Carbon Dating News in 2008
LOS ALAMOS FINDINGS RELEASED AUG 15, 2008
Using some of the most advanced analytical equipment available, a team of nine scientists at the famed Los Alamos National Laboratory confirmed that the material used for radiocarbon dating of the shroud in 1988 was not part of the shroud’s fabric. Previously, micro-chemical tests had demonstrated that the cloth is at least twice as old as the medieval date determined by the now discredited carbon 14 tests. This gives new life to historical and forensic arguments that the shroud might indeed be the burial cloth of Jesus.
PRESS RELEASE
COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the [1988] 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.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.
LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.
Leave a Reply
Is the Shroud real? Probably.
The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.
No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.
My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com
This seems pretty much as smoking gun where the C-14 tests hitherto conducted are concerned. Now, the next question. I had understood the Rogers article to hypothesize that the carmel coloring was the result of the polysaccharide coating interacting with cadaverines (sp?). Is this a correct understanding of Roger’s ancillary hypothesis and has it been tested? Is there a scientist qualified in this area, perhaps on the speakers circuit, who would be willing to address an additional question I have with respect this this issue?
>> This seems pretty much as smoking gun where the C-14 tests hitherto conducted are concerned
Agreed 100%. This is a serious total slam dunk.
I thought this poem of mine might be of interest to visitors to this sight.
BELIEF
The Shroud of Turin came to southern France
from the Crusades in 1353;
a piece of linen cloth fourteen feet long,
holding the image of a five-foot ten-inch man,
his front and his back, head to head
conjoined; the man is bearded,
has been scourged, crucified;
on his brow the pattern
a crown of thorns would make,
pressed down with great force.
The black and whiteness of his image are
reversed, exactly like a photo
negative. For five sleepless days,
in late October ’78, forty
American scientists bring the shroud to us—
they analyze each centimeter, tweeze threads
for microspectrographs, enhance the image
into holograms, deploy
all other ways of knowing
science has. This blood
has DNA. This linen is woven from flax
grown in the eastern Mediterranean
No artist painted this image. It
comes straight from life, spontaneous
rapture––process unknown—
which seared his body’s imprint to the cloth
with delicacy and realism.
One of his wrists has holes.
The spear-wound in his side
drained serum albumin through the flax.
To see his suffering face as Jesus’ face,
is to see the word “death”
suffer a sea change,
as black crusts of his blood
bloom into spectral rainbows
of scientific light that say
this man radiated himself
outward in a way
no dead man ever has.
But that’s a leap of faith
Science dare not make.
Epiphanies happen
beyond its ever
evolving certainties;
though in Torino
the priests of reason
track mystery-
breeding chemicals
embedded in those
patient threads––wherever
they’re inclined to lead.
There was a person
in that flaxen shroud
who died of wounds:
humanly inflicted, but godlike,
through two millennia
appearing before us.
Gloved hands remove
the long straw-colored cloth
from a steel frame inside the king’s
palazzo in Torino, hands
as gentle as those women’s hands
who felt for Jesus in its weightless folds
––vanished from their embrace—
this person become cloth,
this fact who believes we
will someday find him out.
They redid the carbon testing and found that yhe originl rsults were sorrect. I read it in the New York Times. What is this? This isn’t correct. I was looking for the real well known results. The shroud has only been tested twice, in 1988 and 2008 and it was found to have been from the Middle Ages both times. Why is everyone trying to say that the Carbon dating is wrong? Its not.
the tests were conducted on a section that would have been handed by many many people throughout the years, the test now conduction on a section where the fire was near carbon? good clear date
Raymond Rogers from Oxford is the guy that did the 2008tests. Who are these other people? they couldn’t have had the Shroud. It was never given to anyone else. Look, the Shroud is old, but it never touched Christ. There is proof.
Ok, this is too much. we have proof that Christ existed? We have eye witness accounts? No we don’t. No one is old enough to be able to say they saw Christ. So what we have isn’t even hearsay. We have retranslated old stories. No one even has a record from the roman saying that Christ lived, and They kept good records. Carbon dating is very good proof, and if someone has an explnation as to why they think thet piece that wa examined was not a part of the Shroud, id like to hear it. In fact, isn’t it interesting that if there was a cotton, non original part of the Shroud that was the part that got examined? If its a miraculous piece, shouldn’t fate favor the truth?
maria, what do you want, fact or faith, to have facts leaves no room for doubt which would give you belief then? then what about your faith you believe because you have proof, sorry that is not what trusting is Jesus and God is about.
