Could ancient earthquake explain Shroud of Turin?

[Warren Stupidity]

The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has been in question for centuries and scientific investigations over the last few decades have only seemed to muddle the debate. Is the revered cloth a miracle or an elaborate hoax?

Now, a study claims neutron emissions from an ancient earthquake that rocked Jerusalem could have created the iconic image, as well as messed up the radiocarbon levels that later suggested the shroud was a medieval forgery. But other scientists say this newly proposed premise leaves some major questions unanswered.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/11/shroud-turin-could-ancient-earthquake-explain-face-jesus/

Short answer: no really it was fabricated in the 1200s, but don't let reason get in the way of faith.

[rug]

1. Except it hasn't been explained how it was fabricated.

Don't let bias get in the way of inquiry.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. It was a miracle!

This hoax appeared in the 1200s. The cloth was tested. The dates really aren't uncertain. They correlate with the historical record.

[rug]

4. And controlled inquiry has not explained how it was made.

In fact most conventional theories to explain it have not survived scrutiny.

BTW, the latest inquiry about the carbon dating is whether the fiber sample tested was affected by a fire that had charred the cloth.

[longship]

9. Hmmm.

That's certainly the claim of the apologetics.

But the people who did the analysis and sent the samples to the two labs who tested it, disagree. They were aware of the repairs.

Plus, the damned guy confessed the fraud on his deathbed. And the carbon date coincides with the shroud's first appearance, not the damned fire. Plus, the image on the shroud aligns with contemporary iconography of when it first appeared. The cloth also aligns with cloth manufactured at that time, and not of the first century. These pious frauds were very common.

This myth is busted. That won't stop the apologists from blabbing otherwise.

[rug]

11. What guy? I hadn't heard that.

It's one thing to debunk "divine" origins. It's another to explain the phenomenon.

The myth isn't busted until it can be demonstrated how in fact it was done. That hasn't happened.

[longship]

15. Nope. All one has to do is falsify it.

The cloth dates from the time of it's first appearance, the 14th century. That alone falsifies the shroud. You know. Game. Set. Match.

Plus, there was motive for these pious frauds, which have always been popular (even to this very day, weeping Mary statues, etc.).

Plus, there's the problem that there is absolutely no plausibility that this is a first century burial shroud from Jerusalem let alone one that covered Jesus. Myself, I think it was the burial shroud of Joe Bagofdoughnuts from Turin, who was run over by a raging rhinoceros in the 14th century. That's my explanation and I am sticking to it.

And just because one cannot explain it doesn't mean it's Jesus' burial shroud. That would be the argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy.

Best regards.

[rug]

18. That really doesn't do it.

The date depends on the accuracy of the carbon dating.

Motives and plausibility are not evidence.

[longship]

20. Well, the accuracy is high enough to state that the shroud certainly is not a 1st century object.

That's all that's necessary. As I wrote: Game, Set, Match.

Also, the weave is typical of a 14th century cloth, and not of the 1st century. Then, there's the 14th century iconography of the image (of course, a more subjective criteria). Etc. When all the data points to one conclusion it is reasonable to conclude that it is correct.

Of course, the apologists who need the shroud to be from Jesus tomb come up with explanations, special pleading, but that would be expected.

Plausibility is very much part of the scientific method. One cannot do Bayesian statistics without considering it. It's one of the input parameters.

Sorry, my friend. The data very much shows that the shroud is a 14th century fraud. There is no positive data that tie it to the first century other than the claims by those who have a biased interest in making those claims, claims which have been falsified by the data.

One doesn't have to know how the thing was made to state these things. The data speaks for itself.

Interesting discussion, though.

[rug]

36. Not quite. There was no fourteenth century technique to create it.

Which of course places the rest of the fourteenth century hoax assertions in question.

An explanation really is needed.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. So you are certain that there was no

Technology available to do something that you don't know how it was done.

You know this on faith?

[rug]

40. Don't be coy, Warren.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how it was done, let alone be done in the fourteenth century.

