I don't know if she's made another valuable discovery or if she is just selling books.

But we already have corroboration of stitching on the the Shroud dating to only one other known place.... near first century Jerusalem.

"She first noticed that the entire cloth was crafted with a weave known as a three-to-one herringbone pattern. "This kind of weave was special in antiquity because it denoted an extraordinary quality," she says. (Less fine linens of the first century would have had a one-to-one herringbone pattern). That same pattern is present on a 12th century illustration that depicts Christ's funeral cloth, which, she says, is "extremely significant, because it shows that the painter was familiar with Christ's Shroud and that he recognized the indubitably exceptional nature of the weave of the cloth." Flury-Lemberg also discovered a peculiar stitching pattern in the seam of one long side of the Shroud, where a three-inch wide strip of the same original fabric was sewn onto a larger segment. The stitching pattern, which she says was the work of a professional, is surprisingly similar to the hem of a cloth found in the tombs of the Jewish fortress of Masada. The Masada cloth dates to between 40 B.C. and 73 A.D. The evidence, says Flury-Lemberg, is clear: "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the first century."

Skeptics point out that radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 determined it was made in the 13th or 14th century.

While faint letters scattered around the face on the shroud were seen decades ago, serious researchers dismissed them due to the test's results, Frale told The Associated Press.

But when she cut out the words from photos of the shroud and showed them to experts they concurred the writing style was typical of the Middle East in the first century Jesus' time.

I always considered the shroud to have been a rather avant-garde work of Medieval art. We discovered it by chance, and we lack the historical context to understand it, and there are hordes of superstitious people who see the holy ghost in every piece of toast that bears the stereotypical likeness of Jesus.

Of course the artist would go to great lengths to make his work seem detailed and authentic.

And why the hell does Jesus look European in every depiction? He would have been darker-skinned and much hairier. I guess centuries of European christians preferred to idolize a human form that looked closer to their own.

It wouldn't be the first time they let xenophobia and superstition get in the way of facts...

"Now, in 2008, Robert Villarreal and a team of scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory have demonstrated conclusively that the carbon dating is invalid. Villarreal states:

T]he age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.

Along with those findings, other information came to light that demonstrated that the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin may have been the biggest carbon 14 dating mistake ever made."

But we already have corroboration of stitching on the the Shroud dating to only one other known place.... near first century Jerusalem.

The only credible 14C dating that the shroud has been subjected to pretty much made this a moot issue.

-He would have been darker-skinned and much hairier

Not at all. That is a stereotype in itself.

David, of whom Jesus is credited as a descendant, is described in the ancient texts as, "ruddy and fair", or likely reddish hair with freckles.

He would have been darker-skinned and much hairier.

#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-11-20 01:15 PM | Reply

#5 meet #4

The Villareal "tests" were more of a last ditch effort to discredit information that certain individuals found unpleasant to accept. The issues they raise apply equally to any other large sample taken from recent antiquity, and do nothing to discredit the results from the 1980's

There is also the much better documented object known as The Sudarium of Oviedo, which contains the same blood type as the shroud.

#9 | That's one opinion.

When's the fight over conclusive evidence of the existence of god going to start? I've got things to do before then.

Carbon 14 dating in 1988 did not prove that the Turin Shroud was medieval.

Carbon 14 dating only proved that what was tested, on average, was medieval. New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth.

Splices and the presence of dyestuff and cotton fibers suggest that the carbon 14 samples were taken from a medieval repair patch to the cloth.

Furthermore, recent analysis of Lignin Decomposition Kinetics shows that the cloth is at least twice as old as the carbon 14 estimates.

The results of these studies are reported in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta in a paper by the late Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (See: Volume 425 pp. 189-194) and Chemistry Today (Vol 26, Num 4, Jul/Aug 2008), "Discrepancies in the radiocarbon dating area of the Turin shroud", Benford M.S., Marino J.G. More Below and see
same link

-When's the fight over conclusive evidence of the existence of god going to start? I've got things to do before then.

One could hope it doesn't devolve into that, but one would likely be terribly disappointed.

