Shroud of Turin

PaulK:My math shows that you're correct. Assuming that all of the bacterial contamination was from the very day that it was tested (the most helpful figure for an old-shroud hypothesis), we get:C14 halflife: ~5730 years
Shroud's date: ~1350 AD: ~650 yrs: 11.3%: 92% remains.
Jesus's death: ~35 AD: ~1965 yrs: 34.3%: 79% remains.For every gram of initial C14, there should be 0.79 grams of C14 left.
There are 0.92 grams of C14. That means that there is a surplus of 0.13
grams of C14.If all bacterial contamination was instant and new, for every gram of its
initial C14, it would provide 1 gram of C14. Thus, we have the equations
(where C is the percentage of contamination and 1-C is the percentage of
the shroud):C*1.00 + (1-C)*0.79 = 0.92
C + 0.79 - C*0.79 = 0.92
C*0.21 = 0.13
C = 62%Thus, the best contamination figure they could get was that the mass tested was 62% contamination and 38% shroud.(*note: this is an oversimplification; C14 rates in the atmosphere constantly fluctuate, and are calibrated via tree rings and ice cores. Also, nuclear testing since the 1950s has increased C14 levels in the atmosphere, so you could probably fall below 60% if all of the bacterial contamination was provided "in the lab" (actually, in all 3 labs that dated it); however, to build up a biofilm, realistically almost all of it would have to have been developed before the 1950s)

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

Thank you for showing that page so that it's obvious what a fraud that it is. They're not doing an enhancement; they're deliberately faking it. It's real up to image 3 on the left side, and up to image 2 on the right side. Then they selected out the area that they didn't want and raised the lightness value, leaving the hue and saturation unchanged. Notice how area of equivalent darkness is completely cut out of the image #3 on the left when creating #4, and the same between #2 and #3 on the right (except they're increasing instead of decreasing lightness on the right) .That's called "photoediting". You must ignore the results of any stage that is simply a selective edit. Consequently, all you have to go on is #3 on the left, and #2 on the right. And, even though those were custom-selected regions... do they look like coins? Not even remotely. They look like random noise patterns.

quote:

---

If the entire shroud was affected, I'd similarly imagine that radiocarbon dating could also possibly be affected, not only by the biofilm.

---

First off, stop and consider what you're saying: you're saying that a bare minimum of 60% of the shroud is composed of biofilm *that was developed very recently*. In fact, the biofilm *could not*, and I repeat, *could not* have been formed earlier than 1350, or the shroud's date would be made to look *older* than it dated to. Thus, this must all be a relatively recent biofilm. How and why?The "fire changing carbon dates" line indicates your lack of knowledge on the subject of carbon dating. What method do you propose to have the carbon 14/carbon 12 ratios altered (while still keeping an in-tact carbon 13 ratio)? Keep in mind that if your response is "soot", the fabric would have to be 80-90% (I'd have to run the math) soot, and 10-20% fiber, to give such an off carbon date. Do you view this as realistic?You need to deal with it - it's young.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."