The thing clearly exists and has unique characteristics. There was no technique (the word I used) extant in the fourteenth century capable of producing those results nor are there any other examples of objects like that from the fourteenth century.

The claim that it is a fourteenth century hoax itself has problems that require explanation.

As to this, "You know this on faith?", I know this because I am not a fucking idiot.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. You made the assertion that it could not

Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014, 10:38 PM - Edit history (1)

have been made with existing technology while maintaining that how it was made is a mystery. I need an explanation of how you reconcile that nonsense before even considering why how it was made is at all relevant to the fact, which you have also implicitly accepted, that it is an artifact at least 1000 years too young to be anything other than a hoax.

[rug]

42. You made the assertion it's a hoax.

Even blowhard Teller when busting a hoax explains how it's done.

[Warren Stupidity]

43. It is a hoax based on its dating.

A fact you have not challenged. I have made no claim that I know how it was constructed. Instead you have just been petulantly demanding that people explain to you how it was constructed. Unfortunately for you, you once again overplayed your hand and made a further claim that you know it could not have been made with existing technology. Now you can't explain that claim without uttering some inane bullshit about how it was constructed so you are stuck. You've caught yourself in your own trap. Well played rug!

Please do have the last word.

[rug]

44. That's just a part of it. Replicate it.

Until then, this is indeed the last word.

[edhopper]

45. Been done

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/06/shroud-of-turin-reproduce_n_310605.html

Next?

[rug]

46. Been debunked.

There's no ochre on the original, among other things.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/experts_question_scientists_claim_of_reproducing_shroud_of_turin/

Next.

[edhopper]

47. By members of STURP?

That is hysterical

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html#heading-0f

The STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) group of scientists examined the shroud in 1978. Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity. In their book 'Debunked!', physicists Georges Charpak and Henri Broch noted that STURP consisted of 40 scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. Knowing that the proportion of believers to agnostics is much different in scientific circles than it is in the general population, they calculated that the odds of selecting a group of 40 scientists at random and achieving this high ratio of believers is 7 chances in 1,000,000,000,000,000. In other words the makeup of this group is stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore you must take their claims with an extremely large grain of salt. In fact before they even examined the shroud, STURP scientists went on record with statements such as:

"I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy — light if you will. I think there is no question about that."
"What better way, if you're a deity, of regenerating faith in a sceptical age, than to leave evidence 2000 years ago that could be defined only by the technology available in that sceptical age."
"The one possible alternative is that the images were created by a burst of radiant light, such as Christ might have produced at the moment of resurrection."
"I believe it through the eyes of faith, and as a scientist I have seen evidence that it could be His shroud."

This shows that they had reached a conclusion before their tests even begun, hardly the view of objective scientists. Remember also that the authenticity of the shroud is vastly more important to Christians scientists than it is to secular scientists. So if secular scientists may have been prepared to cheat to discredit the shroud, as suggested by some shroud supporters, then it is equally reasonable to believe that Christian scientists are even more likely to cheat and falsify their results. We are not for a moment suggesting that the STURP group has been in any way dishonest, however all scientists must be continually alert that they don't allow their personal beliefs or desires to unconsciously bias their experimental results.

You are so desperate to accept this bit of chicanery that it borders on debating a creationist.

[rug]

51. Compared to the Italian Committee for Checking Claims on the Paranormal?

From your link:

The research was funded by the debunking group and by an Italian organization of atheists and agnostics, he said.

Not to mention the prestigious sillybeliefs.com.

The fact that we're exchanging attacks on sources shows how spongy the science on this.

I will assume you are not calling me a creationist and I will assume you are not an agenda-driven zealot drinking from the well of sillybeliefs.com.

[edhopper]

56. LIKE debating a creationist

one who believes something despite all the evidence against it.
I would categorize belief that the shroud is anything but a 13th Century hoax a silly belief.

[skepticscott]

72. "Debunked" by Catholic idiots who know nothing about identifying

pigments and we're determined from the start to reach a particular conclusion.

