Posted on 08/09/2008 1:52:58 AM PDT by Swordmaker
A few weeks before he died in 1963, Washington Post publisher Philip Leslie Graham described journalism as the "first rough draft of history.” Here is what he said:
So let us today drudge on about our inescapably impossible task of providing every week a first rough draft of history that will never really be completed about a world we can never really understand.
It is a wonderful quote. Journalists love it for it justifiably elevates the significance of what they do. But there is an admonition in the last dozen words that should not be overlooked. All of us can think of many instances when the first draft of history was wrong; from world events to science. It is a problem when journalists, by turning to dusty archives or online repositories, repeat an old story without taking the trouble to look for new information. It was, for instance, the press that repeatedly called the speed of sound a barrier (as it pertained to airplane flight) while scientists were proving otherwise in scholarly, peer reviewed scientific journals. It is still called the sound barrier.
When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, journalists often fall into the first-draft trap. Some recent examples – that have become something of urban legends – will serve to illustrate this:
In fairness, the Associated Press, BBC, The New York Times and many other news outlets have reported on studies appearing in peer reviewed journals of science that challenge the carbon dating and the paint claim. The journals include:
Applied Optics
Archaeological Chemistry; Advances in Chemistry
Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analyses
Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology
Journal of Optics: Pure and Applied Optics
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Melanoidins
Thermochimica Acta
Blake’s article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution was not about the shroud but the Simcha Jacobovici and James Cameron documentary on the Talpiot tomb and the claim that it is the tomb of Jesus. The headline read: “Critics say some archaeological finds, as in 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus,' bypass scholarly scrutiny and lose scientific credibility.”
To support this line of thinking Blake cited Jodi Magness, a well known and highly regarded University of North Carolina professor of Judaism. Blake wrote:
Magness, who doesn't believe "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" documents a credible find, said most archaeologists would normally make such an announcement through scholarly channels. They would present a paper at a scholarly meeting or submit an article to a scholarly journal subject to peer review. The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example, have been scrutinized by scholars for at least 50 years.
So why did Blake mention the shroud? Was it to illustrate the problem of “bypass[ing] scholarly scrutiny?” If so, he blundered. Updated, peer reviewed science tells a completely different story, as we will see. Blake completely ignored the ongoing scrutiny of the shroud by scholars. Yes, ongoing. Yes, scholars – not a statistician here and a researcher there as is the case in Cameron’s documentary. The number is well over a hundred. Blake ignored the many scholarly meetings at which scores of scientific papers have been presented.
It would be easier to argue the possible authenticity of the shroud in a court of law where evidence is allowed than in the media. Better yet is the court of science: peer review. The1988 carbon dating, as we will see, is not the final draft of history.
Randi Kaye might be interested to learn that not a single peer reviewed scientific study supports her claim. In fact, several peer reviewed forensic studies clearly establish that the bloodstains are of real blood and that there is no paint on the shroud. What were CNN’s sources for this data? If not old first drafts of history, what? We will explore that.
There is a common misconception among some journalist that the issue of authenticity is somehow between religion and science. This is old news and it is wrong. Consider this on-air statement by Kiran Chetry, on CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360° broadcast:
Well, you love mysteries. We have another one, another unsolved mystery of the Christian faith: a piece of cloth that some believe is sacred, others consider a scam. It's the Shroud of Turin -- what science has found, and why those findings have not convinced true believers. (February 26, 2007)
Look at the list of scientific journals. Read the articles (listed in an appendix to this letter). There is not a single religious assumption. No peer reviewed scientific journal would allow one. It is completely contrary to the philosophy of science and the rigors of the scientific method. Controversy surrounding the possible authenticity of the shroud, as we will see, is a matter for real science, objective history and archeology.
That does not mean that religion is not a powerful consideration. For many people the shroud is a cherished relic, even a reminder of Jesus’ ordeal. But to pin one’s hopes or belief in his resurrection on it is probably unwise and simplistic.
Philip Ball, a journalist and a scientist, who for many years was the physical science editor of Nature, wrote a commentary in Nature’s online edition following the publication in Thermochimica Acta of a paper by Raymond Rogers with two proofs showing that the carbon dating samples used were invalid and that the cloth is definitely many centuries older than the carbon dating results. Rogers was a highly regarded chemist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He had been honored as a Fellow of this prestigious UCLA laboratory. In his home state of New Mexico, he was a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. For several years he served on the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. He had published over fifty peer reviewed scientific papers in science journals. It should also be noted, as Ball made clear, that Rogers had not set out to prove that radiocarbon dating was wrong. He was actually trying to disprove a speculative claim that the sample used in the carbon dating was from a mended area of the shroud. If true it would have invalidated the carbon date. Rogers thought the idea was crazy, the idea of a “lunatic fringe.” He had complete respect for the technology and the quality of work done by the labs.
