Shoroud of Turin...no longer considered a fake?

[headscratcher4]

I saw a program called Secrets of the Dead on my local PBS station the other morning. It was on the Shroud of Turin and the upshot was that most new evidence discovered since the original carbon dating now suggests that the shroud is 1st Century Middle East. The upshot of the show, in deeply intoned scientific sounding conclusions is that the shroud is likely not a fake – but more study needs to be done.

Anyone out there seen this show? Any comments on the conclusion?

Thanks.

[Leif Roar]

I haven't seen that particular show, but I did read a news article about this a while ago. Basically, someone published a critique against the original carbon dating that dated the shroud as medieval, stating that the sample which had been used for the carbon dating was taken from a part of the shroud that had been repaired at some point after its creation.

So, assuming the critique of the carbon dating is correct (and it certainly sounded like a well-thought out criticism when I read the piece,) the most conclusive piece of evidence that the shroud is fake seems to have been rebutted. It's a far way from that and to saying that "the shroud is likely not a fake" -- this is not a proof of the shrouds authenticity, but merely the rebuttal of a proof that the shroud is a fake.

[Vortex]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Anyone out there seen this show? Any comments on the conclusion?
I saw it a few months ago and it's since been rebutted. I forget where I read the rebuttal, maybe Skeptical Inquirer. The shroud is still considered a fake... except by the RCC. :)

[Bikewer]

As I recall, the last carbon testing involved material from at least 3 different places on the shroud. Amazing that they magically picked 3 re-woven areas....

[EdipisReks]

even if the cloth was 1st century AD, the impressions may not be. and even if the impressions are 1st century AD, they couldn't have been formed by being wrapped around a 3 dimensional body. the age of the item is not the most important factor in determining whether the image on the cloth is from its use as a burial shroud, of holy type or otherwise. of course, the fact that the established carbon dating is valid (that particular episode was very disappointing, considering the general high quality of The Secrets of the Dead in general) doesn't hurt.

[TragicMonkey]

I took a couple of classes of ancient history. I'm pretty sure that there was more than one bolt of cloth used in the first century AD.

Oh, but of course, the one that survived simply must be a famous one with a story behind it. Just like every ruined well found in Palestine must be the one that Rachel fell in, and every fossilized breadcrumb must be from the Last Supper, and each and every splinter found is from the True Cross.

[Leif Roar]

I found the news-article I mentioned earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4210369.stm

[Ossai]

Leif Roar
… stating that the sample which had been used for the carbon dating was taken from a part of the shroud that had been repaired at some point after its creation.

So, assuming the critique of the carbon dating is correct (and it certainly sounded like a well-thought out criticism when I read the piece,) the most conclusive piece of evidence that the shroud is fake seems to have been rebutted. Considering that there were multiple samples taken for carbon dating, the rebuttal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

Try http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/shroud-of-turin.html to start with. It’s got a few links to other sites as well.

Ossai

[Skeptical Greg]

Without a doubt, it is a genuine shroud...

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Ossai
Leif Roar
Considering that there were multiple samples taken for carbon dating, the rebuttal is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.

*shrugs* Perhaps, but as it is a rebuttal published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal (and not a "scientific" one,) I find it unlikely that such an obvious factor isn't considered.

Try http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/shroud-of-turin.html to start with. It’s got a few links to other sites as well.

None of those deals with this particular article (which is quite understandable as it is only a few months old.)

(And note that I believe the shroud is a forgery, so there's no need to present general arguments against its authenticity to me.)

[Questioninggeller]

I went to Turin (Torino) a while back and I thought about going to the Church where they keep it, but I wasn't interested in seeing a copy of a fake (they keep the real one hid to avoid theft or damage). --Not to mention, I generally don't like going into Churches.