Denial is not "debunking". The evidence showing that the image is red ochre and the blood is vermillion is overwhelming. These so-called "debunkers" don't and can't address that evidence directly.

[rug]

74. Ok, post the evidence instead of idiotically calling people idiots.

I'll wait.

[skepticscott]

76. Try reading a book, ruggie

Go to a library, check out Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud, and actually read it. The evidence is all there, at great length and with abundant scientific support, as well as answers to vapid questions by more Catholic idiots that demolish all of their questions and arguments.

I know it's hard for people like you to believe that there's knowledge and understanding out there that isn't available on Google and Wikipedia, but tough. It's out there, and you can enlighten yourself or stay ignorant and deny the existence of any knowledge that can't be linked to.

I know where my money is.

[rug]

79. McCrone is hardly the last word.

He was a former member of STURP.

McCrone resigned from the STURP team in June 1980. In McCrone's words, he was "drummed out" of STURP. Heller, however, stated that McCrone resigned after being "insulted" by the STURP's reviewers' conclusion that the papers McCrone submitted to be vetted for publication contained data that were "misrepresented", observations that were "highly questionable", and conclusions that were "pontifications" rather than "scientific logic" (Heller, Report on the Shroud of Turin, p. 184).

Until McCrone's death in 2002, he continued to comment on and explain the analysis he had performed, and he became a prominent figure in the ongoing Shroud of Turin controversy. His book on the subject, Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (ISBN 1-57392-679-5), was published in 1999.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_McCrone

There are many, many other books out there.

Frankly, this discussion is going the way of chemtrails.

[okasha]

65. I haven't heard anything about a "deathbed confession," either.

I've noted here before that the image is a photographic negative. Creating a negative image in the 13th-14th centuries with no model would have been a miracle in itself.

How a photo negative might have been created at the time, however, is simply a question of technique--physics and chemistry. Again, I think the crucial test is for silver salts.

[edhopper]

68. And there is

exactly zero evidence for this theory.

[skepticscott]

71. It's not a negative

A careful examination shows that quite clearly. And there are no silver salts. There are pigment particles of vermillion and red ochre, very easily identifiable by someone who knows what they're doing.

Not sure why you're so determine not to accept very simple facts about the Shroud.

[edhopper]

33. There are several people

including Joe Nicholss who have shown how it could have been made.
It is mindboggling that you think that there is something supernatural about this and that it has not clearly been shown to be a 13th century fake relic.

[rug]

34. if you're referring to Joe Nickell, I'm not impressed.

Early life and education[edit]

Nickell holds B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Kentucky. His Ph.D. is in English for graduate work focusing on literary investigation and folklore.

Career

Nickell has worked professionally as a stage magician, carnival pitchman, private detective, blackjack dealer, riverboat manager, university instructor, author, and paranormal investigator, as well as listing over 200 "personas" on his website.

Nickell has evaluated manuscripts and written works for authenticity, including the purported diary of Jack the Ripper (which he helped to reveal as a forgery), and Hannah Crafts' mid-nineteenth century novel The Bondwoman's Narrative, whose authenticity he supported.

The protagonist of the 2007 horror film The Reaping is loosely based on Joe Nickell. He was brought onto the set to consult with actress Hilary Swank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Nickell

[okasha]

66. The Joe Nickel effort at replication

is extremely crude and does not possess anything like the level of detail of the original. It's only convincing to someone who really wants to be convinced and has a limited knowledge of photography and art history.

[edhopper]

67. Yes

someone invented modern photography 600 years before it's known development, did one massive picture and then all was lost to history.

And you really think one is so much cruder that the other?

[img][/img] [img][/img]

[exboyfil]

2. It doesn't even match the Biblical description

of the preparation for burial and what was found after resurrection.

[cleanhippie]

5. Shhhhhh. Facts matter little when dealing with religious beliefs.

[rug]

6. In that case, please do explain how it was made.

Preferably with facts and not opinions or hypotheses.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. It was made by a special very local earthquake.