Carbon dating is not proof of anything, apply that same method to rocks, mounts or anything we know the age of because we have seen and it does not work, I am shocked people still take carbon dating as a good method.
You have the Bible, you have the 6,000 year old earth, you have the Idesign, you have proof that evolution is no longer accepted (june 16th, 2009) what else do you require?
if you need facts then what you are really saying is you want to see Christs marks of the cross and the spear wound which pearsed him?
to cap the question the shroud was handled by many many people on sections of the cloth down many many years, test the section that caught fire, theres your proof if you are so desperate to get it.
Maria, they did not retest in 2008. That’s an urban legend going around on the Internet. Check out the Ohio State Shroud of Turin Conference site. And Ray Rogers is not from Oxford but from Los Alamos and he did not do any testing in 2008 because he died in 2005.
Yes, carbon dating is good. So good that it will produce bad results every time if bad samples are used. GIGO!
No, the carbon 14 dating was never redone. It should be. But one thing is certain, the results were invalid because the sample was invalid.
I just don’t believe a made up story would stand the test of time. I believe in the Shroud and Jesus Christ Our Saviour. The Shroud gives us enough evidence to believe but never completely enough as people will always find doubt if they do not have faith. Even if there was complete proof available that it was the Shroud of Jesus Christ, then someone would say, well, he was just an ordinary man. I believe it is like this to separate the believers from the non-believers. Faith is necessary- maybe it’s like some kind of rocket fuel that sends us to him. I don’t know, but I know it has a power of its own because I feel it :)
If you are in fact an expert or even a person particularly interested in the shroud you would already be aware that the shroud was indeed retested in 2008 and I am left with no choice but to call you a liar.
Here is the link to the news release of the second test dated to 25th of March 2008 on the university of Oxfords official website:
http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_releases_for_journalists/080325.html
Please abandon this foolishness.
Dear me. It’s not clear that you have read the news release to which you refer, or seen the film associated with it. This test was done on pieces of modern linen, not the shroud, which had been ‘contaminated’ with carbon monoxide, to test the hypothesis that such contamination seriously distorts radiocarbon dates in general. It was found that there was no appreciable difference between contaminated and uncontaminated linen, and the hypothesis was rejected. I’m not sure who you think you ‘have no choice’ but to call a liar, but I am sure you will be pleased to know that another option is in fact available. Foolishness? Not, it seems, on the basis of your comment. Happy New Year!
Maria, there are those who say the Holocaust didn’t happen! “WHAT IS TRUTH?” The proof of Jesus Being, isn’t only through The Gospels but as a living reality in one’s life.
If I see a Shooting Star, I haven’t time to report it for others to see! Such is the experience of knowing God’s Reality through life.
What has been said about the uncertainty surrounding the Shroud shows how much we have to learn about its historical past. And, the never ending interest in finding proof of God’s existence.
Maria, to say there is no proof Christ existed lends support to a denial of “everything” – including the wonderful experience of seeing Shooting Stars.
Hello, for goodness sake wake up and smell the fried chicken you bloody fools here is a simple test no radiocarbon dating here simple terms for simple people take a look at the shroud and then think of what it would look like draped over a human head the proportions are all wrong it would be wider and way more distorted as it is the image is almost perfect has no one thought of this before or has this been another typically cristian case of starting with the desired result and working backwards to find proof to the exclusion of everything else hmmmm
Oh and to the absolute clown who posted that nobody with a shred of intelligence disputes that jesus existed i would counter with this (with many thanks to ebonmusings.com)
Not a single contemporary historian mentions Jesus. The historical record is devoid of references to him for decades after his supposed death. The very first extra-biblical documents that do mention him are two brief passages in the works of the historian Josephus, written around 90 CE, but the longer of the two is widely considered to be a forgery and the shorter is likely to be one as well. The first unambiguous extra-biblical references to a historical, human Jesus do not appear until well into the second century.
Few if any Christian apologists will mention these extraordinary facts but we can rightfully conclude that there is something wrong here. The rosy picture painted by the gospels of a preaching sage and famous miracle worker followed by crowds of thousands stands in stark contrast to the reality of the extra-biblical historical record, and that reality is that mentions of the man Jesus do not exist until almost the end of the first century.
