labs was not the right way to do it."
I would add that taking only one sample from an obviously rewoven and much
handled area, cutting it into thirds then cleaning and dating all the pieces
exactly the same way wasn't too smart. Especially considering that it was in
total violation of everything the scientists had previously agreed to.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
> Out of date stuff? Gove's book came out in '96. The video in which you can
> watch his lips as he specifically states that the carbon dating has to be
> wrong
> came out in '98. Which is more out of date?
>
Don't know when the video was MADE, do you?
> Gove may or may not believe that there was enough 'bioplastic' coating to have
> skewed the dating 1300 years. But he seems firmly convinced the coating is
> there. I recently read where the Shroud sample taken in '88 weighed twice what
> it should have. (I'll see if I can find this and post it.) Also, according to
> Garza-Valdes the coating on the Shroud threads he examined was 'much thicker'
> than that found on the Manchester mummy wrap. (The mummy wrap dated nearly a
> thousand years younger than the bones.)
>
Was the mummy wrap also dated with repaired threads like the Shroud?
> But like I said, even I'm not entirely convinced that the bioplastic coating
> would have been substantial enough to account for 1300 years. For one thing
> Alan Adler had a problem with the idea- for the same reasons you do ae,
> chemical analysis has not confirmed it.
Not confirmed it? Hell, it should have hit them square in the face! Their
study confirmed that Garza-Valdes MUST have been wrong! With the linen
fibers covered with PSAs (or linseed oil), few of the Heller & Adler tests
would have been possible. And, given that they used high-magn. microscopes
to look at the iron oxides etc. how could they have missed all of the goop
and all of the zillions of bacteria? All that Garza-Valdes stuff (on the
Shroud, anyway) is pure nonsense! If Gove believes that it's there, he needs
to go back and re-read some of the Heller & Adler material and then explain
how they got their results. Never mind that that neither Heller & Adler nor
Garza-Valdes ever published any of the supporting data, only the
conclusions.
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Obviously rewoven? Where does that leave the 'bioplastic' drivel? Or, if the
'bioplastic' stuff is valid, where does that leave the rewoven idea? And,
please, Bob, don't try to tell us that it's both. Fact is, the date was
correct the first time. Only the die-hards want to get rid of it and they
keep coming up with contradictory evidence! If the Vatican was as convinced
about the date being wrong as Bob is, they would have already re-dated it!
Bobbycindi
anyone's reckoning there could scarcely be a worse candidate for carbon dating
than the Shroud of Turin, I don't see where you could possibly know for a fact
that the result arrived at was accurate. Here, only one area was sampled and it
was an area that was later shown to be chemically different than the rest of
the Shroud material.
And don't forget. The Manchester mummy wrappings were off by almost a thousand
years. And this isn't the only example of linen not dating properly. I still
think Meacham called it right when he stated ahead of time that all the Shroud
dating was likely to do was set a minimum age for the thing.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Was the mummy wrap also dated with repaired threads like the Shroud? Or,
where is the 'bioplastic' evidence from the mummy? And, as I said earlier,
If the Vatican was as convinced about the date being wrong as Bob is, they
would have already re-dated it! The fact that they haven't done so says that
they sure ain't as absolutely sure as Bob is. A well-designed re-date would
end all this BS for sure! Sorry, withdraw that... Bob would still say it was
all part of the miracle, of course. In fact, the date, for Bob, like much of
the other contradictory evidence, is irrelevant too! If it doesn't fit, Bob
says the miracle did it (as he has recently written). So much for rational
discussion of logic and science!
Bobbycindi
although Garza-Valdes claims it showed evidence of microbial contamination.
This is what he had to say about it;
"they sent samples from the bones and the wrappings to the British Museum for
radiocarbon dating. The bones were found to be from c. 1510 B.C. but the
mummy's wrappings were much younger, c. A.D. 255; a difference of over fifteen
hundred years."
Talking about looking at the mummy wrapping threads under the microscope;
"There it was, a beautiful bioplastic coating present on the bandages that had
been used to wrap the mummy! When I showed Dr. David the Shroud samples, we
talked about the coating on both artifacts. According to Dr. David, that was a
breakthrough. She felt that there was one cause for the dating problems of both
objects..."