[rug]

12. I see. You have no explanation.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. It was a miracle! God made it

sometime around 1200 using materials and imagery common to that era and locale. I'm agreeing with you rug. There is no other reasonable explanation.

[cleanhippie]

25. Lol!

[rug]

35. Clearly. Had you one you'd have produced it.

At least you're amusing the groundlings.

[trotsky]

8. It was aliens.

If you can't prove it wasn't, then I'm right.

[rug]

13. If it was done by hoaxsters, there should be evidence of how it was done.

But then, that would take you off your agenda.

[Goblinmonger]

16. "God did it"

is not a reasonable explanation to "We aren't quite sure how it was done."

Though "We aren't quite sure how it was done" isn't really the case in this regard.

[rug]

17. That is the case.

If you know how it was done, by all means, say so.

[Goblinmonger]

19. Do you believe it was the shroud of Jesus

and that it was put there through supernatural means?

Personally, I would go with one of the limited number of options that have had people recreate the shroud. Do we know the exact method or if it was a combination of those methods? No. Not yet. But pretty close and closing in on it. You seem to be espousing the "well, if you don't have an answer, it's God." Is that the case?

[rug]

23. I doubt it. But I'm more interested in knowing how it was done.

This artifact is fascinating.

I don't like the glib "it's a fraud" because it cannot be divine argument any more than I like the "you can't explain it" therefore it's God argument.

If it's natural, it should be explained.

[reusrename]

27. I like the da Vinci theory.

It just fits so well with the facts.

[rug]

28. Did they find any silver sulphate on the shroud?

[reusrename]

29. Is this a test?

I honestly don't recall if I've ever heard anything about silver of any kind. I do recall some things about pollen, though.

[rug]

30. No. Isn't the da Vinci theory that he was commissioned to replace an earlier one?

The theory I heard was that he used a camera obscura which needs silver sulphate to process the image.

[reusrename]

31. Whether or not da Vinci ever made use of one of those is still up for debate.

There seems to be a lot of evidence that he had the know-how, but if he did, he didn't share it with anyone. The way it would have worked back then was that it would have projected the image directly onto the canvass using nothing more sophisticated than a pin-hole lens. The artist would then trace over the projected image by hand. A lot of experts agree that his portraits could have been done using this method. The image projected onto the canvas would be upside-down, but that wouldn't have been too much of a challenge for a guy who wrote backwards a lot.

The part of the theory that hooked me was when they discuss whether or not it was a self-portrait of sorts. Was it da Vinici himself on the shroud? That's what made me seriously start thinking about it.

[rug]

32. Well, there's another theory that the Mona Lisa is a self-portrait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculations_about_Mona_Lisa

[struggle4progress]

59. the camera obscura was not a camera in the modern sense, but merely a device

for projecting an image: it didn't take photographs and so presupposes none of the chemical technology of later cameras

[Warren Stupidity]

60. facts are not important.

[rug]

62. Apparently not.

[rug]

61. Has RationalWiki let me down yet again?

One proposed hypothesis is that Leonardo da Vinci was commissioned to replace an earlier version of the Shroud of Turin that was exposed as a poor fake, which had been bought by the Savoy family in 1453 only to disappear for 50 years. Da Vinci created a "new" Shroud of Turin using a camera obscura technique involving a mirror and lens, on cloth impregnated with silver sulphate in a darkened room. The silver sulphate acted as a negative which propagated an image onto the cloth when exposed by light through the lens. Silver sulphate and the camera obscura technique were known in the 15th century. In January 2009, visual arts consultant Lillian Schwartz at the School of Visual Arts in New York.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

[Warren Stupidity]

63. Sort of. The camera obscura doesn't require

silver sulfates. It projects an image using simple optics. Recording that image can be done in many ways. Painstaking manual methods, for example. See theories on how Vermeer managed to get reflected light and shadows so precise in his paintings.