Ball acknowledged that Rogers was a respectable scientist; a sentiment that was echoed by Lloyd A. Currie writing in the Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (U.S. Department of Commerce). Currie, an NIST Fellow Emeritus, is a highly regarded specialist in the field of radiocarbon dating.
By the time Currie wrote his paper, he knew that Rogers, along with Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan working with Rogers, were convinced that there was something to the “lunatic fringe” claim. Currie found the possibility credible. Currie was critical of the sampling protocol used in 1988. It was not adequate to prevent just the sort of error that Rogers now believed occurred. Rogers, at the time of Currie’s paper, still had to undergo the months-long process of anonymous peer review.
It was when that peer review was finished that Ball wrote:
The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it. . . And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artifact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made. It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known pigments.
Notice the last two sentences? Ball is familiar with the peer reviewed scientific evidence. In fact, a thorough reading of the entire peer reviewed literature reveals something interesting: Not a single image-forming hypothesis, so far offered by anyone—including natural phenomena, artistic methods or unsubstantiatable miraculous events—is sufficient to be called theory by the scientific definition of the word. According to the National Academy of Sciences, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."
Ball is right; nobody knows how the image was formed.
On the same Anderson Cooper show Chetry also said: “And, so, the debate over the Shroud of Turin, like so many others, continues, in spite of what science seems to say.” What science is she referring to? She might as well have reported that airplanes cannot fly faster than sound.
Delia Gallagher, CNN’s faith and values correspondent then added: “It has been studied many times. And there seems to be a kind of general academic consensus that it's not from the time of Jesus.”
Oh? This type of statement reminds me of when the maverick retired Episcopal bishop, John Shelby Spong, suggested that the general consensus of New Testament scholars is that Jesus wasn’t buried. Gallagher is certainly not referring to the scientists “who studied [the shroud] many times;” the scientists who actually studied physical material from the shroud, the scientists who published papers in peer reviewed journals, or the scientists who have carefully studied the scientific literature?
Gallagher may be right on a global scale. But the comment is misleading. Perhaps if someone actually surveyed academics he or she might get a consensus. If asked what the academics know about the shroud and how they know it, a clarifying picture might emerge. It would probably be this: most academics know little or nothing about the shroud except what they hear or read in the media. But, I suspect, if someone surveyed those who have read the literature and understand it, he or she would get a very different picture from well over a hundred scientists, historians and archeologists who continue to study the shroud.
Personally, in considering the aggregation of scientific and historical evidence, I think that the shroud is the actual burial shroud of a Roman-style, circa 1st century crucifixion victim. It is by logical inference that I come to believe it is the actual burial shroud of Jesus. This is as close as I get to religious belief. That may well be the consensus among scholars engaged in shroud research.
What do I mean by inference? Imagine a river without a bridge. I am on one side of the river. Imagine that earlier I saw a man on the other side of the river and now he is on my side of the river. How did he get across? If earlier, I also saw a boat on the other side of the river and now I see it on my side of the river, I might infer that he used the boat. Any reasonable person might think the same. Yet we know this is not proof. If then, I notice that the man is in the process of securing the boat to the river bank with a rope, the inference becomes much stronger. But it takes something more before we can say we have proof he used the boat.
I think there is adequate historical evidence that Jesus was crucified, buried in a late-second-temple period tomb in the environs of Jerusalem, and that his followers discovered the tomb empty soon thereafter (why is not important here). Knowing that a burial shroud does not survive a tomb—human decomposition products will ravage the cloth within days—and recognizing that for the cloth to have been saved it must have been physically separated from the body at some point in time (again, why is not important here) and taken from an open tomb, I infer that it is Jesus’ burial shroud.
That is not proof, of course. What we know about the shroud permits belief in its authenticity but does not compel it. Nor does it compel us to draw religious conclusions.
Barrie Schwortz, one of the most prominent and objective shroud researchers of the last three decades, serves as a useful example. He once wrote:
Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified. That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype. The only reason I am still involved with the Shroud of Turin is because knowing the unbiased facts has convinced me of its authenticity. And I believe only a handful of people have really ever had access to all the unbiased facts. Most of the public has had to depend on the media, who always seem to sensationalize the story or reduce the facts to two minute sound bites from so-called experts who have ‘solved the mystery.’
