Shroud of Turin New Data
The Shroud of Turin Date is now known.
Analysis of Strength and Infra Red tests now show a precise date for the Shroud of Turin.
The mystery surrounded a discrepancy between dates. Infra red showed an average of 250BC while
strength was higher than expected, at a date of 400AD.
The Discrepancy is resolved by accounting for contamination from volatile organic compounds in the
air (VOC) which migrate in and out of the Shroud over time. Voc contamination is what makes an old
towel smell different, even though it has not been used. It should still be clean. But airborne
organic compounds seep in (and out). And there is plenty of room. Even dry fibers can also hold as
much as 20% water!
After accounting for VOC contamination by sticky airborne solids, the 400AD strength date is moved
back by more than 92+ years because the VOC adds strength which must be subtracted.
This was achieved by modeling the sorbancy and strength of VOC. This made
it possible to now average
the two dates.
After averaging the Strength and IR (rot) date, the result was exactly what historians
would expect. It was the year before the crucifixion, at the end of the flax growing season.
So, how did the Strength and IR dates differ? The answer was simple. Wider fibers show wider
IR rot area and that indicated an older date. But a wider fiber meant Strength is also increased!
So the Ir Rot and Phusical strength dates had moved proportionally in opposite directions from a central date.
Thus averaging them together gives the original date. But this is not the whole story.
The Big Shock
A third test known as Raman scan measures two narrow bands of rot signature with a laser. But it
registers a proportion of reflected light --not a total amount from the area. The Raman scan
suggested an impressive Year 30! But it did not match the other tests. The difference resulted
from the shroud being exposed to creosote. Tomb kept control samples would not be exposed to
candles. So they were missing an important pH buffer that would slow rot. The other Infra red scans
were multi-spectrum and automatically accounted for pH by factoring various combinations of
But the addition of a simple pH buffer calculation moved the Raman date back by 1.444 years. And this
precisely matches the earlier corrected date! The two separate tests with separate correction
factors give the same Year, month, day and Hour. They matched within 1 minute and 20 seconds. July
21, Year 28, 8:57am. (geographic corrections factors below)
The astronomical precision comes from a process similar to the Hubble Telescope. Once the telescope
blur was understood, scientists could correct for it, filter it out and produce images of distant
stars with never before seen resolution.
But there is one more surprise. When the astronomical details of the earth's shifting orbit were
accounted for and the sun's lag at that time of year and the geographic distance from the tests to the actual shroud harvest, the time of day falls at exactly noon. 11:56am. (a difference of 4 minutes or about 17 Miles)
The Shroud date is now known.
Some would think this could be better understood. But to derive a better date will require much more
detailed understanding of the absorbance of the cloth, the pH of candle soot, the chemistry of
rot as well as higher accuracy data from the original tests. A model of greater complexity may not
It may not be possible to get a better date.
This Shocking result is so amazing that it faces a long debate ahead. At the very least, the
accuracy should guarantee the correct growing season. Calculations suggest an accuracy to within a
few days. But the strange perfection of their agreement is simply a mystery. When the Shroud was
first photographed to reveal a face, people didn't believe it. It took ten years to confirm and
decades more to become accepted. Today the Shroud is surrounded by a media game controlled by search
engines and popularity rankings. There is talk of peer review and many theories.
The calculations are not hard. But they must be done just right. An early version overlooked the
decimal year length and explored a small amount of extra buffer to match. But when the correct
decimal year length was used both dates were in perfect agreement.
I hope I have done an adequate job explaining the date here. It is ironic that scientific fact trades
on political credibility. These results are purely Scientific and, admittedly, miraculous.
We have seen many problems, cheated search engines and jammed emails, even TheUbie.com is missing on important keywords,
wikipedia, and twitter search. Who do you believe? Pirates who delete business or the inventor himself?
Readers may also be interested in the paper on the ages of the patriarchs from adam to Aberham. This paper is also there.
(about a half page from the top)
Notes: Special thanks should be given to Giulio Fanti and his team at Shroud Science who conducted the initial measurements which lead to this discovery. And to their life long dedication to the Science of the shroud.
Seperation of IR dates:
The original paper is quick to explain the separation of the IR Rot dates 300BC and 200BC.
This effect occurred because Creosote is higher pH than Carbonic Acid from CO2.
Thus it acts as a base to Carbonic acid. But the PH of creosote is significant acid also.
So the VOC added a base to one reaction and a proportional 1 for 1 reduction opportunity
on the other reaction. This appears to account for 50 Years (and subtracted) from the central IR date. This is an effect of 50/2013-28 or .025 which is roughly ( 1/10^pH of creosote)
divided by (1/10^pH of Carbonic acid) times the relative concentration of extra creosote (about .3455). It is extremely accurate.
There is one more strange coincidence. The Carbon13 Date measurements now read accurate for
the new date when voc contamination is factored. But there is good evidence that carbon samples had
been partly rewoven. Thus the VOC theory and the rewoven theory both eerily match the same date. It
could be either! This is likely solved by the reweaving being true and the carbon cleansing being
consistent across all samples. The alternative theory is that creosote or frankincense were not
removed in cleaning and reweaving was caused by some other effect, perhaps a bit of cotton on the spinning wheel. But it's likely that all the players were right! Even the 15th century nuns who's loving reweaving fooled the top Shroud scientists of the 1980s. I'm sure the nuns are laughing about that one.