Why is this? It is not as if there were no capable historians at the time. There was, for example, Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who lived from about 20 BC to 50 AD. His own beliefs were influenced by Platonic elements that were in some ways similar to Christianity, and his writings show interest in other offshoot sects such as the Essenes and the Therapeutae; he wrote about Pontius Pilate and he was, by some accounts, living in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ death and, presumably, the attendant miracles. Yet none of his works contain any mention of Jesus or Christianity.
Other writers of the time show the same pattern. Justus of Tiberius, a native of Galilee who wrote a history around 80 AD covering the time Jesus supposedly lived, does not mention him. The Roman writer Seneca the Younger, who was born around 3 BC and lived into the 60s AD, wrote extensively about ethics but says nothing about Jesus or his teachings. The historian Pliny the Elder, born around 20 AD, took a special interest in writing about science and natural phenomena, but his thirty-seven-volume Natural History says nothing about an earthquake or a strange darkness around the supposed time of Jesus’ death, although he would have been alive at the time it happened. In fact, not a single contemporary record exists of the darkness, and there was a widespread failure to note the earthquake, much less the appearance of the resurrected saints.
Why would this be??????????????????????
Point is : Why is a new carbon dating not planned ?
Why is the Church so reluctant to allow any further scientific investigations on the Shroud ?
Episcopalian,
Maria was correct that further testing was being done. She just perhaps confused issues. A gent by the name of Chris Ramsay at Oxford commenced further testing on shroud fibres last year and the testing done up ’til now confirms the C-14 dating. As it stands now, there is no direct evidence to support the pro shroud devotees assumptions.
It is also assumed that the sample was “invalid” and based on the original writings of Benford and Marino, investigation of the Rae’s samples by Rogers and his still alive coherts at Los Alamos are continuing his work, AGAIN with the Rae’s sample NOT the Riggi sample which was cut a decent (considering the sample size) way away, and through the obligatory cleansing methods done on the fabric prior to the c-14 testing, any contaminant would be and was destroyed. How BTW Rogers claims to have tested 2 fibres from the Riggi sample is beyond me as Gonella did not supply them( from the spare samples) and any used IN the testing, were destroyed. I suppose dead men cannot ammend their lies.
Also as to Roger’s testing, it is scientifically invalid, hence no reputable journal wanting a bar of it, except for the nepotistic TA.
Before you address me to the shroudstory site, I have been there done that and the majority of the face value determinings by Daniel Porter, someone I doubt would know his butt from face, has misinterpreted many of the “findings” even on the PDF’s he supplies on his site. Perhaps he assumes people will just believe his “take” and not actually read the PDF’s themselves for confirmation.
As for you James Youung, why not actually GET A LIFE rather than claiming to live one “through” your invisible friend.
Beacuse C14 test is destructive for the samples. In any case a new set of investigations is forseen after 2010 shroud exposition
“Beacuse C14 test is destructive for the samples.”
1-It seems obvious. But obviously they didn’t plan to analyse the samples before C14 tests destroyed them. Result is nobody can say what the samples were really made of.
2-20 years later the size of the sample could be very small.
Jimmy, you are so wrong about early documentation of the existence of Jesus. Do some serious research and not just read other uneducated accounts. we have the writings of clement, ignatius, and dozens of others. there are literally thousands of pages of documentation from the first and second century, much of which has been translated and available on the internet. You speak with authority but without facts.
For all you doubters of Christ, there is a history book called the Holy Bible. It is one of our best factual history books of all times. Nothing in the books can be denied. For anyone to deny Christ, he will deny you to His Father, the living God! Does that not frighten you in the least bit?
Carbon 14 is not reliable because the earth is not millions nor billions of years old. Look in the bible, it will tell you that the earth is only a few thousand years old. GO TO CHURCH!!!
Maria #7, We did have eyewitnesses, they are called the apostles. Of course they are all dead but they lift behind some great writings of the life of Christ that they did actually see firsthand. Look at and read the New Testament.
Jimmy #12, You really sound like you know what you are talking about. You may have others convinced. Sorry, not me. You really need a little faith in the good LORD.
I will pray for you both.
The shroud is real. How do I know? Faith.