It is perhaps only fair to the reader of this letter to know what I believe, religiously. I am a Christian. Specifically, I am a theologically liberal Episcopalian. I do believe in the resurrection. I find no need for nuanced or widely different redefinitions of “resurrection” that have evolved to fit modern biblical revisionism or the suppositions of our scientific age. It is not for me just a metaphor for God’s love or just a spiritual reality devoid of physicality. (I have no argument, however, with those who hold such views. I have held such views at times in my adult life). I don’t need scientists to tell me bodily resurrection is impossible. I agree. Were it not impossible it would not be extraordinary. I just don’t think God is necessarily bound to the laws of nature. While I rely in part on scripture, in part on historical arguments and in part on apologetics, I recognize gaps in what I can know and potential fallacies in my reasoning. So in the end, my belief requires a leap of faith.
Such belief does not define what else I believe. I am not, for instance, a fundamentalist. Such belief does not make me liberal or conservative, evangelical or orthodox, enlightened or not, smart of stupid. In no way does it constrain intellectual freedom. Nor does it diminish my belief in science or objective history. For instance, I fully accept evolution of the human species as true. Granted, we call evolution a theory. By that we mean that it is not completely proven. Indeed there are some missing data and processes that have not yet been explained. But the evidence in favor of evolution, including therecent Tiktaalik roseae discovery, is overwhelming. I am quite certain that it is true. There is no leap of faith over a chasm of unknowing and potential fallacies as there is with my religious belief. It is a bridge called inference over a chasm of incomplete information.
The shroud has nothing to do with my faith. My faith has nothing to do with the shroud. It is a happy coincidence. As I see it, the case for the shroud’s authenticity is similar to the case for evolution. Leaps of faith are fine. But rational inference built upon good, peer reviewed scientific data is required if we are to adhere to the principles of science and objective history.
Gallagher’s Consensus
Who might we find in Gallagher’s consensus who has voiced an informed opinion that is founded on more than what is reported in the media? I can think of some possible examples, but not many (I am open to being proven wrong). John Dominic Crossan, Walter McCrone and Joe Nickell come to mind.
1) John Dominic Crossan: He brings to the table immense qualifications in 1st century history, biblical archeology and New Testament scholarship. Crossan is Professor Emeritus of Religious Studies at DePaul University in Chicago. He has published over twenty scholarly books on the historical Jesus. He was the cofounder of the Jesus Seminar. He is quite famous for his argument—quite brilliantly argued—that Jesus was not buried in a tomb but left on his cross as carrion for birds and wild dogs or perhaps thrown into a charnel pit. It is perhaps unfortunate that he is so well known for this theory; for it overshadows much of his other excellent work.
We can be confident that he was well informed and knew something about the real forensic science pertaining to the cloth, its image and the bloodstains. In 2002, three years before the carbon dating was proven wrong, he wrote:
My best understanding is that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval relic-forgery. I wonder whether it was done from a crucified dead body or from a crucified living body. That is the rather horrible question once you accept it as a forgery.
Was he simply defending his Jesus-was-not-buried position? Those words don’t reflect that.
2) Walter McCrone: He was a world renowned microscopist. In 1978, he claimed that he found paint on microscope slides of particles collected from the surface of the shroud. Thus he concluded that the shroud images and the bloodstains were painted. But McCrone was only one of many scientists who actually studied samples from the shroud’s surface. And he was the only one to make such a claim. Mark Anderson, who worked for McCrone, did not agree with him (a little known fact). Anderson used laser-microprobe Raman spectrometry to demonstrate that what McCrone thought was hematite was in fact an organic compound.
Countless other studies presented at scholarly conferences or published in peer reviewed scientific journals show that there is no paint on the cloth. At least there is none in the image areas or in the bloodstains. Rogers summarized what is really a consensus among scholars who have studied 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.
More recent studies (see the peer reviewed journal Melanoidins) 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.
Incidentally, none of McCrone’s work was peer reviewed. He did publish his conclusions in The Microscope, published by the McCrone Research Institute and edited at the time by him. Numerous studies since – and they all contradict Kaye’s claim – have been peer reviewed or presented at scholarly conferences.
3) Joe Nickell: He is a columnist for Skeptical Inquirer. He is consistently the most vocal scholar arguing against the shroud’s authenticity. It may come as a surprise to any journalists, who frequently call upon Nickell as a scientific spokesman on the shroud, to learn that he is not a scientist and has expressed some rather strange views about scientific inquiry.
