Chemical & Mechanical Not destructive tests Dated Turin Shroud in 1st Century.

The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

This is a thread open to all the ones of you interested in to know about the most recent findings in non destructive
technology to date objects in which there is the chance that the material have certain kind of impurities not easy to
be removed that can alter the presence of C14 according with its actual age.

Relatively recent spectroscopy non destructive chemical and mechanical tests to date the Shroud of Turin, a piece of burial
cloth that allegedaly comes from the 1st century, practiced by a team of Highly qualified Italian experts with Affiliations
to Emilia, Padua and Bologna Universities, over samples taken in the interdisciplinary analysis carried out in 1978 by the
shroud of Turin Project. The produced results are dating this object in the very times of Jesus Christ.

Please check:
www.newgeology.us...

The tests used were FTIR, Raman and multiparametric mechanical.

Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy chemical tests are based on the relationship that exist
in between age and a spectral property of ancient flax textiles.

Another test was practised measuring many micro-mechanical characteristics of flax fibers, like tensile strength.

Now the data obtained was matched with similar tests on pieces of cloth from between 3250 BC and 2000 AD whose dates are
accurately known.

Molecular Chemical bonds were identifed using FTIR which output was an infrared absorption spectrum, that becomes like a sample
profile, uniquely identifying it at molecular level giving information about its composition.

In Raman Spectroscopy the light scattered off of a sample is utilized as opposed to the light absorbed by a sample.
This is a highly sensitive technique to identify very particular chemicals.

Taking about the results, the dates obtained ( with a 95% of precision) were as follows:

FTIR = 300 BC + 400 years; Raman spectroscopy = 200 BC + 500 years; and multi-parametric mechanical = 400 AD + 400 years.

This means that we have an average dating of 33 BC + 250 years

(What is interesting is that by combining these results we get a collective uncertainty below the respective individual test
uncertainties).

These results locate the age of the shroud of Turin in the actual time of the execution of Jesus of Nazareth that traditionally is
fixed in between 29th and 33th AD.

Now the reason the uncertaintiy range for individual tests goes above is due to the relatively little number of sample cloths
to compare against to. in this case:

8 for FTIR, 11 for Raman, and 12 for the mechanical test.

There is the expectation that at future with increasing amount of samples and also with better cleaning techniques this precision
can be improved, although it is difficlut to find already certified dated sampels as old as objects like this one.

About the origin of the samples from the Shroud Professor Fanti has declared to have received them from the micro-analyst
Giovanni Riggi di Numana, before he died in 2008, one of the members of the orignal STURP group that got access to the relic
in 1978, as well as to be the man that in April 21st 1988 took the sample of 7 x 1 cm sliver of linen for the C14 dating of
1988.

These tests were carried out in University of Padua laboratories by professors from various Italian universities, led by
Giulio Fanti, Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at the University of Padua's engineering faculty.
He co-authored reports of the findings in

1) a paper in the journal Vibrational Spectroscopy, July 2013, "Non-destructive dating of ancient flax textiles by means
of vibrational spectroscopy" by Giulio Fanti, Pietro Baraldi, Roberto Basso, and Anna Tinti, Volume 67, pages 61-70;

Please check:
fulltext.study...

2) a paper titled "A new cyclic-loads machine for the measurement of micro-mechanical properties of single flax fibers
coming from the Turin Shroud" by Giulio Fanti and Pierandrea Malfi for the XXI AIMETA (Italian Association of Theoretical
and Applied Mechanics) congress in 2013,

Please check:
www.aimeta.dicam.unibo.it...

and

3) the 2013 book "Il Mistero della Sindone" (The Mystery of the Shroud), written by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta in
Italian.

Please check:

shroudstory.com...


The thread was created to motivate the discussion of the results gotten with the most advanced technology to date ancient
objects and in this way offer excellent alternatives to the use of C14 that has limitations while being used in objects that
has been exposed to dense smog of fires or bioplastic contamination due to bacteria presence.

The bioplastic coating hypothesis explaining the difficulty to date fairly the Shroud was formulated by the Texan Physician and
Archaelogist Leoncio Garza Valdes who based his observations in the error committed in to date a Maya figure that although
it was found in a site coming from 200 BC and belonged stylistically to that period while using C14 technique it was wrong dated
in 400 AD.

Please check:
greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

His findings were used also in 1975 to find the way to fix the conundrum when also C14 dated with a bias of 1300 years an Egyptian Mummy
in the Manchester Museum .

Please check
greatshroudofturinfaq.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

The Shroud is a fake. There were multiple pieces of linen used, as told by St. John. Not one large piece. His head was also covered by a separate piece of linen.

John 20:6-7 New International Version (NIV) Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen.

Thank you for posting this info.

The shroud is fascinating, and I've come to believe it is likely authentic. My faith doesn't depend upon it, but I believe this is possible physical evidence of the resurrection event.

I was waiting and hoping for new dating.... the sample taken in the 1970s had to be the worst part of the shroud (medieval repairs) they could have used.