He goes on to talk about other artifacts not dating correctly and the cleaning
proceedures not being effective. At any rate you can read his book for
yourself, but the bottom line seems to be that linen has in fact been known to
carbon date many centuries too young.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020523164704...@mb-ma.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Like I said, I'm not really qualified to say. I will say this. Given that by
>anyone's reckoning there could scarcely be a worse candidate for carbon dating
>than the Shroud of Turin,
Makes you wonder why STURP pushed so hard (allegedly) to get it
carbon dated, doesn't it?
Unless ... unless it only became the "worst possible candidate for
carbon dating" ex post facto, after the carbon dating dumped
authenticity claims in the garbage in the most sound bite friendly
way imaginable.
[snip]
>And don't forget. The Manchester mummy wrappings were off by almost a thousand
>years. And this isn't the only example of linen not dating properly.
It makes you wonder by what miracle all the labs correctly dated all
their control samples, also of linen. In fact, it makes you wonder
why dating technologists bother dating linens at all. Unless, that
is, dating experts know something that shroud proponents do not.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPPJeVKyjdWYzk1A5AQFXKQf8DGPoZvQPSt7yPj6DhrXBamovTFkPtCtd
X+5yZuxJz9WJ8dENMYpbCK9aB6/3rk/74m92oAFn3As3Z2dgbaMgPf99Bf+GDTr/
RfWhxgJfcrXHvNyLlKw+iuZRKwFiYN53Fgh93UaYaUXCiOHppcY5krKkl+n4/SXS
FWtMxaqs8mNAjOSM8ItXYlU7bAhYK4akWraSp28rIhn+9Kufr45/7Lh/5rJB81nK
9DFwGfHhVPrpkTBF5pqL8DNeB1JmL83ld+mdvlzFsIL8vja/y76f4mcTx+clfqM2
ErEj5eAWVPbHlcdVsaz1a9PbsBBNA1tLJLRPqbkMr0fhEL6fgv9X2A==
=SAjo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <B912C316...@accucomm.net>,
"K.M. Towe" <to...@accucomm.net> wrote:
>On 5/23/02 10:05 AM, in article 20020523100539...@mb-ma.aol.com,
>"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Out of date stuff? Gove's book came out in '96. The video in which you can
>> watch his lips as he specifically states that the carbon dating has to be
>> wrong
>> came out in '98. Which is more out of date?
>>
>Don't know when the video was MADE, do you?
But we do know when Gove made that statement -- in 1993, shortly
after first peering into Garza-Valdes's microscope and before he had
a chance to assess either the reliability or implications of the
claim.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPPJcyayjdWYzk1A5AQHYkAf+MCzwn+OP4NanZTQSn8Uk6wwSSC+Vzq1q
bxj3z/d2CgQMe6MSmH0+iYBPnq8YX2k4JSKUfKr8X9XlB3n/Rtns+moe1elHDGSC
A6oifJRQdzmiCcxUFsIr0kZp+HNPSHTMpepWgK4Usmed4RtTxAxSyjyZ43bK9Yyn
TNT1FwFKmNq7ioLBa0aOJyi3mdokAPbK+jcripnOSZSU84nKS3rtlFUQZBZaSd2g
/CLLhTHCcWZHiUA6zYvlRRVrQd70OnCH/n5p19r41Z/ypMWUxXmfMqhDUmqWHUdK
Vw9wUiztlWz9NvBwtfXhlC+F/49Y6d7xf5YhgvtHzUt6JAhttKAsVA==
=vgok
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Frank Weaver
In article <20020523104834...@mb-ma.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>Incidentally Ken, Gove also had this to say (from the link Frank provided);
>
>"I was most disappointed (a monumental understatement)" he writes "I wanted the
>job to be done right. Using only three labs was not the right way to do it."
He's entitled to his opinion, of course. But you have to wonder
whether this is just sour grapes because his lab was not one of the
three selected.
BTW, would you be convinced if 4 or 5 or 50 labs were involved? I
didn't think so. You'd just rant something about "taking only
<insert # here> samples from 'obviously' [but not so obvious it could
be detected beforehand -- or even now!] a heavily contaminated piece
of rewoven cloth that had been altered by radiation, fire, boiling
oil, and I don't know how many other still undiscovered influences
that screw up the dating, then cutting up among <insert # here> labs
who all cleaned and dated it the same way" [which they didn't, btw,
but never let mere accuracy get in the way of your rants].