In an article entitled, “An Interview with Joe Nickell,” Eric Krieg of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, describes Nickell (using Nickell's own words) as an “investigator” and formerly an “undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician and spokesperson.”
“Joe impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator,” Kreig continued. “Joe seems to have no significant credentials . . . Joe 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.”
Nickell recently stated on CNN: “Clearly, the blood on the cloth is -- is not authentic. Old blood would be dark and blackened with age.” (February 26, 2007)
Is that true? Old blood usually does turn black. Various factors, however, can prevent this from happening. A chemist familiar with blood chemistry knows this. So does a forensic pathologist. But any scientist knows better than to make such a sweeping generalization.
A hemolytic agent on the cloth would prevent blackening. There is just such a material on the shroud, a superficial polysaccharide coating on the outermost fibers that varies in thickness in between 200 and 600 nanometers. The coating, the same coating that holds the images, appears to be a residue of raw starch and natural soap made from Saponaria officinalis (commonly known as Soapwort and Sweet William). Blood has been tested on linen with just such a super thin coating. It does not turn black. Blood on the shroud should not turn black.
Serum bilirubin, a bile pigment produced in significant quantities when a human body is under severe traumatic stress, also prevents the blackening of blood. Bilirubin is bright yellow or orange and stays that way. Bilirubin is present in the stains on the cloth. It is hard to imagine that this bodily excreted material would be found in the inorganic paints McCrone claimed he saw.
Randi Kaye’s comment that “Forensics in the past 40 years didn't show blood, instead, something similar to paint” was appended to Nickell’s words above. He was wrong and she was wrong. Every single study of the bloodstains since McCrone’s infamous claim that he found paint—many of them peer reviewed and published in scientific journals—has concluded that the bloodstains are from real blood and not paint.
Alan Adler, a professor of chemistry at Western Connecticut State University and an expert on porphyrins, and John Heller, Professor of Life Sciences at the New England Institute, published their studies in the peer reviewed scientific journal, Applied Optics and the Canadian Forensic Society Science Journal. They showed spectral analysis that confirmed that the heme was converted into its parent porphyrin. They identified haemoglobin in acid methemoglobin form due to age related denaturation. They established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. Enzyme tests were also used to breakup protein in cells. That is not “something similar to paint.”
Pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone, working independently on other samples taken from the shroud confirmed the existence of blood. Immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens clearly demonstrated the presence of real primate (likely human) blood. That is not “something similar to paint.”
During the same CNN broadcast, Nickell stated, in reference to the carbon dating, “The three laboratories were in such close agreement, it was almost like three arrows hitting a bull’s-eye.” This statement is scientifically and logically preposterous. Given that the three laboratories used pieces of a single sample and used the same procedures, it would be surprising if they did not produce similar results. And if the sample was tainted—as it was—we should expect similar incorrect conclusions.
But actually, the statement is not even true. The laboratories did multiple tests on sub-samples. The radiocarbon lab at the University of Arizona conducted eight tests. But there was an unacceptably wide variance in the computed dates. And so the team in Arizona combined results to produce four “results,” thus eliminating the more outlying dates (reportedly they did so at the request of the British Museum, which was overseeing the tests). Even then the results failed to meet minimum chi-squared statistical standards of acceptability. What this means is that the divided samples used in multiple tests contained different levels of the C14 isotope. Clearly the sample taken from the shroud was non-homogeneous. Moreover, statistical analysis shows a significant relationship between the measured age of various sub-samples and their distance from the edge of the cloth. This is consistent with the findings that the cloth was mended using a reweaving technique.
Scientist after scientist have challenged Nickell. Yet journalist after journalist quote him, seemingly without ever checking facts.
The following letter from Raymond Rogers to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer magazine can be easily found by anyone with access to the internet. It is important not only because it challenges Nickell on matters of science but it also challenges Chetry’s “true believer” claim. It is quoted in full below:
Dear Editor:Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106- 113]. My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception.
I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?
Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he nearly ruined them for additional chemical tests.
Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.
Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many icroanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.
Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.
Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA
The Historical Perspective
The historical evidence should not be ignored. It is meaningful. Ancient and medieval history is sometimes problematic because of gaps. Documents are often sketchy, prone to chronological mistakes and exaggerated. (In my opinion, that applies to the New Testament as well). Daniel C. Scavone, professor emeritus of history at the University of Southern Indiana, has compiled an impressive case for the shroud’s provenance in the sixth century and possibly the first century. He cites numerous ancient documents that in varying degrees describe the shroud and trace its journey
It is the task of historians to bridge gaps and interpret evidence as objectively as possible. There will always be debates about particulars; for instance: was the shroud part of Jean de Vergy’s dowry?