So many people are convinced (or strongly desire) this to be proved real or fake ... it's hard to find truly objective analysis. I hope these latest tests will be verified to the satisfaction of most.

a reply to: RiptKeys

Excuse me but your post is clearly off topic, here we are not interested in to check the matching of the object with the scriptures, what ever interpretation you give to them. For us is interesting to see the dating aspect considering that anyway the object itself has all the stylistic and material characteristics of a typical Hebrew burial cloth used in Palestine in Ancient times.

Please check:
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

I don't really know what to say. Well done?

a reply to: The angel of light

Like I said in your other thread about this.

Why is this test right and all the others (that don't date it anywhere near 100AD) wrong?

Also, the shroud is a fake. It was very likely done in medieval times with glass and sun bleached.

I have seen an awesome documentary that explains why the carbon date test dated it in the middle ages.

Basically, the area where the sample had been taken from had been repaired by splicing new fibres in with the original.

There was a tiny sample left over from the original test and experts are able to verify the above.

So, the carbon test is inaccurate due to a bad sample. They cannot re-test the shroud using carbon dating because at the same time as the sample was cut, the entire shroud was treated to prevent further deterioration with low level radiation. Thereby making further tests impossible.

a reply to: The angel of light

the object itself has all the stylistic and material characteristics of a typical Hebrew burial cloth used in Palestine in Ancient times.

False.

Typical weave of the cloth in ancient Palestine was a plain weave.

The shroud is a complex herringbone weave.

a reply to: VegHead

Well VegHead,

I think one of the really positive sides of the so difficult case of fair dating of the Shroud of Turin is that is forcing scientists that develop new and better methods of dating, C14 is really limited and and very primitive way to try to reach that goal, because you need to sacrifice part of the object to date it, and that is something in many cases is so difficult to deal with.

Spectrometry was used before on the Shroud in 1978 by STURP scientists but not with the purpose of dating, it was used to verify that the image on it was not created by any Artistic work, so exclude any kind of starch, painting or print techniques.

Please check:
shroudstory.wordpress.com...

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

As I want to believe, I do believe, and I always believe ...That the shroud is real!

a reply to: 0bserver1

Well, autosuggestion is not really the topic of this thread, I think you probably didnt read that we are referring to chemical and mechanical scientific and so objective experiments.

Now, I think the only way in this thread to include Autosuggestion is perhaps in the other way around, since you want to believe, you believe and you always believe that the Shroud is a fake, because that is perhaps more comfortable to your own system of ideas.

Our discussion is absolutely objective, is based in the so well known fact that C14 is far to be a determinant test, it may of even extremely large bias under contamination circumstances.

Scientists at the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory of Columbia University at Palisades, N.Y., reported today in the British journal Nature that some estimates of age based on carbon analyses were wrong by as much as 3,500 years. They arrived at this conclusion by comparing age estimates obtained using two different methods - analysis of radioactive carbon in a sample and determination of the ratio of uranium to thorium in the sample. In some cases, the latter ratio appears to be a much more accurate gauge of age than the customary method of carbon dating, the scientists said.

Please check:
www.nytimes.com...

Thanks,

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

And the recent tests done on the shroud are also flawed due to the way the shroud was preserved.

But anything to "prove it's real", right?

a reply to: The angel of light

Please check:

Ok

Dr. Alan Zindler, a professor of geology at Columbia University who is a member of the Lamont-Doherty research group, said age estimates using the carbon dating and uranium-thorium dating differed only slightly for the period from 9,000 years ago to the present.

www.nytimes.com...
How old is the shroud?

a reply to: Phage

Of course that is exactly what is the question this dating has come to solve, since it was logically very easy to debunk the C14 dating for Historic considerations, the three laboratories in 1988 agreed, after deliberately suppressing some of the dates as outliers, essentially the ones that clearly were reaching a variance that showed the test was so skewed to be even acceptable, that the relic probably is as old as to come from 1390 AD.

Now, that date is problematic because there Historic records that show this piece of cloth was already in exhibition long time before that date.

The shroud appears first time in History in 525 AD in the City of Edessa, Turkey, where it was exhibited as the Mandylion. A document of the VI century found in that city, called Acts of Thaddaeus says it was there since the 1st century traced back to the time of the King Abgar V.

In the mid 7th century there is a letter written by Archbishop Gewargis Silwa, head of the Church of the East in Iraq, disclosed an unpublished mid-7th century mentioning the existence of the relic in Edessa.

Also it is mentioned as being owned by the Orthodox Christian community of Edessa in other documents of the The 8th and 9th centuries from Jacobite Patriarch Dionysius of Tell-Machre , Turkey.

The Byzantines took it to Constantinople during the expansion of the Muslim Persians to that area, records indicate that happened around the year 544-5, this is referred in the Evagrius’ Greek Ecclesiastical History, written about 595.