[struggle4progress]

64. Perhaps not: I may just be running my mouth again

The silver sulphate theory, however, seems not to be particularly good for a number of reasons: the exposure would take days of bright sunlight; silver sulphate is only barely soluble in water and appears not at adhere well to such cloth; it would be critical to remove almost all undarkened silver sulphate afterwards, since it would otherwise darken with time; and there's no evidence of medieval artists using such a technique elsewhere

[edhopper]

69. And the fact that pigments were found

pretty much refutes this. That and absolutuely no other known article from that time that would suggest this method was present.

[struggle4progress]

70. The Shroud is of no particular importance to me; it is irrelevant to my theological views; and

based on the little I know about it, I am inclined to regard it as a medieval forgery

To be a bit blunter, if someone could show definitively that it were the burial shroud of a first century Jew named Jesus, that would have no impact whatsoever on my Christianity; and if someone could demonstrate definitively that a nameable medieval artisan produced it at such-and-such a time and place, and could explain exactly how it were produced, that also would have no impact whatsoever on my Christianity

The scientific questions here produce a slight curiosity in me, but not enough to justify me spending any significant effort trying to carefully sort out the competing claims made regarding the artefact:

Is it an anatomically and medically correct representation of a crucified person, beyond the state of medieval knowledge? Does the image exhibit indisputable signs of rigor mortis? Is the shoulder unambiguously dislocated? Are the legs flexed? Are the ankles rotated with the toes pointing down? Was the fabric weave known in first century Judaea? Could the radiocarbon dates be skewed by centuries of greasy paws or tallow candle smoke? Do the pigments contain hemoglobin decomposition products?

And so on. I lack the interest required to sit and carefully evaluate the competing claims; and if I had the interest, I would still lack the expertise

Meh

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Submit the whole thing for independent analysis.

[edhopper]

49. Won't ever happen

they won't even allow a spectrum analysis to show the pigment used. Must keep the mystery doncha know, even when there isn't really one.

Next up, is Bigfoot Catholic?

[rug]

50. It has, at least twice. Thevresults are inconclusive.

[enlightenment]

54. I thought McCrone did this in 1979/80?

http://mcri.org/home/section/63-64/the-shroud-of-turin

Dr. McCrone determined this by polarized light microscopy in 1979. This included careful inspection of thousands of linen fibers from 32 different areas (Shroud and sample points), characterization of the only colored image-forming particles by color, refractive indices, polarized light microscopy, size, shape, and microchemical tests for iron, mercury, and body fluids. The red ochre is present on 20 of both body- and blood-image tapes; the vermilion only on 11 blood-image tapes. Both pigments are absent on the 12 non-image tape fibers. The paint pigments were dispersed in a collagen tempera (produced in medieval times, perhaps, from parchment). It is chemically distinctly different in composition from blood but readily detected and identified microscopically by microchemical staining reactions. Forensic tests for blood were uniformly negative on fibers from the blood-image tapes. Based on these findings, McCrone postulated that the Shroud was painted in 1355

[edhopper]

57. hmmm

doesn't sound inconclusive at all. Sounds quite conclusive it is a man made artifact from the 1300s.

[skepticscott]

73. He did, and none of those findings have been proven false

What is also not known by any of the clueless and gullible here is that the commission that looked at the Shroud back in the 70's also concluded it was a painting. As did the church official who first came across it back in the 1300's.

[hrmjustin]

10. I personally think it was not the real burial shroud.

Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014, 03:16 PM - Edit history (2)

[longship]

21. Apparently it does not even match 1st century burial practices.

And all the data indicate a 14th century fraud.

As one guy said, if one assembled all the pieces of Jesus' cross in existence, one could build a rather large building. (Or something like that.)

These pious frauds have been very common, even to this day. Tomb of Jesus? Nails from the crucifixion? Chalices? Miracles a plenty? And, of course, this shroud, which radio-carbon dates to the time of its first appearance.