There is little journalistic merit or academic merit to a statement like this by Nickell (he has also described himself as a journalist and an academic):
The shroud just shows up, under really questionable circumstances, in -- in the middle of the 14th century, with no history prior to that, shows up in the hands of a soldier of fortune, who couldn't say how he acquired it. (February 26, 2007)
A Final Thought
Towards the end of the CNN segment on the Shroud of Turin, Chetry said to Gallagher:
The argument that the gentleman made in the piece is that they accidentally -- or they –- not accidentally, but they snipped a piece that ended up being a reconstructed part of the shroud. . . . Do we buy that?
Buy what?
That John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers’ findings. Brown worked independently and with different methods, including a Scanning Electron Microscope. He wrote:
This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan’s attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.
Buy what?
Had the shroud had been correctly carbon dated, the cloth should produce measurable amounts of vanillin. Found in medieval linen, but not in much older cloth, vanillin diminishes and disappears with time. Rogers, who initially accepted the carbon dating, discovered that there was no detectable vanillin in the flax fibers of the main part of the shroud just as there is no vanillin in the linen wrapping from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There was, however, vanillin in the corner from which the carbon 14 samples were taken. He demonstrated—his methods and conclusions withstood the rigors of peer review—that the main part of the shroud and the carbon dating sample had a different age. Had the cloth of the shroud been manufactured in 1260, the oldest date suggested by carbon dating, it should have retained about 37% of its vanillin.
Gallagher didn’t answer Chetry’s question. Why? Had she read the stories from major news sources? Gallagher is a talented, superbly credentialed journalist who has done some excellent reporting in the past. She had been a contributing editor for Inside the Vatican and we might imagine that she read the article about the carbon dating in that magazine.
Ultraviolet and x-ray photographs taken before the carbon dating sample was cut indicated that there were chemical differences between the sample area and surrounding areas of the cloth. Moreover, Adler had found a significant quantity of aluminum in yarn segments from the general area of the sample. It is not found on other samples from elsewhere on the shroud. Alum, an aluminum compound, the common mordant used with Madder root dye, was certainly a possible explanation. Many people wondered if the labs or church authorities had considered this red flags evidence or were even aware of it when they cut the sample. Inside the Vatican asked Rogers this question.
Rogers was in a difficult position. He had accepted the carbon dating. Paul Damon, one of the primary scientists in the 1988 carbon dating, was his friend. Nonetheless, Rogers was frank. Inside the Vatican wrote:
Asked whether he thought the authorities at Turin had been aware of such evidence as the 1978 photographs indicating that the corner of the Shroud from which they took the sample was unlike the rest of the cloth, Rogers responded that “it doesn't matter if they ignored it or were unaware of it. Part of science is to assemble all the pertinent data. They didn't even try.”
Part of journalism, also, is to assemble all the pertinent data; not just the first drafts of history. If you must draw a conclusion and report it, do so with the pertinent data: the scientific and historical evidence. And if you must figure out if the shroud is relevant to what you or others may believe, do so, do not presume so.
It should be obvious that there is an opportunity for some hard hitting, objective, fact-based, investigative reporting about the shroud. It should be welcomed by proponents of authenticity and skeptics alike. Interview real scientists and historians. (A note of caution is in order: on any subject where religion is involved there is a lunatic fringe. It will be encountered, so never settle too much on one or two researchers, but many). Read the literature, which is not easy because it is highly technical and runs to hundreds of pages. Update the first drafts of history.
Explain the controversy; don’t create it. The first draft of history—the 1988 carbon dating and McCrone’s findings in 1978—does not serve readers and viewers well when it is presented as gospel truth.
Before finalizing this letter, I sent a draft to over one hundred people who are well informed about the shroud. Most are academics. Most are scientists. Most are members of the international Shroud Science Group, an organization that will be hosting a very much secular, scholarly conference on the shroud at Ohio State University in August of 2008.
Thanks to many who responded, I was able make some technical corrections. And, yes, I have a consensus.
A good place for a journalist to start is the fully cited List of Facts produced by the Shroud Science Group. This may be found at http://www.shroudstory.com.