The Tremissis coin (692 – 695) from the realm of Justinian II has a Christ face that shows 188 points of congruence with the Shroud face. This is evidence that that the shroud was owned by the Byzantine Emperors.

It was kept in the The Pharos Church near the imperial residence, the Boucoleon Palace at the Bosphorus Shore. When in 1037 a severe drought threatened the city “Emperor Michael IV personally carried the Image of Edessa in procession to the Church of the Virgin at Blachernae to plead for rain” (Wilson 2010: 178 – 9).

The Shroud remained in Athens after the sack of Constantinople in 1204 until it came into the hands the French templar knights during the fourth crusade in 1311. There is manuscript evidence dated 1 August 1205.

Geoffrey de Charny the father knight of the templars inherited the cloth to his son of the same name in his will written before to die burn in the stake in 1314.

In April 10 (or 16), 1349 during the Hundred Year War between France and England an outbreak Black Death plague was ravaging most of Europe when Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight, writes to Pope Clement VI reporting his intention to build a church at Lirey, France to store the relic.

According with official records of France the relic was exhibited in that chapel publicly in 1355 by his owner the Templar Geoffrey de Charny.

Please check:

www.shroud.com...

www.biblearchaeology.org...

www.biblearchaeology.org...

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Have you got any unbiased sources (ones that don't care about its age) that can verify that date?

I'm only asking because outside of biased sites (the ones that want the shroud to be dated earlier), the earliest I can find is the 1300s.

BTW, I've noticed you completely ignore my posts. Don't worry, I won't be going anywhere

a reply to: The angel of light

I'm pretty sure it's fake I know it was a long time till anyone could test it,and when results were not in favor of it being real,all of a sudden carbon dating didn't work,I'm kind of thinking when you have something that doesn't exist,it's hard to get it to fit a story

a reply to: The angel of light

The shroud was apparently a 13th or 14th century attempt at a form of basic photography in an attempt to create a holy relic.

Loads of different religious sects were at it back then trying to bolster there potion regarding there standing in the Christian world.

a reply to: andy06shake

Inventions do not emerge from one day to other just because somebody feels the need to trick others, that is not the way Science works, is childish to assume it.

Something like photography demanded the existence not only of materials but of theoretical elements that were far to exist in XIII and XIV centuries, a time even perspective was not already completely understood by Artists.

Chemistry was not yet really a Science in that time, that was the era of Alchemy, where there were no formulas, not equations and even many elements still unknown and you pretend we are going to believe somebody was revealing already films even primitive ones?

Following that funny logic if photography was invented in XIII century archaeologists or History museums must be full of movies made in XV century isn't it?

Such a claim is absurd in that time frame, no sense of technology history on it.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: andy06shake

History of science and technology is a field in which I have solid foundation, so with absolute certainty I can tell you that your statement is highly speculative, ignorant and irresponsible from the point of view of falsification of facts.

There is nothing substantial on your claim apart of possibly Davinci code Literature, that of course is not serious by definition, and the so well known Anti Latin culture rethoric of the Anglosaxon supremacists, something that jump from the page as soon as one notice that the same people that are talking of a relic falsification in the Roman Catholic Church are trying to blame Leonardo Davinci of such dishonest act.

Of course any serious researcher can weight the malice of the politically biased campaign of misinformation about the supposed object falsification when we see the grave
Contradictions behind that argument:

1) This is nor the only neither the first fiasco into date with C14, the Egyptian mummy No. 1770 of the Manchester Museum preceded it for about 13 years at least and the wrong dating of a Maya sculpture in Arizona for about a decade, both clearly wrongly conducted C14 testings carried out biases that were of 13 and 4 centuries respectively.

2) The first public exhibitions of the Shroud in western Europe were in the very early years of the XIV century, we know the object was then as it is now because there are not only drawings of that time but even coins of the period showing its aspect in details. That happened More than 2 centuries before the birth of Leonardo Davinci.

3) An invention of the importance of photography can't remain in secret or be lost for about more than five centuries as such a thesis claim because images and portraits were among the most demanded art objects in Europe, there was a huge market for whoever may have invented it, and No evidence what so ever exist such invention took place before XIX century.

4) Many of the ancient records and accounts of the existence of the Shroud before it was taken away from Turkey through Greece in Thirteen century to France are not Roman Catholic at all, they are Armenian, Orthodox and even Coptic, because the same monks that painted the eldest Christ portrait known in the Monastery of St Catherine of Mount Sinai left records of their knowledge of the Mandylion of Edessa, and their painting is based on it, what explains the more than 100 points of coincidence of that Pantocrator icon of the VII century and the Shroud.

Thanks

The Angel of Lightness

a reply to: The angel of light

Point of fact through "Davinci code Literature" has about as much authenticity as the Bible does.

Think i seen a few documentary's alluring to the subject in question hence my response.

Truth is ancient history and the artifacts associated with said history generally fall into areas of a highly speculative nature.

As to, ignorant and irresponsible, well that's how i would sum up organised religious practice.