I would like to make four comments:
1. When I was 11 years old in 1946 living near Pittsburgh, Pa. I read a short article buried inside the Sunday Sun Telegraph newspaper that said archeologists working in Israel found an ancient grave containing bones with the inscription “Jesus of Nazareth”. Nothing more was ever said about that article.
I suspect that the churches would have gone to any lengths to suppress anything that could have undermined Christian beliefs.
2. The people in biblical times believed that the earth was the center of the universe with the sun, moon and stars revolving around it. It would be natural,then, to assume that God would send his Son or Himself incarnate to earth. Had they known that the earth is a planet near the sun, an average sized star, in a galaxy containing at least 100 billion other stars and that there are at least 100 billion other galaxies in the known universe, would they have believed that the creator of this unfathomable universe came to our little planet? Maybe, maybe not.
3. Even if it was proven beyond any doubt that the Bible was a myth, a story, and Jesus was a man, no more and no less, it would not bother me a bit because to me the ultimate creator of the universe is God, irrespective of the diety of Christ. I believe in that God as strongly as anyone; how else can we explain our existence.
4. I have a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering with minors in Physics and Mathematics and believe that science and religion are compatible.
I personally am leaning toward the belief that the shroud is real, however my faith certainly does not hinge on scientific proof of it’s authenticity. I am looking foward to watching people like jimmy and buttonfresh someday stand before the thrown of our Lord Jesus and convince him in an overwhelming fashion, that he did not in fact ever actually exist.
Shroud of Turin is 100% fake and we do not need any C14 to realize that.
There is a very simple observation that can clarify this point:
If you put a sheet on a body and your intent is to print the figure under the sheet, it would never be like the image of the shroud.
To understand better what I mean, let us focus on the face printed on the shroud.
If there was a body rapped in that sheet, the face would look more like the “agamennon mask” and not like a perfect projecton of a face.
It has been conceptually made as a painting.
Fascinating. The lengths believers will go to to shore up their need for belief, and reinforcement of that belief. To quote from the JREF, where shroudies fear to tread. (with permission)
The shroud is a fake. This is a simple well established fact this fact has been well established by scientific testing (chemical, microscopic and radiocarbon) and is supported by other evidence.
historical: the lack of evidence for the shroud’s existence prior to the mid fourteenth century; further it’s emergence during the ‘holy relic’ craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds); lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings; the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure
physiological: the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body; likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals isn’t possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren’t long enough)
textile: the weave patten of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East but matches medieval Europe well; no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
testamentary: the d’Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
artistic: the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements; the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
reproducibility: contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
analytic: examination, microscopic (including electron microscopy) and chemical testing show the shroud image is made from common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
cultural: the shroud does not match with what is known of first century Jewish burial practices or the only extant sample of such burial cloths; nor does the shroud match the biblical accounts; nor are there any demonstrated artifacts of the putative Jesus extant today; nor does the supposed historical background indicate that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without much publicity prior to ~1355
serological: a minor point (as blood probably wouldn’t survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies there is no evidence for blood residue
Frankly the consensus of all the factors is the strongest reason to accept the medieval origin of the shroud, not any one factor.
Your comment certainly doesn’t warrant a serious reply, but I feel compelled to say, in easily understood terms; You are simply an IDIOT.
R
There was a good documentary a while ago which examined the Shroud in detail and the carbon dating process. Even the scientists concluded that material from the middle of the material needed to be taken for carbon dating for an accurate result. Why? Because a fire believed to have happened somewhere in the Middle Ages caused burns to the Shroud and because of that, it is believed to have been repaired and the original linen woven in with cotton which was found. This is why when the 3 scientists dated the material they had 3 different dates with a range of 100 years I think. They think if they could date the burnt material, they would get an accurate reading.
I’m not Catholic but I don’t think people should write off the Shroud when there has not been conclusive evidence against it and also respect other peoples’ views…
Here’s news for the pro Shroud…. John 20:6, 7 (KJV) Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 and the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
John 20:6, 7 (todays english version) Behind him came Simon Peter, and he went straight into the tomb. he saw the linen cloths lying there 7 and the cloth which had been around Jesus’ head. It was not lying with the linen cloths but was rolled up by itself.
There was a different cloth for Jesus head!
Yes and it is believed to be what is now held in Spain, and called the Sudarium of Oviedo….look it up, you might find it interesting.
R