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.
bttt. Thanks for posting.
“Believing they cannot be deceived, they cannot be convinced when they are deceived.”
Exactly! I had an “aha” moment back in about 2003 when I was unable to get an otherwise intelligent young man to concede that there was any possibility that NPR and the rest of the alphabet news outlets lie constantly as a matter of policy.
If he had admitted that, then he would have been admitting that he had been deceived, and he was far too intelligent to be deceived. In effect, my claim was calling him dumb: or, at least, a lot dumber than he thought he was.
Is yours a quotation?
All it proves is that a piece of cloth could have been dusted with Ferrous Oxide to mimic the superficial appearance of the Shroud. it does NOT prove that the Shroud's features that have been scientific determined to not have been created with a dust of Ferrous Oxide or any other man-made pigment was created by "techniques available during the middle ages."
This technique was used 20 years ago by Joe Nickell. The "French Team" did nothing to add to what Joe Nickell did. Nothing. Joe Nickell based his attempt on a scientific paper done in the 1960s about using a dusting of carbon dust with an egg albumin fixer on a bas relief to eliminate the directionality seen in the attempts done by others who had done Bas relief rubbings back in the 1930s and who also claimed to have proved how it was forged. At least Joe added something new... attempting to duplicate the straw yellow/brown color of the image. Other than that all of these bas relief attempts have failed because the substances they use to rub, dust, dab, fix, etc., stand out like a sore thumb on their efforts, easily seen under a low magnification microscope, while the image creating substance on the real Shroud can only really be seen with an electron microscope.
I can make a picture of the Mona Lisa using chalk. That doesn't mean the Mona Lisa was painted using chalk. I can make a replica of the Statue of Liberty out of Papier Maché and it will look just like the real thing... but that doesn't mean that the real Statue of Liberty was made out of paper.
To claim that the French team succeeded in making a Shroud (they actually only created a face image) that meets all of the criteria of duplicating the Shroud is disingenuous. They did not.
Why am I the only one to cite sources and provide links?
bm
You have cited no sources and provided exactly one link to polyglot.com in this thread. On the other hand, counting the link that started this thread I have posted 18 links to sources, 13 of which are links to peer reviewed scientific articles either published in journals or presented at scientific conferences.
I am still waiting for those links to peer reviewed scientific articles that prove the existence of pigments and other artifacts of artiface that you implied exist.
I should also point out the twelve (12) citations to peer reviewed articles from scientific journals that are listed at the end of Daniel Porter’s article.
From one of my characters ...
The tagline was uttered by one of my characters when trying to cite a famous quote of similar expression (by Aristotle).
You are misrepresenting what the article claimed the French did.
The article you posted twice claims NONE of that. They claim they made a Shroud that "looks" like the original. They did not claim that they were able to reproduce any of what Gray=whiskers posted.
Where is the "French teams'" mass-spectrophotmetry showing no Ferrous Oxide? Where is their Electron Microscopy showing the image bearing coatings on the fibers? Where is the wet-bench chemical analysis? Where are the results of micro-chemistry? Where are the X-ray fluorescent studies? Where are the Human imuno-assay reports?
In fact, Soliton, where is the "French Teams'" peer reviewed article in a scientific journal?
Let's review.
Your two main points seem to be the quotes from Science and Vie which speak of attempts by a group to create a Christ-like image on a piece of fabric using die.
The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.
So what? Extensive chemical analysis has shown the following about the Shroud itself:
1) Multiple forms of chemical spectroscopy have shown the signals associated with NONE of the known pigments or paints -- including tempura and iron oxide, whether fixed or not. The question is not -- "why haven't the marks made of pigment faded away", but "what are the images made OF"?
The actual answer, verified by multiple independent methods based on different chemical and physical properties, is, "NOT PAINT, NOR PIGMENT, OF ANY TYPE".
The experiments, said Science & Vie, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.
For one thing, the Shroud’s defenders argue, photographic negatives and scanners show that the image could only have derived from a three-dimensional object, given the width of the face, the prominent cheekbones and nose.
This is true. And not only that -- the photographic negative of the image is there *without* turning the actual Shroud inside out at all. So having to turn the fake inside out is irrelevant to what the real Shroud is like.
In addition, they say, there are no signs of any brushmarks. And, they argue, no pigments could have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke.
This is a strawman argument. The actual physical composition of the image itself *is* known, and it is the chemical byproduct of reactions between gases from a decomposing corpse, with residue of materials used to prepare the linen for weaving, long before it was used as a burial cloth. And the actual physical thickness of the layer making the image has been measured, to be on the order of the wavelength of visible light, 200-600 nm.
Thus again, the work quoted in Science and Vie is irrelevant.
And what of "pigments wouldn't have endured centuries of exposure to heat, light and smoke?" We already know, indpendently, that the image is NOT MADE OF PIGMENT ANYWAY.
For Jacques di Costanzo, of Marseille University Hospital, southern France, who carried out the experiments, the mediaeval forger must have also used a bas-relief, a sculpture or cadaver to get the 3-D imprint.
Yes, this is consistent with the Shroud being a burial cloth, as such items are often found in proximity to cadavers.
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.
Faker is right. The image on the actual Shroud is not of blood, but something else. So painting an erstwhile image which looks like it was painted in blood, has nothing to do with the real Shroud. And in this case, it's even worse, since multiple lines of study have excluded the possibility of pigment (by spectroscopy) -- rendering the painting of the image invalid -- AND confirmed the presence of breakdown products of blood; and moreover, the blood reacts with antibodies. This renders the presence of the iron-oxide-based pigment irrelevant as the source of iron on the Shroud.
So why the fixation with the idea of iron pigment anyway?
