ChemEurope just this morning posted an interesting article, Fossil fuel emissions will complicate radiocarbon dating, warns scientist:
Fossil fuel emissions could soon make it impossible for radiocarbon dating to distinguish new materials from artefacts that are hundreds of years old. Carbon released by burning fossil fuels is diluting radioactive carbon-14 and artificially raising the radiocarbon ‘age’ of the atmosphere, according to a paper published in the PNAS.
Radiocarbon measurements have a range of uses, from analysing archaeological finds, to detecting fraudulent works of art, to identifying illegal ivory trading, to assessing the regeneration of brain cells in neurological patients. The new study suggests that some of these current uses will be affected over this century, depending on how much fossil fuel emissions increase or decrease.
The online Daily Times Gazette picked up the story and added this:
One of famous radiocarbon dating investigation is the Shroud of Turin, which allegedly has the image of Jesus Christ.
However, Scientists found that it was originated from 13th century, 1,200 years after the Death of Christ.
… Here is a video of my latest research project. Holography experiments. I am very close to being able record a interference pattern on linen that would match many of the Shroud image characteristics.
Shroud Image and Hologram Image Match Points
1. Both images are extremely superficial, thin depth image (1/50th thickness of human hair)
2. Both have good resolution
3. Both have 3D Qualities to Image
4. Both images cannot be seen from the back side
5. Both have light coming from only 1 direction to form image
6. Both images fade and or vanish when tilted to the far right or far left
7. Both are a single color image
8. Both images involve subject close to film plate to capture image (past 5cm there is no image formation on a reflection hologram) (I know because I tried it)
Over at YouTube he writes:
"I can affirm without fear of being proven wrong The Shroud of Turin image was created by a interference pattern of laser like light that emitted from the body of Jesus" Shroud of Turin is a linen holographic film plate. As highly improbable as that may sound that is what the forensic evidence says happened. There is no other logical alternative image theory explanation that matches the gospel account or the forensic evidence. What is presented in this video not only matches the Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus it also matches the forensic evidence on the Shroud of Turin.
I’m not persuaded. I don’t see how any of this matches the Gospel accounts of the
resurrection and I think some of these “match points” with the shroud are little more than some so-whats. But that is just my opinion. I’m willing to hear more from Dave and anyone else.
Stephen Jones, now embarked on a series of posts to summarize the “overwhelming evidence” of authenticity, does have a point in his post yesterday, first in quoting from Edward Hall’s obituary in The Independent:
"Such total involvement got its reward especially in his [Hall’s] participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 … `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,’ he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.’"
and then in telling us:
… And in a sense Hall was right! If the Shroud were a medieval forgery, then the forger, to maximise his profit, would have "just got a bit of linen." That is, he would have used the least expensive "bit of linen" he could find that would still deceive his prospective buyers (and that wouldn’t require much-see #3). But the Shroud is not just any "bit of linen." As we have seen above the Shroud would have been expensive and rare in the first century. And it would have been even more expensive and rare in the 14th century, of which there is only one known other example, but in fragments as opposed to the ~4.4 x 1.1 metre Shroud. So the medieval forger would have been most unlikely to have obtained a fine linen herringbone twill sheet the size of the Shroud in the first place.
Is there any validity believing that a lack of vanillin says anything about the shroud’s age?
Topic drift is a fact of life in this blog and almost every blog I’ve encountered. It is not a problem; it’s a useful feature. We were talking about radiation models for the images on the shroud and the subject of vanillin came up; it’s not important why. This caused Colin Berry to respond in the weeds – that is over in his blog – with an unrelated update to a posting on a different subject. Anyway that is how we got to this yesterday:
Vanillin is not a separate component from lignin. In fact it’s not even a component of flax or linen. It’s a degradation product of lignin, derived from oxidation, side-chain shortening (loss of 2 carbons) and detachment starting with one particular monomer in the complex resinous polyphenol that is lignin, ie. coniferaldehye. See my earlier posting on the subject, this site.
Ray Rogers no less described and discussed vanillin as though it were a preformed component of lignin that gradually reduced with age. Nope: as the lignin oxidizes, the vanillin is newly formed, and being a relatively small molecule, gradually evaporates away, being responsible for the distinctive aroma of old lignin (the ability to detect it by smell being a sure sign that molecules are escaping into the air).
Anyway, if you haven’t read [Colin’s] earlier posting on the subject, you should. Do we really understand if the vanillin claim is valid?
And if you want to know what in the weeds means, it is this: In golf, when a shot lands on the fairway, it’s in plain sight in easy-to-play short grass. When a shot lands to the side, it’s in unkempt grass, and the golfer wastes time trying to find the lost ball. He’s literally "in the weeds". And Colin wants to know why Google and people don’t find what he writes about on his blog. There is a practical limit to topic drift. What does comments about vanillin have to do with Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer)?
Anyway, NOW, the topic is vanillin and the question is this: Is there any validity believing that a lack of vanillin says anything about the shroud’s age?
“Tell me this,” Colin writes:
What is the use of a clock that is either running, or has stopped completely? That is the situation with the Shroud linen. We are asked to believe that it’s the absence of Wiesner-reactive lignin that is the reason, ie that it is incredibly aged.
Sorry, I don’t buy that. The “vanillin clock” is so poorly documented that I decline to believe that the absence of a positive test is necessarily to do with age. It could be due to any number of factors….
