Is an earthquake behind the Shroud of Turin image? Radiation from earthquake could have led to ‘wrong’ 1988 dating

34

Neutron radiation caused by 33 A.D. earthquake could have led to "wrong" 1988 radiocarbon dating of Shroud, suggest researchers. An earthquake in Old Jerusalem might be behind the famous image of the Shroud of Turin, says a group of researchers. They believe that neutron radiation caused by an earthquake could have induced the image of a crucified man – which many people believe to be that of Jesus – onto the length of linen cloth, and caused carbon-14 dating done on it in 1988 to be wrong.

Neutron radiation caused by 33 A.D. earthquake could have led to "wrong" 1988 radiocarbon dating of Shroud, suggest researchers.

An earthquake in Old Jerusalem might be behind the famous image of the Shroud of Turin, says a group of researchers led by Alberto Carpinteri of the Politecnico di Torino in Italy in an article published in Springer's journal Meccanica. They believe that neutron radiation caused by an earthquake could have induced the image of a crucified man — which many people believe to be that of Jesus — onto the length of linen cloth, and caused carbon-14 dating done on it in 1988 to be wrong.

The Shroud has attracted widespread interest ever since Secondo Pia took the first photograph of it in 1898: about whether it is Jesus' purported burial cloth, how old it might be, and how the image was created. According to radiocarbon dating done in 1988, the cloth was only 728 years old at the time. Other researchers have since suggested that the shroud is much older and that the dating process was incorrect because of neutron radiation — a process which is the result of nuclear fusion or nuclear fission during which free neutrons are released from atoms — and its interaction with the nuclei of other atoms to form new carbon isotopes.

Written By: ScienceDaily
continue to source article at sciencedaily.com

34 COMMENTS

  1. Clutching at straws?

    In 2013 INRiM was set in temporary receivership and Carpinteri dismissed after the
    resignation of two-thirds of the board of directors in objection of Carpinteri’s support
    in the purported theory of piezonuclear fission.[7][8]

    Otherwise , who cares? This ‘image of Jesus’— who knows what he looked like? The great bulk of so-called biblical history is entirely imaginary as is the edifice of Catholicism.

    • In reply to The Article:

      According to radiocarbon dating done in 1988, the cloth was only 728 years old at the time.

      Attention all Christians: In the year 1260, long hair and beards were all the rage, and it was customary to bury people with a cloth covering. The image on that thing is very likely a 13th century shoe salesman or something. Hang it in a museum somewhere, as an example of renaissance era burial procedures and move on already. Sheesh.

  2. Hold on a second here…. I’m no expert in nuclear physics but assuming the earthquake did emit enough neutron radiation to affect the proportion of Carbon12 and Carbon14 in the shroud… then wouldn’t that have increased the amount of Carbon14 in the shroud?…. That being the case, then shouldn’t one expect this to cause the carbon dating to make the shroud seem older rather than younger?…

    Carbon14 decomposes into more stable Carbon12… not the other way around right? Can anybody here bring some light on this? Is there a physicist in the house?

    • In reply to #2 by NearlyNakedApe:

      Hold on a second here…. I’m no expert in nuclear physics but assuming the earthquake did emit enough neutron radiation to affect the proportion of Carbon12 and Carbon14 in the shroud… then wouldn’t that have increased the amount of Carbon14 in the shroud?…. That being the case, then shouldn’t…

      According to the paper cited the reaction they postulate is N14 + n -> C14 + H1 which would increase the number of C14 nuclei and thus reduce the apparent carbon date. The ratio of C14 to C12 decreases as time progresses.

      Even so this is all very tenuous. We would have to suppose that the cloth was in the right place to get an unusual dose of neutrinos from an earthquake. There is a simple experiment to refute this hypothesis. Find something that is known to be from that region at that time and carbon date it. If it does not show any anomaly then the idea is on pretty shaky ground…

      • In reply to #5 by Stuart Coyle:

        There is a simple experiment to refute this hypothesis. Find something that is known to be from that region at that time and carbon date it. If it does not show any anomaly then the idea is on pretty shaky ground…

        So if a simple experiment can easily refute this hypothesis, shouldn’t those researchers “do their homework” before they write such an article? Do I smell a hidden agenda? Also, wouldn’t it take a really intense dose of neutron bombardment to turn enough Carbon12 into Carbon14 to make a dating difference of over 1200 years?

    • In reply to #2 by NearlyNakedApe:

      Hold on a second here…. I’m no expert in nuclear physics but assuming the earthquake did emit enough neutron radiation to affect the proportion of Carbon12 and Carbon14 in the shroud… then wouldn’t that have increased the amount of Carbon14 in the shroud?…. That being the case, then shouldn’t…

      Would enough neutron radiation to burn fabric also kill everyone around there from radiation poisoning?

