Shroud of Turin - A Photograph by Leonardo da Vinci

Andy etc. - "Yeah because he didn't also paint The Last Supper did he, oh wait."

Wasn't The Last Supper the subject of the Da Vinci Code?
The Quattrocenti was a period in which secular art was still in its beginnings, most art still being dedicated to the glory of God. The Church was the principal and wealthiest patron. Any known artist who did not accept commissions for religious paintings would starve and fade into obscurity. However, almost all of LdV's religious paintings (as well as those of several contemporaries) reveal subtle symbolism pointing to the "other" heretical religion of Catharism. Apparently, he used his Church commissions to criticise the Church and promote Catharism in a manner that was not (usually) recognised by his Church patrons.

Andy etc. - "That might have been a valid point if the pope had comissioned the painting, he didn't."
But he did paint it in a monastery for the Church, didn't he? So it was commissioned by the Church, presumably with the Pope's knowledge and approval!

CAS - "a great intellect such as Da Vinci might just enjoy the humour of faking a relic and doing it so well. "

Pure speculation with very little to support it! I thought you prided yourself on your rational logic!

CAS - "accept that Da Vinci may have faked the shroud for a whole multitude of reasons"

He just may have, but you have to ignore the vast bulk of the evidence that points to an earlier date, and this reasoning is neither logical nor scientific!
Have you yet looked at the links I sent?

CAS - " how exactly was jp2 pro science? It was a sidestep. Read your quote from him and see if you can spot the flaw?"

I assume you're referring to relegating the competence to science? Very unscientific isn't it?
Or is it the reference to tradition, not held by the Church as a question of faith?
Or is it the punctuation?

CAS - "If there were to be some rational evidence I would check it. So far there is none from Spin or anyone else to show why the C14 dating is flawed."

Have you examined the links I posted?

CAS - "BTW- hatred of the catholic church is not something exclusive to me. It is a perfectly reasonable position to take. "
Hatred is never reasonable, only destructive of self and others - usually caused by fear and incomprehension (i.e. insecurity)!

Did God photograph the Mona Lisa? Wow! So clever.

Such faith

MLJ_ pure speculation.

"But he did paint it in a monastery for the Church, didn't he?"

No. It was commsioned by a duke to be the centre piece of his family mausoleum.

MLJ- of course it is speculation, which is why I phrased it as I did. It is a perfectly good and rational idea. Since I cannot ask the great man I can only speculate!

MLJ- yes. Apologist nonsense.

Criticisms of the dating result

These results, much expected by experts who had written articles on the subject in the press, still surprised many worldwide.[36] People who refuse to accept the result that the shroud was a medieval artefact, have put forward a range of hypotheses to discredit the dating.

[edit] The sample was part of a later repair

Criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[37][38][39][40] It is hypothesised that the sampled area was a medieval repair which was conducted by "invisible reweaving". Raymond Rogers argued in a 2005 article that the chemical analysis he performed show traces of tanning products, likely used by medieval weavers to match the colour of the original weave when performing repairs and backing the shroud for additional protection.[41] Rogers' conclusions are however based on a study of a few threads that Rogers believed were taken from the C14 shroud sample, but there is no evidence to support their provenance or that they are indeed representative of the C14 sample.[42]

Furthermore the report of the dating process, written by the people who performed the sampling, states that the sample "came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas."[43]

Leading STURP scientist Dr John Jackson further discounted the possibility that the C14 sample may have been conducted on a medieval repair fragment, on the basis that the radiographs and transmitted light images taken by STURP in 1978 clearly show that the natural colour bandings present throughout the linen of the shroud propagate in an uninterrupted fashion through the region that would later provide the sample for radiocarbon dating. This could not have been possible if the sampled area was a later addition.[44]

[edit] The dating contradicts other evidence

Scholar Raymond Rogers, who was a director of the Shroud of Turin Research Project, [45] argued in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta that: "The fact that vanillin cannot be detected in the lignin on shroud fibers, Dead Sea scrolls linen, and other very old linens indicate that the shroud is quite old. A determination of the kinetics of vanillin loss suggest the shroud is between 1300- and 3000-years old. Even allowing for errors in the measurements and assumptions about storage conditions, the cloth is unlikely to be as young as 840 years".[46]

It has however been stated that Roger's vanillin-dating process is untested, and the validity thereof is suspect. The deterioration of vanillin is heavily influenced by the temperature of its environment - heat strips away vanillin rapidly - and the shroud has been subjected to temperatures high enough to melt silver and scorch the cloth.[47] Rogers' analysis is also questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reasons that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from "starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence".[48]