And Colin gives us an alternate possibility, the sort of thing lawyers like to do to make us have reasonable doubts about a defendant in a criminal trial:
… someone decided to fumigate the reliquary (see my earlier comment). They removed the TS, then inserted a lit sulphur candle. Later the candle was removed, and the TS replaced, with its long sides folded in towards the middle before folding or rolling. Residual SO2 made better contact with the central regions of the TS than with the edges. So the reactive aldehyde groups of lignin in the initially peripheral Raes threads were better protected from the SO2 than the more central threads.
I’m not suggesting this was the actual process that gave the difference between Raes v the rest, but it’s an indication of the uncertainties that attach to using a chemical as distinct from radioactive clock, where one is at the mercy of environmental conditions that one can only guess at, as I am guessing right now.
Intense sources, e.g from a laser, may simply target a trace component that wouldn’t normally be sufficiently energized to produce coloration.
Hopscotching over to his other specialized blog, recently renamed “The Shroud of Turin: medieval two-stage imprint? The blog that separates the science from the pseudo-science…” Colin Berry presents us with …an updated version of [his] ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud”.
It is "probably a misnomer," he adds.
BUT THE BEST PART is what he has to say "about those gee whizz ‘radiation’ models”:
The First Law of Photochemistry states that light must be absorbed for photochemistry to occur. This is a simple concept, but it is the basis for performing photochemical and photobiological experiments correctly. If light of a particular wavelength is not absorbed by a system, no photochemistry will occur, and no photobiological effects will be observed, no matter how long one irradiates with that wavelength of light.
Anyone proposing a radiation-based theory MUST (a) state the wavelength of the radiation and (b) the chemical species (chromophore) that is capable of absorbing that particular wavelength.
Be wary of those who try to sidestep the First Law by telling you that their radiation source is hugely intense and monochromatic, or a type of radiation unknown to physics. There is no escaping the First Law. No absorption means no photochemical reaction, no localized heating, no coloration. That applies to ALL electromagnetic radiation, from long wavelength radio waves though microwaves, infrared, visible, uv, x rays to the highest frequency/energy short wavelength gamma radiation.
Intense sources, e.g from a laser, may simply target a trace component that wouldn’t normally be sufficiently energized to produce coloration. Trace components of linen that come to mind as normally overlooked chromophores, but more readily energized molecule for molecule than cellulose, would be lignin and other phenolicss with aromatic ring structures, absorbing moderately in the blue end of the visible spectrum and the near uv.
Russ Breault sent along a link to a 1999 interview he conducted with the late Father Kim Dreisbach, a friend, an Episcopal priest and a wonderful shroud scholar. This video was uploaded to YouTube earlier this week and so might be new to many people who read this blog. It’s 28 minutes long. Enjoy:
Russ uploaded many videos yesterday. CLICK HERE to see interviews with Dan Scavone, Ian Wilson, Michael Tite and many others (Note that the video labeled an interview with Rex Morgan is incorrect. I expect it will be fixed soon.
We need to do a lot more with the 3D questions that the shroud poses
to better understand what we are really looking at.
After a careful reading of Professor John Jackson’s paper «The vertical alignment of the frontal image» and also remembering the 2005 Professor Latendresse’s paper «The Turin Shroud was not flattened before the images formed and no major image distortions necessarily occur from a real body» I was aware that if the Shroud wrapped a real human body that impressed his image on the cloth some distortions were inevitable and 3D scanning by VP-8 device produced a kind of bas-relief of a human shape with enough anatomical accuracy.
Appendix B of Professor Jackson’s paper ( I mean experiences with volunteers wrapped in a cloth) sparked a weird idea in my mind :
As far as I know VP-8 scanning of the Shroud Image was done using Shroud real size photos OF A FLATTENED SHROUD and considering just the front image Professor Jackson acknowledges that even admitting a vertical path of information transfer from body to cloth the image will have some distortions.
So I imagined this hypothetical scenario (not with a flattened image but in the same conditions when it was produced on the cloth)
Get a real size replica of the Shroud with the image photograph on a linen cloth, then place the front image over a volunteer with anatomical characteristics similar to the Man of the Shroud (image upside, non image part of the cloth covering the volunteer).
Placing the cloth like this not too tight would allow overlap the front image following main anatomical body curves namely head, and limbs.
Considering these conditions if an image 3D scanning with VP-8 or with a more modern device is done- I don’t really know if it is technically feasible to scan the image in this scenario) would there be the possibility for much lower distortion and obtaining not a human shape bas relief but A KIND OF HUMAN BODY VOLUMETRIC IMAGE(without side parts that did not produce image on the cloth) ????
Perhaps this is a silly hypothesis….
Not at all. We need to do a lot more with the 3D questions that the shroud poses to better understand what we are really looking at. And this idea of yours for minimizing distortion makes a lot of sense.
The VP-8, to the best of my knowledge, in this context only interprets brightness information that already represents spatial data. If I understand you correctly, you want to capture new and additional spatial information to combine with the spatial information in the shroud image. Here are two videos that are worth watching. This is blow- your-mind 3D technology.
A couple of watching tips: The first video begins advertising clothing at the four minute mark. I’m not actually suggesting that you hit the stop button there. But I do. The second video gets very interesting at around 5 minutes so hang in there.