  3. Another reason that the shroud cannot be the image of a real person is because the relative proportions of the limbs and body are wrong. For example, the legs are too long for the body, the arms are of slightly different lengths and you simply cannot get a real person into that exact position.

    • In reply to #3 by sminhinnick:

      Another reason that the shroud cannot be the image of a real person is because the relative proportions of the limbs and body are wrong. For example, the legs are too long for the body, the arms are of slightly different lengths and you simply cannot get a real person into that exact position.
      And I think if you place a cloth over your face , the face would appear much wider with an ear face on each side , assuming the cloth was close enough . Apologies I don’t know how to have different font to the poster

  4. At least the researchers are proposing a natural cause for the image, and not a supernatural one like the irradiation of divine light as the dead body of Jesus was raised from death to glorified life.

    • In reply to #4 by Cairsley:

      At least the researchers are proposing a natural cause for the image, and not a supernatural one like the irradiation of divine light as the dead body of Jesus was raised from death to glorified life.

      You know, this is the most ridiculous think in the story: trying to explain scientifically something that is considered divine by believers. Hilarious.

  5. Time for a Hitchslap:

    “Suppose that I grant the virgin birth and the resurrection (insert: and the burning of the image on the shroud of Turin). The religious still have all of their work ahead of them. These events, even if confirmed, would not prove that Jesus was the son of god. Nor would they prove the truth or morality of his teachings. Nor would they prove that there was an afterlife or a last judgment.”

    The Portable Atheist, 2007

  6. Now Carpinteri’s team, through mechanical and chemical experimentation, hypothesizes that high-frequency pressure waves generated in Earth’s crust during earthquakes are the source of such neutron emissions. This is based on their research into piezonuclear fission reactions, which are triggered when very brittle rock specimens are crushed under a press machine.

    So the next stop is to actually measure the neutron emission from an earthquake. Enough to fry a shroud. Not enough to give a detectable increase in the cancer rate of human populations in fault zones. Enough to ignore a 14th century fake. Enough to persuade the faithful that magic man is magic. Ok, no evidence required.

  7. I seen a documentary about this shroud being an early attempt at a photographic negative or something….and it was dated to the 1300′s or around then…they certainly had lenses back then…
    Religions use of so called holy relics are just plain creepy anyway and another fake attraction to extort money from gullible followers…..
    Who actually wants to see St. Liars shoulder blade or St. Faker’s dead body part anyway

  8. Firstly, they admit this Earthquake would have releases a million times too few neutrons to cause this effect (in their units, released vs. necessary is 10^10 vs. 10^16). Seriously, read the paper! Secondly, the accepted date for the Shroud coincides pretty much perfectly with when its existence was first claimed. If you genuinely think that for whatever reason this shroud is secretly older than it looks, you have to explain why, even though it wasn’t lost for centuries, no-one mentioned their ownership of it.

  9. I think there’s a lot in the proposition that we see what we want to see.

    I used to see all sorts of images depicted by the folds in my dressing gown on its hook on the bedroom door when I was a child.

    But I struggled to see the suggested image in this photo; is it on its side on the viewer’s right?

    I’ve looked again, and now I see it, but If I hadn’t been primed to do so I don’t think I would have done.

  10. It is at least slightly more plausible than that the cloth was imprinted with the image of a dead body by magic.

    Oh wait! No it isn’t.

    BTW chaps, it isn’t 1st April for over a month, you released your joke much too early

  11. In addition to all the comments here I’d just like to add…
    If the premise here is that an earthquake can release neutrons in 33 AD and “Cause” a mistake in the carbon dating, what about all the other earthquakes that this ancient object must have been exposed to? I don’t live in an earthquake prone area, but I’ve experienced two in my 59 years on this planet. Or does only one earthquake count? ;)

  12. …and the 1988 dating, that just happened to have put its creation within a century of the first documented mention of the shroud, was caused by some earthquake that just happened to have occurred in 33AD near Jerusalem. Sounds like creation science that starts with the answer you want and tries to prove it by moving backwards from there.

  13. Absolute clutching at straws.

    Even given that such an event could cause such an inprinting, there are several reasons to doubt this. I shall mention 2 as other commenters here have noted others.

    1. An 8.2 magnitude earthquake would’ve been noticed in the ancient world. Some Jewish chronicler, or Roman bureaucrat would’ve recorded it. No one however seems to have noticed what would’ve been a massive and devastating geological event. A magnitude 8 earthquake can have an effect greater than a 21-megaton explosion!!! Death tolls would’ve likely been in the 100,000s to 1,000,000s. It would’ve been felt not only in Jerusalem, but across Israel and into Egypt, Jordan and Syria. But no one noticed it. Not one historian. In addition we would be able to find existing geological evidence for a huge event of that sort. Instead: nothing.

    It seems to me this is a just a religious attempt to try to rescue the resurrection by fiddling the physics to match the resurrection account of the earthquake and the Temple curtain tearing. No doubt their next paper will explain how the it’s entirely feasible that the bodies of the saints rose from their graves and wandered about Jerusalem.