[edit] The sample was contaminated

In 1993 Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes discovered the presence of polyhydroxyalkanoate (mcl-PHA)-producing bacteria Leobacillus rubrus on Shroud's fabric and confirmed their presence on three Egyptian mummies.[49] According to Garza-Valdes, "the scientists that carried out the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988, were not aware of the presence of this unsuspected contaminant (natural plastic coating)". Garza-Valdes outlines further, that while studying thin sections from the Shroud fibers it was found that "more than 60% of the fibers' area is bioplastic".[49] Pictorial evidence dating from c. 1690 and 1842[50] indicates that the corner used for the dating and several similar evenly spaced areas along one edge of the cloth were handled each time the cloth was displayed, the traditional method being for it to be held suspended by a row of five bishops. Wilson and others contend that repeated handling of this kind greatly increased the likelihood of contamination by bacteria and bacterial residue compared to the newly discovered archaeological specimens for which carbon-14 dating was developed. Bacteria and associated residue (bacteria by-products and dead bacteria) carry additional carbon-14 that would skew the radiocarbon date toward the present.

Professor Harry Gove, director of Rochester's laboratory (one of the laboratories not selected to conduct the testing), has also hypothesised that a "bioplastic" bacterial contamination, which was unknown during the 1988 testing, would render the tests inaccurate. He has however also acknowledged that the samples had been carefully cleaned with strong chemicals before testing.[51]

STURP scientist Dr John Jackson has discounted the hypothesis that the sample was contaminated by more recent bioplastic residues from microbial action, on the basis that the samples were carefully cleaned first to eliminate this kind of contamination, and that the quantity of microbial mass required to skew the results would be significantly greater than the mass of the linen itself. [52]

Rodger Sparks, a radiocarbon expert from New Zealand, have countered that an error of thirteen centuries stemming from bacterial contamination in the Middle Ages would have required a layer approximately doubling the sample weight.[53] Because such material could be easily detected, fibers from the shroud were examined at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry examination failed to detect any form of bioplastic polymer on fibers from either non-image or image areas of the shroud. Additionally, laser-microprobe Raman analysis at Instruments SA, Inc. in Metuchen, New Jersey, also failed to detect any bioplastic polymer on shroud fibers.

Others have suggested that the silver of the molten reliquiary and the water used to douse the flames may have catalysed the airborne carbon into the cloth.[54] The Russian Dmitri Kouznetsov, an archaeological biologist and chemist, claimed in 1994 to have managed to experimentally reproduce this purported enrichment of the cloth in ancient weaves, and published numerous articles on the subject between 1994 and 1996.[55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] Kouznetsov's results could not be replicated, and no actual experiments has been able to validate this theory, so far.[63] Professor Gian Marco Rinaldi and others proved that Kouznetsov never performed the experiments described in his papers, citing non-existent fonts and sources, including the museums from which he claimed to have obtained the samples of ancient weaves on which he performed the experiments.[64][65][66][67] The Russian was arrested in 1997 on American soil under allegations of accepting bribes by magazine editors to produce manufactured evidence and false reports.[68]

Likewise proposed was a reaction with carbon monoxide (CO), a trace gas present in air, which it was claimed could add additional "fresh" C14 to the sample.[69] However carbon monoxide does not undergo significant reactions with linen which could result in an incorporation of a significant number of CO molecules into the cellulose structure.[70]

The 2008 documentary Sindone, prove a confronto (lit., "The Shroud, comparing evidence") by David Rolfe suggested that the quantity of carbon 14 found on the weave may have been significantly affected by the weather, the conservation methods employed throughout the centuries,[71] as well as the volatile carbon generated by the fire that damaged the shroud while in Savoy custody at Chambéry. Other theories include that candle smoke (rich in carbon dioxide) and the volatile carbon molecules produced during the two fires may have altered the carbon content of the cloth, rendering carbon-dating unreliable as a dating tool.[72][73]

[edit] The calculations were done incorrectly

In 1994, J. A. Christen applied a strong statistical test to the radiocarbon data and concludes that the given age for the shroud is, from a statistical point of view, correct.[74]

However critics claim to have identified statistical errors in the conclusions published in Nature:[35] including: the actual standard deviation for the Tucson study was 17 years, not 31, as published; the chi-square distribution value is 8.6 rather than 6.4, and the relative significance level (which measures the reliability of the results) is close to 1% - rather than the published 5%, which is the minimum acceptable threshold.[75][76][77][78] None of these errors would however produce an altered dating supportive of a 1st Century manufacture.