Sincerely,
Daniel R. Porter
http://www.shroudstory.com
Shroud Related Peer Reviewed Papers in Science Journals – Newest to Oldest
Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology – Lloyd Currie, NIST, Washington D. C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)
Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)
Melanoidins - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. “The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.” s vol.4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, (2003, pp.106- 113)
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.” 46: 142-154 (2002)
Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analyses - Adler, Alan D. Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin. ACS Symposium Series No. 625. Mary Virginia Orna, editor. 1996 by American Chemical Society, pp.223-228
Interdisciplinary Science Reviews - Mills, Allan. Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin. , December 1995, 20(4):319-327
Archaeological Chemistry IV; Advances in Chemistry - Dinegar, Robert H. and Schwalbe, Larry A. "Isotope Measurements and Provenance Studies of the Shroud of Turin." Series 220, 1989; Ralph O. Allen, ed.; Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 409-417;
Nature - P. E. Damon, et al (Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989)
Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal - Heller, JH and AD Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin." Volume 14 (1981), pp.81-103
Applied Optics - Jackson, J., Jumper, E., and Ercoline W. "Correlation of Image Intensity of the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape." , 15 July 1984,23:2244-2270; Jumper, Eric J.;
Archaeological Chemistry III; Advances in Chemistry - Adler, Alan D.; Jackson, John P.; Pellicori, Samuel F.; Heller, John H.; and Druzik, James R. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin." Series, #205; Joseph B. Lambert, ed; Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 447-476.
My friend, aren't we all? You are now on my good guy list.
Thanks.
I could relate to you my unfortunate experience at the Alltel store last year.
It was my first realization that my memory isn’t what it once was. My wife loves to remind me about it when things go missing around here.
My wife re minds me of things too. When I remind her that she has already reminded me, she denies it.
My wife reminds me of things too. When I remind her that she has already reminded me, she denies it.
Still waiting for you to address the Bronze serpent issue
God can violate his own directives. Thou shall not kill? Thou shall not commit adultery?
No, you didn't. You merely cut-and-pasted a portion of the article published in Nature 337 from February 1989.
A proper link to the article would be done like this:
Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin, by P. E. Damon, D. J. Donahue, B. H. Gore, A. L. Hatheway, A. J. T. Jull, T. W. Linick, P. J. Sercel, L. J. Toolin, C.R. Bronk, E. T. Hall, R. E. M. Hedges, R. Housley, I. A. Law, C. Perry, G. Bonani, S. Trumbore, W. Woelfli, J. C. Ambers, S. G. E. Bowman, M. N. Leese & M. S. Tite., Nature 337, February 1989, pps 651-657.
That would allow people to really read what was reported.
I critiqued your conclusions from that article that you asserted "proved" the sample was taken from a non-patch area. They did not know at that time that the sample area was patched. Had they known, it would not have been used.
In science, it is not unusual for research to be disproved in later years. Entire science text books are worthless today because the "Facts" they presented as true have been disproved.
However, they did violate their own protocols... which came out in peer reviewed books and articles, such as this one: Radiocarbon Measurement and the Age of the Turin Shroud: Possibilities and Uncertainties by archaeologist William Meacham, that were very critical of the violation of procedures and pointed out the very real potential for problems which have now surfaced.
In the study of the Shroud, many early conclusions have been falsified by later research. For example, Dr. Pierre Barbet's studies on cadavers claiming that a nail through the palm would not support the weight of a body, published in peer reviewed journals in France, have been proven wrong by more modern research: Peirre Barbet Revisited by Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe. Therefor, the conclusions published by Dr. Barbet have been discarded in favor of better science.
In the case of the Nature article, other critiques of the Shroud's reported age started to rise almost immediately. Over the years, more and more discrepancies were noted. Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud: A Critical Statistical Analysis" by R Van Haelst, a chemical statistician, noted in 1997 that there were serious problem with the variation of ages reported not only by the three labs but also with the variation in ages reported by the tests done on sub-sub-samples done within each lab. This was a red flag that was totally ignored which should have indicated that the samples were not homogenous. In fact, statistical analysis proves that even the 8 tested pieces that the Arizona lab tested were NOT FROM THE SAME POPULATION. In this paper, Van Haelst reveals that the Oxford managers of the 1988 Shroud C14 tests, dissatisfied with the variation of ages from the Arizona lab, arguably the most sophisticated lab on the list, admitted that they decided to massage the data to make it more in agreement! Van Haelst's work has not been refuted.
The proper statistical analysis of the raw data from the three labs shows that the tested samples were less and less related to each other the farther away from the edge of the Shroud the tested sample had been located. The master sample was not the same, homogenous, from one end to the other.