David, of whom Jesus is credited as a descendant, is described in the ancient texts as, "ruddy and fair", or likely reddish hair with freckles.

Which "ancient texts"?

There are plenty of fair-skinned middle easterners, but you have to remember that every aspect of Christianity has been subjected to centuries of re-interpretation and tweaking at the hands of generally xenophobic Europeans.

1st Samuel 17:42 which says:

"And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance."

Carbon 14 dating in 1988 did not prove that the Turin Shroud was medieval. Carbon 14 dating only proved that what was tested, on average, was medieval.

Yes, not looking good for the Shroud believers.

When's the fight over conclusive evidence of the existence of god going to start? I've got things to do before then.

Let me know when you're ready, and if it hasn't started by then, I'll do what I can.

Gen 25:24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.

Gen 25:25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.

-Yes, not looking good for the Shroud believers

I take it that you are smart enough to have missed the implications purposely.

There is also the much better documented object known as The Sudarium of Oviedo, which contains the same blood type as the shroud.

Blood samples, you say? Let's clone whoever it was. Just for the hell of it.

"Carbon 14 dating only proved that what was tested, on average, was medieval.

____New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth.

But we know that this couldn't be the real shroud because there is no real shroud because real shrouds can not exit and anyone who reports that they do is a false reporter because real shrouds can not exist and anyone who reports that they do is a false reporter because real shrouds can not exist... ad infinitum.

One could hope it doesn't devolve into that
#14 | Posted by Corky

This is not my first Rodeo.

-Dr. Feel

Let's clone whoever it was. Just for the hell of it.
#21 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Just for the hell of it?

FF

I take it that you are smart enough to have missed the implications purposely.

There are two implications here:

In analytical chemistry, you need to do repeated measurements from representative samples. Repetition is hard to do when you're studying a prized artifact, so your results will inevitably be criticized for this reason. As far as the representativeness of the sample - until I have read their reasoning in detail, I won't say anything beyond what I already have. It's somewhat interesting, though, that I can't seem to find that explanation anywhere on the site.

Christianity is in no need of a physical artifact. Believers will be unfazed by it, because they already have faith. Nonbelievers will be unfazed by it, because there are no shortages of perfectly reasonable explanations.

New studies conducted between 2001 and 2008 demonstrate that what was tested was chemically different than the rest of the cloth.

Chemical differences alone wouldn't necesarily alter the outcome of 14C dating. If there's carbon in it and it came from a living source, it doesn't matter what molecules those carbon atoms are in. It only matters if they were taken from a living source and when that source died.

These people seem to be using these "chemical differences" as foundation for making the later claims that the shroud is not of uniform composition and may have far older components. I would love to see what they actually published.

You are correct that people' faith does not depend on artifacts. However, the 1st century stitching is telling, where the carbon 14 dating turns out to be from a sample that is chemically different from most of the artifact.

It will be interesting to see the documentation from this researcher's work. Artifacts do not prove faith, but as science, such as archaeological discoveries and modern tests tend to prove more than it disproves in ancient literature (see the recent find of David's Palace in Jerusalem for instance), following the science should not be the scary stuff it seems to be for some Christians.

"These people", are specialists in carbon dating at Los Alamos, and, as I have read many other articles from scientists who do not think the shroud real, but concur with the inaccuracy of these tests, I think I'm going to credit what they say.

Who has the link to the research that shows that the shroud, confirmed to be 1st century Israeli, is indeed the shroud that Jesus was wrapped in and that the image on the shroud was put there by the holy spirit?

Well, I guess if science did indeed confirm the shroud one day, it COULD have been Jesus's little known brother, Clark's, shroud instead.

"Jesus's little known brother"

Blasphemy.

Everyone knows his name was Randy.

Dandy Randy to his friends.

"It was Craig Christ, dummy."

LOL. Not when he parties in my neighborhood its not.

Craig and Clark are translatred the same from the ancient MessyPotatian.

What does the Shroud really have to do with the existence or non-existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God? Put another way, if a person's faith is so flimsy that the authentication or discrediting of the Shroud has an impact, then that person's faith is pathetic to begin with. And the person is an idiot to boot.