In 2008 the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, Christopher Ramsey, told the BBC that "With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence".[79] Ramsey has stressed that he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were shown to be far off, let alone "a thousand years wrong", but said that he would keep an open mind.[80]

[edit] Books discussing the carbon-dating

There are two books with detailed treatment of the Shroud's carbon dating, including not only the scientific issues but also the events, personalities and struggles leading up to the sample taking. The books offer opposite views on how the dating should have been conducted, and both are critical of the methodology finally employed.

In Relic, Icon or Hoax? Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud (1996; ISBN 0-7503-0398-0), Harry Gove provides an account of the interaction between Prof Carlos Chagas, chairman of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and Cardinal Ballestrero, with Gove and Gonella. He provides a detailed record of meetings, telephone conversations and correspondence.

The Rape of the Turin Shroud by William Meacham (2005; ISBN 1-4116-5769-1) devotes 100 pages to the carbon dating. Meacham is also highly critical of STURP and Gonella, and also of Gove. He describes the planning process from a very different perspective (both he and Gove were invited along with 20 other scholars to a conference in Turin in 1986 to plan the C-14 protocol) and focuses on what he claims was the major flaw in the dating: taking only one sample from the corner of the cloth. Meacham reviews the main scenarios that have been proposed for a possibly incorrect dating, and claims that the result is a "rogue date" because of the sample location and anomalies. He points out that this situation could easily be resolved if the Church authorities would simply allow another sample to be dated, with appropriate laboratory testing for possible embedded contaminants
-all from wiki.

MLJ- try reading your quote from jp2 again and see if you can spot where he poisons the well.

MLJ- drivel, Hatred is a perfectly natural response, I hate Hitler and his Reich, I hate people who are cruel to animals, and I hate religion for all the very obvious reasons. Only someone who was very insecure would need to be comforted by an invisible, unevidenced, inaudible sky fairy with a penchant for genocide.

Well I'd like to think he invented the principles behind those inventions.

He didn't invent the "machine gun" as I recall, he invented a mechanism which allowed propelled continuous motion. This was later developed over time.

CAS - "pure speculation."

That the painting was done in a monastery? So I can't believe the evidence of my own eyes even?

No, that the pope approved it.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Hitler didn't hate "Jews".

He hated anything that wasn't Aryan.

He just happened to blame the demise of Germany during World War 1 on the Jews.

Curiously, many rich German-Jewish citizens switched alliances during the war (WW1), instead choosing to fund the allies. Namely the Rothschilds did this; they were not harmed by the Nazi's, instead they were allowed freedom if they gave up their artwork and gold. Today the Rothschilds continue to restore their original collections from the German government.

This could have prompted something.

I call Godwin's!

DB- hatred is a strong emotion, and is an important one. If you check back, some of the most effective units in WW2 were Polish, 303 squadron- the most effective squadron of WW2 were Polish, when so many others had failed the Poles captured Monte Cassino, check any memoir you wish ( I commend Johhny Kent's memoir, a quote from which follows "I cannot say how proud I am to have been privileged to help form and lead No. 303 squadron and later to lead such a magnificent fighting force as the Polish Wing. There formed within me in those days an admiration, respect and genuine affection for these really remarkable men which I have never lost. I formed friendship that are as firm as they were those twenty-five years ago and this I find most gratifying. We who were privileged to fly and fight with them will never forget and Britain must never forget how much she owes to the loyalty indomitable spirit and sacrifice of those Polish fliers. They were our staunchest Allies in our darkest days; may they always be remembered as such! The Poles were driven by hatred of the Germans, without which we would have lost the Battle of Britain.

The 8th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders took Mount Longstop with a bayonet charge due to their blind hatred of the german unit holding it ( due to an incident of betrayal by a german prisoner).

Nothing wrong with hatred when it is applied correctly. Your churches history is as odious as any organisations I can think of, a lot of which is only now coming to light.

With that quote in mind, the way Polish immigrants are treated it hardly the height of gratitude.

I've never understood why that is. They have a reputation as really hard workers, they come and do the jobs no-one here wants to do anyway, and all the Polish immigrants I've actually met have been perfectly pleasant as people. What's not to like?

Sam- before that we sold the Poles down the river to appease Stalin. When the peace was declared and it finally hit home to the Poles that everything they had fought and watched their friends die for was being given away, they cried. One pilot whose memoir I read recounted the tears streaming down the cheeks of "the toughest men I ever met".

Our betrayal of Poland is something I count as the most shameful betrayal in British history.

You are also correct- the treatment of the Poles today is pathetic and an example of where our culture has forgotten friends from the recent past.