This prompted scholarly researchers Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, hypothesize that the non-homogeneity of the samples was due to a renaissance era patching by a little known technique known as French invisible Reweaving which was used to patch valuable wall hangings, tapestries, and arrases. They published Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin Due to Repairs by Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford, in 2000. They followed it with Textile Evidence Supports Skewed Radiocarbon Date of Shroud of Turin", Historical Support of a 16th Century Restoration in the Shroud C-14 Sample Area, and New Historical Evidence Explaining the ‘Invisible Patch’ in the 1988 C-14 Sample Area of the Turin Shroud.
This prompted the late Raymond N. Rogers (who had done micro-chemical analysis of the nature of the actual image mechanism, which he reported in The Shroud of Turin: An Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain The Image Formation by Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, Melanoidins Vol 4., Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.106-113) to attempt to disprove Benford's and Marino's contention that the samples were a patched area and were not consistent with the main body of the Shroud which he believed to be unsupportable. He did the research and reported his findings in Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin by Raymond N. Rogers [January 2005], Thermochimica Acta, Volume 425, Issues 1-2, 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194. His tests proved that Benford's and Marino's hypothesis was actually correct. The 1988 C14 Study sample was NOT the same as the main body of the Shroud.
Incidentally, Rogers findings on the samples were independently confirmed in Microscopical Investigation of Selected Raes Threads From the Shroud of Turin by John L. Brown, who had in his custody threads from the Raes sample taken from the Shroud in 1973 from an area immediately adjacent and closer to the left edge than the 1988 samples. These were found to be 100% non-original Shroud material, homogenous to the interloping linen on the 1988 samples but not to any main body threads.
For further proof that Ferrous Oxide has nothing to do with the image on the Shroud, read A Detailed Critical Review of the Chemical Studies on the Turin Shroud: Facts and InterpretationsBy Thibault Heimburger. You might also want to read Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) By Raymond N. Rogers (2004), that, in several of the answers, lays out why your pet theory of Ferrous Oxide creation is not viable.
Are these links sufficient? I assure you that there are hundreds more that I could post. Note that ALL of these post-date yours Nature article and directly demolish your Science et Vie article with real science, not twaddle.
In answer to your question about why no further C14 tests have been done, the answer is simple. The Vatican, the owner of the Shroud, has declined permission for any authorized C14 tests.
Since I have put so much work into responding to you, I have decided to ping the members of the Shroud of Turin Ping List to this reply. I think they will find it useful.
Thanks for the ping!
You are always welcome, Alamo-Girl.
Thank you for the ping and the info.
I can tell by the scholarship and depth of detail you and the others here present that my foggy brain is way out of its depth, but I do find it very interesting. I don’t believe all of the mumbo-jumbo that organised religion has built around the Man, but I believe there was a Christ, that He was crucified, that He did rise, and that we are not fully privy to the mysteries surrounding His life. The Shroud is one of those mysteries, one I choose to believe.
I note with approval that you appear to have gone to Barrie Swortz's website as noted earlier in the thread, and have quoted a peer-reviewed journal, Nature, in your post #25. But did you note the following?
a) It is now about 20 years old.
b) The site you quote from contains many other links which dispute / and or refute the article from Nature. Since they are also on the same site, why didn't you even make a passing reference to their presence *on* that site?
c) The passages which *you* quoted in bold in post #25 read as follows:
The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.
That's fine, but some of the other articles on this site contest or contradict this contention: in particular, there is photomicrographic (and other) evidence that the area tested in the 1988 tests was actually a portion partially re-woven (not "patched") at a later date.
Since homogeneity of the sample is of vital importance to any analytical chemistry, this alone renders any studies done on those areas "inconclusive" *until* any differences in the composition of the tested areas to the remainder of the Shroud can be quantified.
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.
Did you stop to reflect that this sentence, which you yourself have emphasized, made it possible to completely break down the "double-blind" status of the protocol?
Two other thoughts.
Another FReeper has stated on a crevo thread, "Confidence comes from consilience" i.e. multiple independent approaches giving the same answer makes one all the more confident that one is on the right track.
The fact that multiple different approaches -- optical examination, mass-spectrophotometry, electron microscopy, 'wet-bench' chemical analysis, computer analysis, all converge to say that the image on the Shroud is not that of paint, that there are *real* bloodstains which do NOT comprise the image, that the image contains three-dimensional information not visible to the naked eye (and at that, not "National Treasure type pseudo-mythical hokum, but anatomical details) -- should indicate that the image is not merely a forgery.
The obvious counter-answer is, "Well, I don't believe in fairy tales or magic images. The thing *can't* be miraculous."