    1. The proportions of the ‘body’ on the shroud are wrong and in no way match what we know about what people looked like in that region at the time. Indeed – they look very much like a Western medieval icon.
    • In reply to #24 by MrClaw:

      Absolute clutching at straws.

      An 8.2 magnitude earthquake would’ve been noticed in the ancient world. Some Jewish chronicler, or Rom…

      Quite! An earthquake that size would have been noted for its destruction even if they thought it was a coded message from god.

  14. I have picked out some sections from an interesting article on it here: -

    http://www.answers.com/topic/turin-shroud

    An official report on October 13, 1988, revealed that the three laboratories in Oxford, Zürich, and Arizona had independently carbon dated the cloth fragments as medieval, and not from the time of Jesus Christ. There was close agreement on the possible dates, giving an estimated span of circa 1260-1390. For most skeptics, this established once and for all that the shroud was a medieval forgery.

    Die-hard believers in the authenticity of the shroud either questioned the accuracy of the scientific evidence or propounded fantastic theories to account for the dating of the cloth, e.g., that the image was formed by a burst of divine radiant energy that somehow altered the texture of the cloth.

    In a statement to the Avignon Pope Clement VII, he complained that the exhibition was not for devotion, but for monetary gain, and that the relic was a forgery, “a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say the back and the front, [the canons at Lirey] falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.” D’Arcis claimed that Henry of Poitiers, 30 years earlier, after “diligent inquiry and examination” had established that the shroud had been “cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist … that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought …” and that the first exhibition by Geoffrey’s father had been prohibited.

    Meanwhile, however, Geoffrey’s widow had married Aymon of Geneva, who had ecclesiastical influence with Pope Clement, and the prohibition was bypassed, much to the anger of d’Arcis, hence his complaint in 1389. Pope Clement resolved the matter by declaring that Geoffrey II could continue exhibiting the shroud provided that it was always stated that it was only “a figure or representation” of Christ’s cloth, and that d’Arcis must keep silence in the matter under pain of excommunication.

    In the Middle Ages some 40 different shrouds were claimed to be the one in which Christ was buried. At this time there also existed a variety of similar relics, including tears from Jesus, milk from the Virgin Mary, thorns from the crown of thorns worn by Jesus, and enough pieces of the cross to make a number of different such instruments of execution.

  15. The best story on holy relics is the grade 2 relic on Father Ted which Jack Hacket inserts into one of the bishops. Father Ted asks if it will still be considered a holy relic after it has been surgically recovered. LMAO!

  16. This article uses Matthew 27 as evidence for there having been an earthquake, despite no one else (not even the other three gospel writers) reporting this major event. In the very same sentence as Matthew reports the earthquake, he also reports that long dead people rose out of their graves and walked through the streets of Jerusalem — an event that seems even more amazing than the earthquake or Jesus rising from the dead. If you don’t except the part of the sentence that sounds like a standard zombie movie, then it seems the author has lost all credibility as a trustworthy source of historical reporting (especially if he is the only one mentioning the event.) So even before we get to the scientific question of Carbon dating, the case is blown.

    From Matthew 27 – American Standard Version
    “And behold, the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake; and the rocks were rent; and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many. Now the centurion, and they that were with him watching Jesus, when they saw the earthquake, and the things that were done, feared exceedingly, saying, Truly this was the Son of god.”

    • In reply to #29 by scottburdick:

      This article uses Matthew 27 as evidence for there having been an earthquake, despite no one else (not even the other three gospel writers) reporting this major event. In the very same sentence as Matthew reports the earthquake, he also reports that long dead people rose out of their graves and walk…

      There is something wrong with timing and dimensions here. If Matthews story is true (which seems very unlikely), the two earthquakes must have been minor ones. The one when Jesus died did not create any horror or panic among the people present at the crucifixion, even if some stones broke, some gravestones moved and a curtain in the Temple was ripped apart.. The other at resurrection time did not scare the two Marias away from the tomb, and it was the angel, not the earthquake that moved the stone away from the tomb. Not nearly a size 8.2 earthquake which would be required for the release of neutrons to make the impression on the linen shroud. When the first earthquake happened, Jesus had just died and was not wrapped in any linen, by the time of the second, he had already risen and taken off the shroud, the only item left in the tomb. So at the time of the earthquakes, Jesus was not wrapped up in the shroud, and no imprint could be made. So Jesus presumably walked around naked or else where would he find fresh clothes on an early morning after the Sabbath? The story of the zombies walking around clearly states that this happened at the time of resurrection, not at the time of the first earthquake when Jesus died. Only Matthew entertains us with this wild story which of course considerably lowers his credibility. Details on the actual earthquakes here: http://www.deadseaquake.info/

Leave a Reply