[Swordmaker]

Here is the article from the Skeptical Inquirer by Joe Nickell

---

Claims of Invalid “Shroud” Radiocarbon Date Cut from Whole Cloth
Joe Nickell


Longtime Shroud of Turin devotee Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist, now admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus. By tortuous logic and selective evidence, however, he uses the coloration to claim the “shroud” image was not the work of a medieval artist (Rogers 2004, 2005). Rogers follows many other shroud defenders in attempting to discredit the medieval date given by radiocarbon testing (Nickell 1998, 150–151).

In a paper published in Thermochimica Acta, Rogers (2005) claims that earlier carbon-14 dating tests—which proved the linen was produced between 1260 and 1390 (Damon et al. 1989)—were invalid because they were conducted on a sample taken from a medieval patch. “The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic,” Rogers told BBC News (“Turin” 2005).

In fact, the radiocarbon sample (a small piece cut from the “main body of the shroud” [Damon 1988, 612]) was destroyed by the testing. Rogers (2005) relied on two little threads allegedly left over from the sampling, [1] together with segments taken from an adjacent area in 1973. He cites pro-authenticity researchers who guessed that the carbon-14 sample came from a “rewoven area” of repair—“As unlikely as it seems,” Rogers admitted to one news source (Lorenzi 2005). Indeed, textile experts specifically made efforts to select a site for taking the radiocarbon sample that was away from patches and seams (Damon et al. 1989, 611–612).

Rogers compared the threads with some small samples from elsewhere on the Shroud, claiming to find differences between the two sets of threads that “prove” the radiocarbon sample “was not part of the original cloth” of the Turin shroud (as stated in his abstract [Rogers 2005, 189]).

The reported differences include the presence—allegedly only on the “radiocarbon sample”—of cotton fibers and a coating of madder root dye in a binding medium that his tests “suggest” is gum Arabic. He insists the sampled area was that of an interwoven medieval repair that was intentionally colored to match the “older, sepia-colored cloth” (Rogers 2005, 192, 193).

However, Rogers’ assertions to the contrary, both the cotton and the madder have been found elsewhere on the shroud. Both were specifically reported by famed microanalyst Walter McCrone (1996, 85) who was commissioned to examine samples taken by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). After McCrone discovered the image was rendered in tempera paint, STURP held him to a secrecy agreement, while statements were made to the press that no evidence of artistry was found. McCrone was then, he says, “drummed out” of the organization [Nickell 1998, 124–125; 2004, 193–194]. As evidence of its pro-authenticity bias, STURP’s leaders served on the executive committee of the Holy Shroud Guild.

Not only did McCrone find “occasional” cotton fibers on the Shroud, but the source of Rogers’ sample, Gilbert Raes, has since been challenged as to his claim, cited by Rogers (2005, 189), that “the cotton was an ancient Near Eastern variety.” In fact, others—including French textile expert Gabriel Vial and major pro-shroud author Ian Wilson (1998, 71, 97)—believe the cotton may be entirely incidental. They point out it could have come from the cotton gloves or clothing of the Turin’s cloth’s handlers or a similarly mundane source.

On the tape-lifted STURP samples (affixed to microscope slides), McCrone found a variety of substances (including mold spores and wax spatters). Major pigments were red ocher (in “body” areas) and vermilion (together with red ocher in the “blood” areas), contained in a collagen tempera binder. He also found the madder, [2] orpiment, azurite, and yellow ocher pigments, as well as paint fragments, including ultramarine and titanium white—together suggestive of the shroud’s origin in “an artist’s studio” (McCrone 1996, 85, 135)..

Astonishingly—and with serious implications to the spirit of peer review—Rogers omits any mention of McCrone’s findings from his report while insisting elsewhere, “let’s be honest about our science” (Rogers 2004).