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPPJhK6yjdWYzk1A5AQHsNwf/Sl4O6HRwcab7ofo+P5e240BYd8QZu06h
0/blS+50fLTn1Q1PqMiESWVha7UHkvpJ3m9Ou4RFgeQ4GJCI/ZELH9nCk+rkR59T
ynb3xGYZhtSVhPuAUTsF7jgg9GjtY8BbxhjrqruXeM8amagMG62IABtzs3doZQIR
Q8SUtWHk1jkKYFdk0AkNamyLZpGo/9zCg46ccsCCt00vZg7Y2pCKmU6tU2nBo1i+
VPF+/xcV0BPLbs70WUt2MtOJ9inY0aFhF/5bHM3IFmxIh2EkB4BSNgU+ybGikf8K
/GMOX45ZO+2/RtrA49Qo9JYnfCGJ+hOkFVF7vbCekTKTVFmAj4cJtQ==
=GKHF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Bobbycindi
miraculous as it seems. They were, as it turns out, inexplicably told of the
provenance of the control samples by the head of one of the labs. (One can only
guess why!) As for why anyone bothers to date linen at all, you raise a good
question. The fact remains that it often carbon dates centuries too young.
Bobbycindi
same date. The fact remains that ONLY ONE questionable area of the Shroud was
dated. The fact remains that linen often carbon dates centuries too young. You
can disavow the Manchester mummy example (along with others) if it makes you
feel better, but to a thinking person it speaks volumes.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
Right, Bob. Try thinking with your brain instead of your heart. Step aside
from your religious fervor.
Questionable area? Was the questionable area dated right? Why isn't it also
wrong because it's linen? You want to have it both ways. Dating linens
yields bad dates, unless, of course, it's a questionable area on the Shroud.
Then it gives a reliable date so that the Shroud can be salvaged from the
junk heap of other phony documents. Sure, Bob. Really scientific!
What about the comical 'bioplastic' theory. If the questionable linen is a
properly dated repair then how can the goop theory be true? Can't be both!
See what I mean about your "science" being contradictory in the frenzy to
explain away the date?
Same with the 'blood'...The bloodstains are unrealistic! Body was washed?
Yes! No, can't have been washed. Blood on forearms can't have been washed.
Goes against Jewish tradition, blah, blah, blah. More contradictory
assertions from the "experts".
But who cares...it's all part of the miracle...anyone with a heart can see
that, especially if they leave their brain out of gear.
Bobbycindi
the Shroud couldn't have been completely wrong. Many artifacts yield completely
wrong carbon dates. Especially linen! And it's not hard to see why. It offers
much more surface area to collect contaminants- inside AND out. Plus, for all
you know, the Russian chemists are right when they insist that the reported
boiling in oil could have skewed the date 1300 years. We just don't know. It
could have been a combination of things. To insist otherwise it to make an ass
of yourself. And that's with a capital A.
You act as if the carbon dating of the Shroud was proof positive. Yet
ultimately all that was produced were readings on three instruments-
instruments that would have ALL indicated something misleading if something was
wrong with the sample that had been divided into thirds and tested in exactly
the same way. Hell, if I trusted every reading of every instrument in the
airliner I fly for a living, I'd be making unnecessary emergency landings every
other day! I once had every altimeter and airspeed indicator in a KC-135 (three
of each) in huge disagreement from eachother. (On that day I DID make an
emergency landing and with a fighter escort!)
You have to cross check other indications sometimes to figure out what's going
on. And when you do that with the Shroud, you realize that the thing was almost
certainly in Constantinople many centuries before the date given by the botched
1988 effort.
If nothing else, the "poker holes" found on an eleventh century manuscript and
the dating of the Raes thread should tell you that the Shroud is older than
what the 1988 guys came up with.