It is the same logic found in Isaac Asimov's short story "Button, Button". A scientist finds a way to not only convert energy to matter, but to do it in such a way that (for small mass, of course) he can re-create historical artefacts atom-for-atom. He chooses to bring back the signature of Button Gwinnett’s from the Declaration of Indenpendence.
He is unable to sell the relic however, as the experts know that the image *must* be fake: "If Button Gwinnett has been dead for two hundred years, how can his name on a new piece of parchment be found?"
But there is a perfectly well-known, *naturalistic* phenomenon which comports both with a genuine image on the Shroud, and not with medieval forgery. Have you considered Maillard reactions? The basic idea is that the outgassing of various by-products of decay from the body, react with the linen and/or fine molecular layers on the fibers of the fabric of the burial cloth. (These are the same classes of chemical reactions which happen in cooking -- try here from the New York Times for more on the cooking angle. The image was preserved here, because the process was interrupted for whatever reason. If it *was* the burial cloth of Jesus, then take your pick, Resurrection or "Passover Plot" conspiracy -- the body was still separated from the cloth after a short time, so the image was not obliterated by subsequent chemical reactions. It would remain a further fascinating question as to whether the formation of the image depended on the state of the deceased, whether they had been beaten and or dehydrated before death, and the temperature and humidity of the place of burial...
I suspect that much of the attitude towards the Shroud comes about because it is at least the (purported) burial cloth of Jesus, and as such has the taint of 'legitimizing' either religion, or even worse, superstition, as self-proclaimed brights like to refer to the Resurrection.
We have all heard of the willingness, nay, gullibility, of believers, and how they have been fooled time and time again for financial gain, whether by relics in the past, or TV preachers today.
But this cuts both ways -- if Christians are gullible, many areligious are overly skeptical. If this image had appeared on another piece of cloth from that era, and had not been associated with Jesus, all kinds of scientists would be intensely interested in characterizing the specific physiochemical processes and conditions necessary to create such an image. And instead of Christians drawn to the image like a moth to a flame, you'd probably have New Age types and and UFO fans, and probably a guest appearance by the Shroud on the X-Files.
Cheers!
(...off to Valleyfair to ride roller coasters tomorrow.)
None of these attitudes for or against brings anyone any closer to a specific characterization of the actual composition or provenance of the image.
I have seen claims that the samplw was from a patch. No one has provided a link to any proof. The article I posted was peer reviewed and stated the actual protocol.
The fact that the sample had the 3 to 1 weave means it was original cloth and not a piece of the patch. Yes it meant that double blind breaks down as stated in my article, but the ages for all of the smples agreed very well. If someone wants to refute the C-14 tests, they need to do new c-14 tests otherwise it is simply creating doubt to allow room for a claim. It is the same method used by IDers and AGW proponents. Do another C-14 test.
All of which was reproduced by the French team in their forgery.
No seriously address the issue, don’t just make it up as you go along
which issue?
I'm going to Valleyfair with the kids all day, so I won't be able to respond in detail right now.
But your statement is quite literally point-by-point *wrong*.
The only explanation for such unwillingness to consider any of the points on this thread, is -- quite literally -- bigotry and stereotyping. "There go those gullible Christians again, blathering on about miraculous images. Let's go debunk it. See, here's an image we made by fakery. Therefore the Shroud is a fake. QED."
The only problem is, it is not being insisted by all those interested in the Shroud, that miracle had *anything* to do with it. There is a perfectly naturalistic mechanism for the formation of the image; and you need not even posit the Resurrection, since a theft of the body in order to further a conspiracy (as in Passover Plot) could separate the body from the linens.
The French were able to address some of the faults of prior attempts at forgery of an image on linen.
It can only explain in a hand-waving way "maybe if the image *were* a forgery, here's a guess as to how this kind of thing might have been done".
The French work is such that it does not pass any serious independent analysis -- it is fit only to deceive the easily-led. It does NOT mimic the actual physical and chemical characteristics of the Shroud as determined by rigorous scientific analysis.
So it doesn't even rise to the level of error. It is a mere non-sequitur.
Cheers!
The French work proves that the shroud could have been produced by forgers using techniques available during the middle ages when the shroud first appeared.
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear grey_whiskers!
“God can violate his own directives. Thou shall not kill? Thou shall not commit adultery?”
Not an ancient languages scholar myself, but I have it on good authority that the original is correctly translated as, “Don’t commit murder,” with implications that “murder” refers to the unjustified killing of a male member of one’s own tribe.
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.