Although Rogers is a research chemist, unlike McCrone he is not an internationally celebrated microanalyst with special expertise in examining questioned paintings. Working in his “home laboratory,” he did not, as far as his report informs, use a “blind” approach as McCrone did to mitigate against the subjectivity that has continually plagued the work of shroud advocates. Moreover, McCrone once referred to Rogers’ and his fellow STURP co-author’s “incompetence in light microscopy” and pointed out errors in the test procedures they relied on (McCrone 1996, 157, 158–171).

Rogers (2005) now also reports the presence of vanillin in the lignin of the radiocarbon-sample area, in contrast to its reported absence in other areas of the cloth. This is a dubious finding given his extremely limited samples. He attempts to date the shroud by the amount of the lignin decomposition but admits that that method can offer only an accuracy range of a whopping 1,700 years (contrasted with about 150 years by radiocarbon dating). He concedes that the decomposition could have been accelerated by the baking of the cloth in its reliquary that occurred during the fire of 1532, but thinks it unlikely the cloth is medieval.

However, apart from the fire damage, the cloth is remarkably well preserved for a reputed age of nearly 2000 years. Also, no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave (Nickell 1998, 35; Wilson 1998, 98–99, 188; Sox 1981). In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face.

Other evidence of medieval fakery includes the shroud’s lack of historical record prior to the mid-fourteenth century—when a bishop reported the artist’s confession—as well as serious anatomical problems, the lack of wraparound distortions, the resemblance of the figure to medieval depictions of Jesus, and suspiciously bright red and picturelike “blood” stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators. These facts argue against Rogers’ assertions that the shroud is neither a forgery nor a miracle—that “the blood is real blood” [3] and the image was produced by “a rotting body” (Rogers 2004).

Science has proved the Shroud of Turin a medieval fake, but defenders of authenticity turn the scientific method on its head by starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence—picking and choosing and reinterpreting as necessary. It is an approach I call “shroud science.”

Notes

Ian Wilson (1998, 187) reported that the trimmings “are no longer extant.”
Red lake colors like madder were specifically used by medieval artists to overpaint vermilion in depicting “blood” (Nickell 1998, 130).
Rogers (2004) does acknowledge that claims the blood is type AB “are nonsense.”


References


Damon, P.E., et al. 1989. Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin. Nature 337 (February): 611–615.

Lorenzi, Rossella. 2005. Turin shroud older than thought. News in Science, January 26.

McCrone, Walter. 1996. Judgment Day for the Turin Shroud. Chicago: Microscope Publications.

Nickell, Joe. 1998. Inquest on the Shroud of Turin: Latest Scientific Findings. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.

———. 2004. The Mystery Chronicles. Lexington, Ky.: The University Press of Kentucky.

Rogers, Raymond N. 2004. Shroud not hoax, not miracle. Letter to the editor, Skeptical Inquirer 28:4 (July/August), 69; with response by Joe Nickell.

———. 2005. Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin. Thermochimica Acta 425: 189–194.

Sox, H. David. 1981. Quoted in David F. Brown, Interview with H. David Sox, New Realities 4:1 (1981), 31.

Turin shroud “older than thought.” 2005. BBC News, January 27.

Wilson, Ian. 1998. The Blood and the Shroud. New York: The Free Press.

[shroudie]

Below is a draft of an article in the works that specifically addresses Nickell's article as seen in post #5. When finished it will be posted to my website, linked from Barrie's site (I talked with him last night), and released with a press release. I am awaiting some clarifications from Ray Rogers. He sent me one note last night and I have only a couple of remaining questions.

Dan

Draft follows:

In an article intended to be laudatory, “An Interview With Joe Nickel (sic),” Eric Krieg of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, describes Joe Nickell (from Nickell’s own words) as an "investigator" and formerly an “undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician, investigator and spokesperson.”*

“Joe impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator,” Kreig wrote. “Joe seems to have no significant credentials . . . Joe [Nickell] remarks that a scientist tends to approach an investigation from the narrow view of his own specialty - where as a ‘jack of all trades’ would come up with more avenues of investigation.”

Jack of all trades: yes! Joe Nickell, with his most recent article on Ray Rogers and the Shroud of Turin amply demonstrates that he is a facts dodger, a sideshow promoter and a spokesperson for a curiously single-minded point of view. Above all, he is a magician; skilled at diverting attention from what is really going on so that one sees only what he wants one to see. A couple of examples will serve:

Joe Nickell wrote: “Astonishingly—and with serious implications to the spirit of peer review—Rogers omits any mention of McCrone’s findings [of paint particles] from his report . . .” Rogers didn’t mention McCrone’s findings, or the Battle of Waterloo, or Mrs. O’Leary’s cow: for a single reason. McCrone’s findings have absolutely nothing to do with Rogers’ paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta. Nickell desperately wanted the reader to focus on McCrone. He brought up McCrone so let’s point out some things:

* McCrone’s findings were published in Microscope, a magazine published and edited by McCrone – hardly peer reviewed.

* Definitive tests including visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, thermography, pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser­microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing show no evidence for pigments or media that McCrone reported finding. The scientific work, in contrast to McCrone’s observations, is published in peer reviewed journals.

* Furthermore, it is now well understood that the images are chemical changes within a thin film of starch fractions and saccharides that coat some of the outermost fibers of the cloth; a film thinner than 1/100th the diameter of a human hair. That ain’t paint!

Elsewhere, Joe Nickell speaks of “suspiciously bright red and picturelike 'blood' stains which failed a battery of sophisticated tests by forensic serologists, among many other indicators.” Again, this topic is totally unrelated. This is a diversion, a slight of hand trick to deflect from Rogers’ findings. Which forensic serologists is Joe Nickell referring to? What sophisticated tests? What other indicators? He conveniently neglects to mention that others disagree, something an honest investigator would mention:

* Using ultraviolet-visible reflectance and fluorescence spectra, S. F. Pellicori analyzed the spectral properties of the Shroud's image color, the blood, and the non-image areas. These are quantitative measurements. They are based on reflectance and not a person's visual interpretation of indefinite splotches of different optical density. The spectra carry much important information, and they can not be ignored. This is documented in Applied Optics (1980). pp. 1913-1920].

* Alan Adler, an expert on porphyrins (the types of colored compounds seen in blood), chlorophyll, and many other natural products concluded that the blood is real. In collaboration with John Heller, the conclusion that the blood is real was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Applied Optics (also 1980). The heme was converted into its parent porphyrin, and this was confirmed with spectral analysis.

* Baima Bollone also found both the heme porphyrin ring of blood and the globulin in flakes of blood from Shroud samples, independently confirming the work of Adler and Heller.

* In addition, the x-ray-fluorescence spectra showed excess iron in blood areas, as expected for blood. Microchemical tests for proteins were positive in blood areas but not in any other parts of the Shroud.

* Chemical tests by E. J. Jumper, A. D. Adler, J. P. Jackson, S. F. Pellicori, J. H. Heller, and J. R. Druzik are documented in "A comprehensive examination of the various stains and images on the Shroud of Turin," American Chemical Society’s Advances in Chemistry, Archaeological Chemistry (1984)

* Other confirming material provided by J. H. Heller and A. D. Adler includes: "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin," Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal as well as an article by L. A. Schwalbe and R. N. Rogers, Analytica Chimica Acta (1982).

Nickell writes: "Rogers (2004) does acknowledge that claims the blood is type AB 'are nonsense'." There can be only one reason for stating this: to imply that Rogers is debunking the blood; else why mention it at all since it is totally unrelated to anything in Rogers' paper or Nickell's article. What Rogers actually wrote in a letter to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer was: "The blood is real blood, but the things you hear about typing are nonsense." [typing being AB typing]

Nickell sometimes calls himself a journalist. Such misappropriation of the quotes of others is not journalism. Nor is it good writing. A high school English student would get an F for such misrepresentation.

At one point, in his article, Joe Nickell wrote: "McCrone once referred to Rogers’ and his fellow STURP co-author’s 'incompetence in light microscopy” and pointed out errors in the test procedures they relied on . . . "

It is fair to say that many scientists have said similar things about McCrone. How should we judge who is right? Consider this:

In Biblical Archeology Review, McCrone wrote this statement: "The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution)."

Is there a microscopist, chemist, scientist of any discipline or a jack-of-all-trades who can explain how anyone can look through an optical microscope at tiny particles stuck to sticky sampling tapes and determine how much water was used to dissolve the gelatin (assuming that there is gelatin)? A high school chemistry student would get an F for making such a bogus claim.

Joe Nickell makes this whopping statement: "He [=Rogers] attempts to date the shroud by the amount of the lignin decomposition but admits that that method can offer only an accuracy range of a whopping 1,700 years (contrasted with about 150 years by radiocarbon dating).

One wonders if Joe Nickell even read the paper in Thermochimica Acta. What Rogers stated is that it might take 1300 to 3000 years for vanillin content in lignin to fully decompose depending on storage temperatures over the centuries. At the very least, the cloth is about twice as old as the carbon 14 dating suggested. What Rogers made explicitly clear was that if the cloth was produced at even the earliest date that the carbon 14 dating suggested, the lignin in the fibers should have retained about 37% of their vanillin content. There is none, or the amount is too small to be detected.

By the way, the accuracy for the carbon 14 testing was not 150 years. The range of dates were determined as the result of differences in the measurements of several observations of sub-samples of the single cutting. It is not a reflection of radiocarbon 14 accuracy.

Joe Nickell, the poor writer that he is, makes repeated, fallacious use of words like admits or acknowledges to misrepresent Rogers. He did so with the inappropriate characterization of the blood and he did so with the mistaken explanation of lignin decomposition. He did so in the first paragraph of the article as well. Joe Nickell started his article by stating that, "Ray Rogers, a retired research chemist, now admits there is the equivalent of a watercolor paint on the alleged burial cloth of Jesus."

He did not. He found dyestuff on threads from the carbon 14 sample area only. No such stuff is found on the Shroud proper. This along with other chemical differences shows that the sample was not representative of the cloth and was not, therefore, valid for carbon 14 dating. This writing tactic, known as yellow journalism, is a method of stretching the facts to sway opinion.

The facts that Rogers reported in a letter to the editors of Skeptical Inquirer read differently than Nickell's characterizations. Here is the full list from Rogers letter to Skeptical Inquirer magazine (as republished in Red Nova):

1) X-ray fluorescence, visible/UV spectra, and chemical analyses proved that the image is not a high-Z pigment.

2) The blood is real blood, but the things you hear about typing are nonsense.

3) The image was not produced by radiation. There are no defects in the cellulose crystals.

4) The image color is in a 200-500-nanometers-thick amorphous surface layer.

5) The image spectrum looks like a Maillard product; i.e., the products that form when you bring reducing saccharides (e.g., starch) into contact with the amine decomposition products of a rotting body. No miracles or painters are required.

6) The radiocarbon sample is dyed with a gum/dye/mordant system containing madder root dyes. The rest of the cloth is not. It was a medieval patch.

7) Lignin decomposition kinetics show that it would have taken between 1300 and 3000 years to reach the composition observed.

8) I [Rogers] found a medieval splice in the sampling area.

Joe Nickell may be a jack of some trades. Journalist and scientist are not part of the mix.


*Note:

Joe Nickell hold a Ph. D. in English Literature from the University of Kentucky.

According to their websites, Nickell is a Senior Research Fellow with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), a Senior Research Fellow with Center for Inquiry which includes the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, a staff member for the Council on Secular Humanism and a Fellow of the The Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health. All of these organizations are affiliated, have tax exempt status as educational institutions, and have websites owned by Barry Karr of the Center for Inquiry.

Nickell is a frequent writer for Skeptical Inquirer, a magazine published by Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).