Bob
K.M. Towe
"Bobbycindi" <bobby...@aol.com> wrote:
> Religious fervor aside Dr. Towe, you're nuts if you think the carbon dating of
> the Shroud couldn't have been completely wrong. Many artifacts yield
> completely
> wrong carbon dates. Especially linen! And it's not hard to see why. It offers
> much more surface area to collect contaminants- inside AND out. Plus, for all
> you know, the Russian chemists are right when they insist that the reported
> boiling in oil could have skewed the date 1300 years. We just don't know. It
> could have been a combination of things. To insist otherwise it to make an ass
> of yourself. And that's with a capital A.
>
Oh dear, Bob is again resorting to name-calling. Shame on you, Bob. Answer
the questions about the contradictions instead of retreating to such
shameful tactics. Your "not hard to see why" explanation is pure quackery!
You don't even understand what surface area means.
> You act as if the carbon dating of the Shroud was proof positive. Yet
> ultimately all that was produced were readings on three instruments-
> instruments that would have ALL indicated something misleading if something
> was
> wrong with the sample that had been divided into thirds and tested in exactly
> the same way. Hell, if I trusted every reading of every instrument in the
> airliner I fly for a living, I'd be making unnecessary emergency landings
> every
> other day! I once had every altimeter and airspeed indicator in a KC-135
> (three
> of each) in huge disagreement from eachother. (On that day I DID make an
> emergency landing and with a fighter escort!)
>
Irrelevant! But, glad to know you could land safely. Do you now question all
altimeters and airspeed indicators? Why not, if you question all linen
dates? Carbon dating has proven to be a pretty reliable tool...just as
altimeters have! Of course, there are always problems...even with
altimeters. Again..if the date was so wrong, how come it's ok when it
applies to repairs? How come it's ok when 'bioplastic' goop is supposedly
involved? If it's so wrong, why not re-date the proper linen? I think you
know the answer. They are afraid it might not turn out to be "as
advertised".
Bobbycindi
know about other airlines but one of the standard call-outs with ours when
passing a final approach fix is "instruments and altitude cross checked" and it
means that you take a glance at the other pilots indications to make sure
they're in agreement with yours.
As for your statement that the dating of the Shroud was ok for repairs or the
bioplastic coating, again, no one's saying that it's not possible that more
than one factor could be at work skewing the carbon date. For example you could
have both some biological contamination and some newer threads included in one
sample. The fact is, no one knows.
All we can be sure of is that linen has been known to date many centuries too
young and, from a historical prespective, the Shroud seems to have been around
many centuries before the date indicated by the 1988 carbon dating. (I'm
talking about the Edessa cloth which seems to be our Shroud folded up, icons
and coins that look just like the Shroud, the "poker holes" the Gregory sermon
etc.)
My guess is that the Catholic church knows all this and wants to wait until
better technology comes along for any possible future dating of the Shroud. The
way I see it, you can't blame them.
Bob
Frank Weaver
In article <20020529125026...@mb-df.aol.com>,
bobby...@aol.com (Bobbycindi) wrote:
>That 'miracle' of the labs dating the control samples correctly wasn't as
>miraculous as it seems. They were, as it turns out, inexplicably told of the
>provenance of the control samples by the head of one of the labs.
But they, or at least the techs actually doing the dating, didn't know
which was which. That means each lab beat 6-to-1 odds to correctly
date their own three controls, with a total 216-to-1 (6**3 to 1) odds
that all three labs would get all three controls correct.
And considering that all the controls were linen, which is supposedly
impossible to carbon date correctly in the first place, beating those
odds really does seem like a miracle.
[snip]
- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQEVAwUBPPqtHqyjdWYzk1A5AQEmCgf/V/pcjTUs1dhg7eiMmpKrjqTj/htS7rAS
I8NAZtRsKIYsnnqjVpPrjIaapXOcY2tIZVWvWtI2o9SoTSXOr1Geuohk9AR/TnG3
ZRNGwj3LYSj81NlZ6QmApsGtaP6BNS1mwaTJUyJzV+F7z79GBUHvCUEawEAoruHa
OWyvLYYEQGWB0K2iQdFgJqem1PXvHvRpZP9wwPOFbC8ntY8pbgbim/FyQGkjdOaZ
lOn7kfA2YDSLUSzSoXwOMzwmCVveODQyfckQKsPbE3FhICT3XPp+E2XhoaHPwS0v
HO8giYgSG9/05DtO9lu2s9gILimxZACOAKGuLbtQRQR6arwkRDfALw==
=/mVB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----