[arcane1]

52. That same rule apples to all those "Jesus' Foreskin" artifacts, too.

If you added them all up, you could build a rather large... well, you know

[struggle4progress]

22. Looking for Neutrons in a Rock Crushing Experiment

[struggle4progress]

24. My gut reactions to the Carpinteri claims

Carpinteri apparently believes that compression or fracture of certain rocks can produce nuclear reactions. In particular, with respect to the Shroud of Turin, he apparently claims earthquakes can produce neutron emissions from some rocks and that these earthquake-related neutron fluxes are of such magnitude as would affect the isotopic compositions in ground-level cloth (such as the Shroud of Turin)

One should first note that current experience suggests any effect of the electron shell of an atom on nuclear reactions in the atomic nucleus is very weak -- so even if Carpinteri were right that some nuclear reaction rates might be briefly accelerated in certain minerals under earthquake conditions, one should not expect a large effect. Moreover, earthquakes are subterranean, and the majority of any produced neutrons would be absorbed or reflected by dense surrounding rock before reaching the surface. Finally, a few layers of a low density material like cloth is not likely to capture a high percentage of a given neutron flux

So a neutron flux in some region of Italy, sufficient to change the radiocarbon date of the Shroud, would necessarily have been large at ground level and would have been enormous at the subterranean source. It should have left isotopic anomolies in other local materials, and the method of producing such neutron fluxes should be easily detectable in the laboratory. But for the most part, no one seems to have reproduced any such enormous fluxes by fracturing rock; and regional radiocarbon dating doesn't appear to be problematic

Alberto Carpinteri .. was director of the Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRiM) in Turin ... In 2013 INRiM was set in temporary receivership and Carpinteri dismissed after the resignation of two-thirds of the board of directors in objection of Carpinteri's support in the purported theory of piezonuclear fission.

[skepticscott]

37. I hope you didn't have to do a Google search

to figure out that this is just assinine special pleading.

[struggle4progress]

38. Carpinteri went off the rails with his piezo-electric-rock-fracture-induced-nuclear-reaction theory

He lost his job last year as a result

[Laf.La.Dem.]

26. One good thing about DU - we argue about EVERYTHING!!!

[Iggo]

53. LOL...no.

[skepticscott]

55. No, an earthquake doesn't explain and doesn't need to

It's been a painting since the 14th century when it was created, and it still is. The technique is well known (except by people blinded by their need for miracles).

This is simply more addled thinking by people starting with their conclusion and reasoning backwards, obsessed with the notion that any evidence showing that this was not the burial cloth of Jesus must be wrong and must be explained away. Not sure what it is about the Shroud that brings out delusional thinking in so many people...including many here.

[edhopper]

58. Amen

[rug]

75. Speaking of "starting with a conclusion and reasoning backwards", produce the "well known" technique

Not sure what it is about your thinking if you don't.

Oh wait, I am sure.

[skepticscott]

77. It's called grisaille

Refer to "Methods and Materials of Painting of the Great Schools and Masters" Vol I, by Charles Locke Eastlake, where the technique is described in detail.

Of course, you won't do that. You'll hem and haw and vapidly deny the validity of any knowledge you can't access with a mouse click and absorb in 60 seconds.

But hey…ignorance is bliss.

[rug]

78. 40 seconds.

The earliest theory of the creation of the Shroud — that espoused by Bishops D'Arcis and de Poitiers, and subsequently by Walter McCrone — was that the image was painted onto the Shroud. McCrone was more specific, claiming that the blood was formed of vermilion tempura and the body of red ochre paints. However, microscopic analysis shows that the image is restricted to the surface of each fibre. The image appears to be part of the fibres of the Shroud itself, rather than a separate layer of paint over the top of it. Shroudies claim that the chemicals that McCrone thought were artificial pigment turn out to be equally distributed over the image and the non-image sections of the Shroud; McCrone has categorically stated that he found pigments only in the image areas of the Shroud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-lancashire/plain/A61817394

I needed an extra ten for this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121887512#post17