"The only credible C-14 dating...."

Has been invalidated. I thought this was well known. Medievil forgery has yet to be established.

Has been invalidated. I thought this was well known. Medievil forgery has yet to be established.

So has authenticity

"That person's faith is pathetic..."

Put not your faith in mere things, to paraphrase a wise Man.

"So has authenticity...."

Sure. Having said that, if it is authentic, there is no level of proof hard-core atheists will accept. Interesting, sad, but quite true.

Sure. Having said that, if it is authentic, there is no level of proof hard-core atheists will accept. Interesting, sad, but quite true.

Not true, Zed. Truth is there is no level of proof hard-core theists can produce.

No one knows what Jesus looks like. The popular images of him come from the minds of artists.

"No one knows what Jesus looks like..."

I appreciate you using the present tense.

Vatican Researcher SaysText Proves Shroud of Turin Real

And I have text on my balls that says the Pope is an idiot in a funny hat-with Gay shoes.
Somebody prove me wrong.....

"Somebody prove me wrong..."

Can you provide a little something for carbon dating?

As far as the representativeness of the sample - until I have read their reasoning in detail, I won't say anything beyond what I already have. It's somewhat interesting, though, that I can't seem to find that explanation anywhere on the site.

----

The sample was from an invisible reweave. One patch was taken from the shroud and cut up and sent for C14 testing.

A theory came about around 2000 stating sample was taken from a middle ages French reweave. Ray Rogers, part of the original STURP team who studied the shroud in the 70s, wanted to disprove this theory. Rogers believed it was fake. He still had a few strands of the shroud. He found it there were cotton strands spliced with linen.

Rogers had terminal cancer and was dying. He sent the sample to Los Alamos lab to get a second opinion. They confirmed it. In fact, while they were studying it, a cotton strand became undone from the linen.

Thus, the C14 results were skewed because the sample was bad.

Oh, before his death, Rogers changed his position and believed the Shroud was authentic.

Not true, Zed. Truth is there is no level of proof hard-core theists can produce.
No one knows what Jesus looks like. The popular images of him come from the minds of artists.

----

And there in lies a fatal flaw when discussing the shroud. There are actually two questions when dealing with the shroud. Each question is independent.

1) Is the shroud real?
2) Who is the man on the shroud?

Many times, people answer the first question based on their belief of the second and that is a fallacy since the questions are independent of each other.

Can you provide a little something for carbon dating?

#44 | Posted by Zed

Yes...but it'll be pretty fresh........

Well then!

If the vatican thinks it's real then it must be.

1st Century or 14th Century the fact that Jesus' name has been found on the Shroud of Turin in no way proves it's authenticity.

Oh, before his death, Rogers changed his position and believed the Shroud was authentic.

Rogers?

The Blog-God is dead?!?!

Oh Cadenhead we hardly knew ye.

He was so young too.

*sniff*

Shouldn't we at least start an RIP thread or sommat?

Wot's that?

Different guy?

Well, nevermind then.

Be Well.

Would it really even be surprising if it was real? Its not like the bible is entirely made up.

At best it confirms there was a guy named Jesus who had some wicked shit done to him. What it does not prove is that the redsea parted.

"What it does not prove is that the Red Sea parted..."

The more you guys can come to accept details, and the existence of Christ is a big one, the more you'll come to accept that that the details hang together.

My advice? Stop reading about such things now. You don't want to risk changing your minds.

this is the researcher

The more you guys can come to accept details, and the existence of Christ is a big one, the more you'll come to accept that that the details hang together.

As long as one ignores the details.

Now Ray-next thing we know-you'll be saying...

"We either hang together-or we'll all hang separately".........

NEWS ALERT: Under an atomic microscope the text actually reads, "Made in China"

#7 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2009-11-20 01:18 PM

FF! The Chairorist strikes!

#50 | Posted by dethspud at 2009-11-21 04:13 AM

Whenever your grammar instinct makes me feel dumb I like to sing a little song and do this special dance to pick myself back up: