Posted on 08/09/2008 1:52:58 AM PDT by Swordmaker
In particular, the image on the Shroud is basically caramelized fiber resulting from the chemical interaction of the linen in the Shroud with various gases coming from a newly-dead body.
You didn't read the peer-reviewed scientific journals, did you?
Cheers!
“The faker used a cloth rather than a brush to make the marks, and used gelatine to keep the rusty blood-like images permanently fixed and bright for selling in the booming market for religious relics.”
And the medieval forger was sharp enough to add hemoglobin and bilirubin to his ferric oxide. Clearly, he was anticipating the need to fool spectrometers.
Thanks for the ping!
Peer review doesn’t validate findings, just that scientific method was used properly.
Iron oxide and tempera were found on the cloth. Please note that the guy who claims that all three labs were wrong when they carbon 14 dated the shroud to the middle ages didn’t do a new carbon dating test but went to vanillin analysis. He was obviously looking for a method that would allow that (not prove) the shroud was first century.
Here are peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion.
"The sampling of the shroud took place in the Sacristy at Turin Cathedral on the morning of 21 April 1988. Among those present when the sample as cut from the shroud were Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero (Archbishop of Turin), Professor L. Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic and the Archbishop's scientific adviser), two textile experts (Professor F. Testore of Department of Materials Science, Turin Polytechnic and G. Vial of Musée des Tissues and Centre International d’Étude des Textiles Anciens in Lyon), Dr M. S. Tite of the British Museum, representatives of the three radiocarbon-dating laboratories (Professor P. E. Damon, Professor D. J. Donahue, Professor E. T. Hall, Dr R. E. M. Hedges and Professor W. Woelfli) and G. Riggi, who removed the sample from the shroud.
The shroud was separated from the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip. The samples were then taken to the adjacent Sala Capitolare where they were wrapped in aluminium foil and subsequently sealed inside numbered stainless-steel containers by the Archbishop of Turin and Dr Tite. Samples weighing 50 mg from two of the three controls were similarly packaged. The three containers containing the shroud (to be referred to as sample 1) and two control samples (samples 2 and 3) were then handed to representatives of each of the three laboratories together with a sample of the third control (sample 4), which was in the form of threads. All these operations, except for the wrapping of the samples in foil and their placing in containers, were fully documented by video film and photography.
The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls. (With unravelled or shredded samples, pretreatment cleaning would have been more difficult and wasteful.) Because the shroud had been exposed to a wide range of potential sources of contamination and because of the uniqueness of the samples available, it was decided to abandon blind-test procedures in the interests of effective sample pretreatment. But the three laboratories undertook not to compare results until after they had been transmitted to the British Museum. Also, at two laboratories (Oxford and Zurich), after combustion to gas, the samples were recoded so that the staff making the measurements did not know the identity of the samples." http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
The samples were taken from non-patch areas and exhibited the 3 to 1 herringbone consistant with the main body of the cloth.
It looks like another example of Liars for God in action.
"You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV)
They are both seconds. They are both binary statements separated by punctuation.
The first commandment already covers worshiping other gods
See that is the problem, In the original Hebrew/ Aramaic there is no punctuation.
Second, you are trying to draw a parallel between a man made document and a divinely inspired text.
Third and this is the big one (I noticed that you ignored it completely) God very clearly directed the construction of both the Ark of the Covenant and the Bronze serpent. The Bronze serpent was only ordered to be destroyed after the the Israelites began to worship it as a false god. The parallel you ignored was the construction of the Golden calf. and the direction of God to destroy that.
Dang those pesky facts
I alwas thought that this just ment that God was exempt from his own rules. Thou shall not kill (he does it all the time. Thou shall not commit adultery (Mary's pregnancy and all). Neighbor's wife etc.
If you are aware of an original copy of Deuteronomy in Hebrew or Aramaic, I would love to see it and you will be famous. Most of what we have dates to after 100 AD. Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic is known to have existed at the time of Moses. How you know of the punctuation of an unwritten language is a mystery.
A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face. Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.
Thanks for providing an article that absolutely proves Daniel Porter's thesis that popular press reporting on the Shroud ignores the real science in favor of nonsense. The article you cite is twaddle published in June of 2005. I hope you don't accept this as proving anything.
The methodology of the "scientist" who tried to recreate the Shroud of Turin shows he does not even have superficial understanding of the nature of the images on the Shroud. His claim that the cloth's obverse (". . . cloth turned inside out. . .") resulted in making images of Jesus show that he does not know that the image does not exist on both sides of the Shroud or that the image does not exist inside the threads of the Shroud as would occur if any medium soaked through from one side to the other. (Note: there is a very faint image of the face that shows on the back-side of the Shroud, but none of the body image shows on the obverse. Larger blood stains DO soak through as would be expected.) This scientist seems to think the image is thought to be made up of "blood-like marks"—or at least the poorly written article's author thinks that is the case, but no scholar or scientist who has studied the Shroud for at least the last 40 years claims that. While there are blood stains on the Shroud, the image is not made of the blood stains.
This is well established science, Soliton.
The image is NOT made of Ferrous or Ferric Oxide (another name for Red Ochre), Hematite (naturally occurring Ferrous Oxide), or any other type of Iron Oxide). We now KNOW what the image is made of—but I'll get to that later.
Let's re-examine the claim that the image is made with Ferrous Oxide. There is no iron Oxide in the Shroud's image in sufficient quantities to make a visible image. While there is blood on the Shroud which does contain some iron, the image itself is not made of "blood-like marks" that the "scientist" dabbed onto his attempt to duplicate the Shroud.
"The Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser-microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or [paint] media was found. . . . The reflectance spectra in the visible range for the image, blood, and hematite are shown in the figure. The image could not have been painted with hematite or any of the other known pigments. The spectrum of the image color does not show any specific features: it gradually changes through the spectrum. This proves that it is composed of many different light-absorbing chemical structures. It has the properties of a dehydrated carbohydrate."There are many more tests that have been done on the Shroud of Turin... if there was sufficient quantities of Ferrous Oxide "Dabbed" on the Shroud of Turin, sufficient to be visible to the naked eye, it would stand out like a neon light on those tests. It doesn't. So it is NOT there. Nor are there any other known pigments. Ferrous Oxide is a fairly standard artist's pigment.
What Iron that has been found on the Shroud IS associated with the blood stains. That Iron has been proved, again by scientists who are specialists in blood, porphoryns, hemoglobin, and other fields specific to the study of blood, using very sensitive instruments, to be part of degraded meth-hemoglobin, a derivative of hemoglobin that occurs as it ages. Other PEER REVIEWED scientific reports have shown that the blood is Primate blood that reacts to human antibody tests.
The image on the Shroud is composed of a very thin, superficial (less than 1/100th the thickness of a human hair—about 200 and 600 nanometers) coating on the fibers of the linen yarns used to weave the Shroud of a dehydrated carbohydrate. This coating is a residue left from washing the retting agents (starches and polysaccharides) used to soften the linen for spinning and weaving out of the finished cloth. In ancient times, a soap derived from the Soapwort plant (Saponaria officinalis). On the vast majority of the fibers of the Shroud, this very thin coating of polysaccharides is transparent and clear. In the image areas, the coating, only on the outwardly facing surfaces of the threads, has inexplicably turned to a caramel like substance that has a brownish color.
More recent studies (see the peer reviewed journal Melanoidin) show that the image is a caramel-like substance (a dehydrated carbohydrate), an unexplained, selective browning of an otherwise clear polysaccharide substance that coats the outermost fibers of the cloth. Two processes will cause such browning to occur – caramelization by heat and an amino/carbonyl reaction – but these do not explain other characteristics of the image.
Red Ochre, Ferrous Oxide, Hematite, gelatin, or any other man-made pigment had nothing to do with it.
The entire thrust of the article that started this thread is embodied in the article you posted—journalists ignoring the well proven SCIENCE to report on amateurish attempts to "duplicate" the Shroud—and I assure you that is what this French attempt is—as if finding a superficial similarity that does not meet all the criteria of actually reproducing a Shroud that meets all of the features of the original is proof of anything. It is especially egregious reporting when they do not even do due diligence by researching exactly what the SCIENCE has already proved and barrel ahead, taking the strawman points cited by the makers of the duplicate to claim they are the criteria needed to reproduce a cloth that matches the Shroud's features. Every one of these peer reviewed scientific results that I refer to were reported and available long before the French replicated Joe Nickells daubing technique in June of 2005. It is important to note that Science and Vie is not a peer reviewed journal—it is merely a magazine written for the public that has an apparently poor understanding of what good science requires.
So, did the "scientist" dabbing at a his damp linen on a Bas Relief prove the Shroud of Turin is a fake? Not by a long shot. He merely duplicated a technique demonstrated by Joe Nickell 20 years ago—one that has been thoroughly debunked by real scientists using definitive tests that have been peer reviewed and duplicated.
Peer review reviews the findings and if the report is that there is no Ferrous Oxide in the tests, it confirms there was no Ferrous oxide in the tests. It also allows the reviewer to DUPLICATE the work. All of this work has been duplicated. No one, using definitive tests, has found what your article claims must be present if the Shroud is a fake created by a medieval artist dabbing at a cloth on a bas-relief. You choose to believe that something is there that simply is not. Much of it has been done independently using different approaches. The results have been confirmed by these different approaches.
When you deny the facts established by science in favor of your preferred result, you move to the position of belief and faith. You want to believe the Shroud is a fake.
Iron oxide and tempera were found on the cloth. Please note that the guy who claims that all three labs were wrong when they carbon 14 dated the shroud to the middle ages didn’t do a new carbon dating test but went to vanillin analysis. He was obviously looking for a method that would allow that (not prove) the shroud was first century.
The only person claiming sufficient quantities of either Iron Oxide and tempera on the Shroud is Walter C. McCrone, who claimed he "saw" them in his optical microscope. He refused to allow his work to be peer reviewed, publishing it instead only in his own vanity magazine, The Microscope.
Since McCrone's claimed findings, research by over one hundred scientists, specialists in their fields, have falsified his claims. His work cannot be reproduced. Every other scientist who has looked at samples taken from the image areas on the shroud, including the same samples used by McCrone, in attempts to duplicate McCrone's findings, have failed to see what McCrone claimed he saw. McCrone claimed he could see copious quantities of Red Ocher (Iron Oxide derived from Hematite) in his optical microscope. However, other scientists using much more sensitive equipment including transmission and scanning electron Microscopes cannot find it except in incidental, environmental pollution level quantities that is randomly located over the Shroud and not statistically associated in any way with the image locations. Even Mark Anderson, a McCrone Research employee, fellow scientist, and McCrone's specialist in Molecular Optical Laser Examination, debunked McCrone's claims of seeing Red Ochre pigments, writing that what McCrone thought was Iron Oxide derived from Hematite, was actually an organic iron compound. This organic iron was later confirmed to be meth-hemoglobin, a derivative of the hemoglobin in blood.
Ray N. Rogers' work HAS been peer reviewed, unlike McCrone's debunked findings, and duplicated, as well as independently confirmed by other scientists using different approaches. The C14 tests are invalid.
Your ad hominem attack on Rogers ignores his reputation, his published work, and the fact that it can be duplicated.
Rogers has pleaded for proper C14 tests be done using the original protocols that were violated in the 1988 sampling. The custodians of the Shroud have refused.
An un-authorized C14 test was performed on a thread taken from the image area of the Shroud. The results, unpublished because of the lack of authorization from the Shroud's owners, were consistent with a first Century provenance, plus or minus 50 years.
By the way, the approach to dating by vanillin levels has been confirmed by other scientists working with other plant derived materials of known provenance and ages. Other chemists have tested the main body shroud material for vanillin and found that Rogers' findings are accurate as to the lack of vanillin in the threads.
Harry Gove, the inventor of the C14 testing technique used in the 1988 tests on the Shroud has agreed that the samples were compromised and included materials of a different date than the main body intended to be tested, thereby invalidating the tests.
The science in overwhelming against the idea that the Shroud is a painting, daubing, or photograph of any kind.
Just how much good science does it take to over come one dishonest or deluded microscopist who changed his claims and story over the years?
We'll just stick with the facts
You are aware that the Tanach/ Tanack is written in Hebrew /Aramaic?
So what? Your claim that it was a non-patch areas has been proved wrong.
The protocols of the samples to be taken from the Shroud required EIGHT SAMPLES from EIGHT different locations on the Shroud including samples that had image and samples that had no image. Your "peer reviewed facts that contradict that assertion" show that the protocol was VIOLATED. Instead of EIGHT SAMPLES from different areas of the Shroud, only ONE SAMPLE was taken and then divided among THREE labs instead of the SIX originally specified in the agreed protocols. That one, single sample was taken from an area that had been EXCLUDED from the protocols because of previous evidence that it was unsuitable. The agreed protocols were discarded at literally the last hour by Fr. Rigge, the person who actually cut the sample, because he, a non-scientist, decided the agreed sampling protocol would cause too much damage to the Shroud.
What your peer reviewed article did document was the failure of the sampling protocols.
Who was present is irrelevant, except that one of them made a big mistake. The three-in-one Herringbone weave is irrelevant and not proof of anything. Mrs. Swordmaker has a Linen table cloth that is three-in-one Herringbone weave. If I were to cut a tea stained spot out of her table cloth (not something I could do and survive 'til morning—and no, there are no tea stains in her tablecloth) and laid it next to a sample of the Shroud, it is likely that they would be extremely similar. Having such a weave at the beginning of a journey to a test lab and having such a weave at the end of the journey is not proof that the sample is the same at each end. Ergo, just the fact that the weave is the same does not prove WHAT that weave is made of or when. Mere observation that the samples have herringbone weaves is not sufficient scientific examination. What is relevant is the fact is that the protocols were violated, the sample area poorly considered, and therefore the samples were invalid. Garbage in, Garbage out.
The C14 labs were innocent of the failure of science in this. They tested accurately what they were sent—samples that were mixed older and newer material.
After the publication of your "peer reviewed" article in Nature 337 published in February, 1989, has been superseded by further research that shows the samples were not homogenous nor were they exemplar of the thing intended to be tested. The tested samples were a melange of older, original shroud linen and newer linen that had been dyed to match the aged color of the original and then skillfully rewoven into the original cloth, DUPLICATING the original three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud. (A skillful repairer would have done a poor job had they merely sewn on a one-over-one patch made of red cotton, don't you think?).
Peer reviewed and duplicated work in 2004 and 2005 has demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the samples tested in 1988 were invalid. Photomicrographs of the remaining sub-sample clearly show the splicing of threads of mis-matched linen by careful end-to-end interweaving of the fibers making up the individual threads. On the main body of the Shroud, threads that broke or ran out while weaving were simply spliced by laying two threads side-by-side and weaving this double woof or warp thread for a distance sufficient to lock the thread. No threads have been observed that were spliced by joining end-to-end as were those found in the C14 samples. The linen threads closer to the edge of the cloth are contaminated with cotton, dyed with a madder root dye, retted with an alum (2% aluminum!) based mordant, and are slightly smaller on average than threads taken from other areas of the Shroud, and contain a significant remnant of vanillin in the cellular structure. These threads are distinctly different from threads taken from the main body of the shroud which contain no cotton, were not dyed, have no madder root substances on them, show absolutely no aluminum, are statistically larger than newer threads, and show absolutely no vanillin remnant. Therefor, the samples are made of two different sources of linen... and are therefor not exemplar of the Shroud.
In the face of this evidence, anyone who still thinks the C14 tests done in 1988 are still valid is clinging to an unreasonable doubt.
Lots of talk, no links.
How do you explain peer reviewed articles that have opposite conclusions?
I provided a link that says it wasn't. You provide a link that has more than a claim. Why hasn't another carbon 14 test been done by others on the "correct" piece of cloth?
If they were they were written after Moses was lomg gone.
“The Early Aramaic or Proto-Hebrew alphabet was developed sometime during the late 10th or early 9th century BC and replaced Assyrian cuneiform as the main writing system of the Assyrian empire. This alphabet is thought to be the ancestor of a number of Semitic alphabets as well as the Kharosthi alphabet. At the end of the 6th century BC the Early Aramaic alphabet was replaced by the Hebrew square script which is also known as the Aramaic alphabet.?
http://www.omniglot.com/writing/aramaic.htm
Or maybe I forgot that I had posted "So what? Your claim that it was a non-patch areas has been proved wrong."
I am getting older. And more forgetful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.