What is the Shroud of Turin?

[Argon]

@Terry_Sampson

Moraes study concludes that “the image is more consistent with an artistic low-relef representation than with the direct imprint of a real human body, …” Great work, Cicero. Now tell us how you think that artistic low-relief representation was accomplished with no paint or paint-like medium.

Clearly, the image arose from neutron emissions interacting with the cloth as the body was converted to energy.

[Terry_Sampson]

By Jove! I think you’ve got it!

[Argon]

@Terry_Sampson

Meanwhile, watch how anti-Shroudies take on a neo-atheistic tone and ferver: i.e. “I don’t believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and I don’t want you to, either.

I think one should review the pro-Jesus-shroudites in those discussions to see the models and explanations they thought held weight.

Neutron emission was invoked to explain the image and the discordant C14 dates …

[Vinnie]

They don’t intend to. They serve only to show that Calvin’s argument against the shroud is not very good.

[Apistos]

@Argon

@Terry_Sampson

Meanwhile, watch how anti-Shroudies take on a neo-atheistic tone and ferver: i.e. “I don’t believe in the authenticity of the Shroud and I don’t want you to, either.

I think one should review the pro-Jesus-shroudites in those discussions to see the models and explanations they thought held weight.

Neutron emission was invoked to explain the image and the discordant C14 dates …

Whilst a Christian for 50 years, I believed many bizarre things. The Turin Fraud wasn’t one of them.

[Kendel]

In spite or their intent, they add another layer of doubt to the shroud having anything to do with Jesus.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Argon

the image arose from neutron emissions interacting with the cloth as the body was converted to energy.

Yes, that is one of the strangest amalgams of zany physics and mysticism I’ve encountered. Here is the Robert Rucker paper for his presentation to the International Society of Christian Apologetics.

Solving the Carbon Dating Problem for the Shroud of Turin

After introducing some history and tutorial on carbon dating, he launches into a critique of the 1988 dating by the three independent labs, where he complains that effort did not meet his soon to be forgotten exacting scientific standards. Then he proposes that C14 was produced on the Shroud by neutron absorption, which could have shifted the carbon date from the time of Jesus’ death, about 33 AD, to 1260-1390 AD, conveniently just when relics were popping up everywhere and the shroud made its debut.

While this sort of razzle dazzle has some precedent with the inventiveness of YEC’s accelerated radioactive decay, there is actually more difficultly. The standard modes for isotope decay towards greater stability are alpha (Helium nucleus), beta (electron or positron), and gamma (photon), which all occur in the human body due to carbon, potassium, and radon, ect. To get neutrons requires fission, which has no such appreciable source. Which is why Rucker goes on to posit Deuterium, the heavy form of hydrogen, which is present in the body. After copious yammering about the effect of neutrons on the shroud, with respect to the source of these neutrons he states ever so briefly

This would occur, for example, if only 0.0004% of the deuterium, or heavy hydrogen, atoms in the body were to fission. Deuterium is of special interest because it requires the least energy input to fission

But Deuterium is not fissile at all. It’s spontaneous direction is the opposite, fusion. Now with sufficient kinetic force, the strong force can be overcome and Deuterium made to fission, but the energy input required represents temperatures which would vaporize the shroud, tomb, and…whatever, we have long long long left the world of science. Who needs physics?, it is far less of a miracle just to form the image by fiat.

That is not all. Rucker states that the front and dorsal images on the Shroud were
probably formed by an extremely brief, extremely intense burst of vertically collimated radiation
emitted in the body. But radioactive processes emit in every which direction. Even if there was an electromagnetic field collimating charged particles, neutrons, as the name tells, are neutral.

So the whole thing, despite probably appearing scientifically convincing to many, is founded on nonsense. Of course one can believe the shroud is authentic without accepting any of Rucker’s explanation, but his paper is often cited by shroud advocates and is indicative of what passes for serious research in that crowd.

[Argon]

I think a fair summary of current Shroud understanding is here. It also drives home a major issue: Pending further release of samples from the artifact or clear details about its provenance, the story remains undemonstrated. Can’t be ruled out but can’t be shown true at this point.

[Argon]

Yes, proposals about neutron bombardment, nuclear fission and X-rays are “out there”. Contamination is a more realistic (and known) possibility.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@Argon

I think a fair summary of current Shroud understanding is here. It also drives home a major issue: Pending further release of samples from the artifact or clear details about its provenance, the story remains undemonstrated. Can’t be ruled out but can’t be shown true at this point.

I’m a definite team medieval fabrication, but here is another more ambiguous perspective from Dan Porter who has moved from authentic advocate to much more uncertain.

After 23 Years Studying the Shroud, This Is What I Think

After studying the Shroud of Turin for nearly 25 years—much of that time arguing it was probably Jesus’ burial shroud—I undertook a rigorous reexamination of the facts. This process compelled me to change my position. Though I no longer believe the Shroud is authentic, I respect it as though it were.

[Apistos]

Strangely, I like that. Others’ totems must be respected. Unless they’re overtly evil, and even then one can say ‘I understand’. I’m a non-believer who works fully, perfectly respectfully for a church after all.

[Kendel]

@Vinnie

And I suppose we could just look at the resurrection narratives as stories that “adds to lingering doubt.”

Surely you are expressing your own thoughts. They certainly aren’t mine.

[St.Roymond]

@Apistos

It’s an obvious forgery.

If it was obvious, someone would be able to explain hos it was done and why anyone in the fourteenth century would have made a photographic negative image with 3D information contained in the image.

@Kendel

Does the Shroud of Turin fit the description of the burial customs of Jesus’ day and likely of Jesus’ burial?
No.

We don’t know what the custom was for individuals who had to be practically thrown in the tomb before the Sabbath.

@Argon

What is the shroud of Turin? It’s an artifact whose provenance could probably be much better clarified if the Vatican would bother to release more samples for testing.

I second that notion.

[St.Roymond]

@Argon

the image arose from neutron emissions interacting with the cloth as the body was converted to energy.

Or as the shroud collapsed through a body being transformed, or as the body rose up through the cloth, or . . . .
If it’s the real deal, I wanna hear from Jesus what happened.

@Argon

I think a fair summary of current Shroud understanding is here. It also drives home a major issue: Pending further release of samples from the artifact or clear details about its provenance, the story remains undemonstrated. Can’t be ruled out but can’t be shown true at this point.

You keep saying sensible things.