To test his hypothesis, di Costanzo used ferric oxide, but no gelatine, to make other imprints, but the marks all disappeared when the cloth was washed or exposed to the test chemicals.
Has anyone ever said that the real Shroud was washed or exposed to test chemicals? The problem in hand is not "what happened to all these beautiful marks which used to be on the Shroud" -- the Shroud still has its image.
So why is the inability to wash away a substance not found on the Shroud, used to imitate the *wrong stains on the Shroud*, supposed to be indicative of *anything*?
He also daubed the bas-relief with an ammoniac compound designed to represent human sweat and also with cream of aloe, a plant that was used as an embalming aid by Jews at the time of Christ.
What is that supposed to do? Has he performed any control groups with *actual* human sweat to find its actual chemical composition, or concentration? And what is the basis he has for assuming that sweat was the primary material important in a *real* Shroud?
He then placed the cloth over it for 36 hours — the approximate time that Christ was buried before rising again — but this time, there was not a single mark on it.
OK, so let's recap.
This guy uses a pigment which has been shown, prior to his work, to be absent from the Shroud.
He then uses the pigment to dab on a shape, on the outside of a cloth, which then has to be turned *inside out* to look like the Shroud, even though the Shroud is right-side-in.
He also screws up by using a pigment meant to represent blood, when it has been well established by all parties concerned, that the mysterious and interesting image on the actual Shroud is NOT of blood; and that there IS real blood, and not pigment, elsewhere on the Shroud.
He then shows that washing this daubing in certain chemicals, or heating it, leaves the image.
But the actual Shroud he is attempting to imitate hasn't had any problems with disappearing images anyway.
Finally, he uses an imitation of human sweat, rather than real sweat, on top of a bas-relief, not even a real corpse, without controlling either for the corpse, nor checking to see if the sweat was important in the first place.
No image appears.
His conclusion: the Shroud must be a fake.
Your other main contention seems to be the Oxford C-14 studies.
Unlike the crevo threads, the people here are not quoting old Jack Chick booklets about C-14 being unreliable for dating fossils. They have been pointing out problems in *the sample itself*. Chain-of-custody issues during the testing are one thing; violation of agreed on protocols for how and where samples were to be taken are another; exclusion of anomalous results prior to summation and reporting of the C-14 tests are yet another; and inability to control for "chain of custody" of the Shroud in the long years before anyone ever thought of testing it, are still another.
Re-read the last 3 paragraphs of post 35 again.
There are factual, peer-reviewed, indpendent issues with the swatches taken for C-14 testing: and these issues have been confirmed by photomicroscopy [subtle differences in the weaving itself at the microscopic level, thickness of the threads], and by chemistry [presence of alum and dye contaminants, differences in vanillin].
Further, it is not just a bunch of fanatics who have pointed these things out as a last ditch measure.
Post 47 contains links to peer-review work by a Ph.D. (now deceased), whose professional position was at Los Alamos, to conclude that there were systematic *sampling errors* with the C-14 tests, in the article from Nature which you have placed so much reliance on.
And in post 31, it is pointed out that the inventor of the C-14 sampling method has agreed that the tests on the Shroud on which you place so much reliance, were flawed. Not the C-14 is invalid, as you might read on a crevo thread, but that these particular tests were all screwed up:
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.
In other words, the work you rely on has been "superceded".
You know, the "self-correcting" mechanism of science at work.
So it is not another example of Liars for God in action -- but of you (as well as the original C-14 testers) being careless, and getting caught at it.
But, here's the thing -- and I have already pointed this out in post 52 -- You had already been given a list of peer-reviewed scientific articles on the Shroud. But you cherry-picked ONE, which supported your pre-conceived point of view...and ignored all the other articles on the site *YOU* quoted from.
And now you expect nobody to notice when you accuse them of supplying no links?? See posts 47, 66, and 68.
You are coming across like a newbie YEC on one of the old crevo-threads.
For someone who claims respect for science and the scientific method, that is not a very good showing.
It would be ONE thing if all of the people disputing you on this thread were insisting on an essentially miraculous origin for the Shroud, and you were standing firm on principle that "IT has to be scientifically proven!" (much as a newbie YEC might say "God did it by a miracle, it is not mine to ask how!" from the other direction, on a crevo thread).
But on this thread, you are given repeated independent links to peer-reviewed journal articles which both refute your points AND directly answer your questions, and moreover, directly addressing the questions *SCIENTIFICALLY* -- without resorting to miracle.
and you resort to ad hominem.
Is this really the reputation you want to build for yourself?
Cheers!
Excellent recap.
“(much as a newbie YEC might say “God did it by a miracle, it is not mine to ask how!” from the other direction, on a crevo thread).”
Haven’t been on one of those in a while.
Are they still denying that there could be such a thing as a “big bang creationist?”
“The tagline was uttered by one of my characters when trying to cite a famous quote of similar expression (by Aristotle).”
It is a very succinct expression of a concept I had been taking paragraphs to get at.
Oh, btw, this is another demonstration of the truth of Ecclesiastes: there is nothing new under the sun.
Every time I think I’ve had a significant insight, I discover that someone was there hundreds (or thousands) of years ago.
Talk about late to the party.
Never regret having a great thought... again.
Repetition does not devalue it.
The Shroud Painting Explained
(Sidebar to Vikan Article)
by
Walter C. McCrone
Reprinted from Biblical Archaeology Review, November/December 1998
Volume 24 Number 26 - Copyright 1998 - All Rights Reserved
Reprinted by permission
I beg to differ with the recent statement in BAR (and in Time magazine) that “no one has been able to account for the image” on the Shroud of Turin.
Nearly 20 years ago the Catholic Church invited me to determine chemically what the image is on the Shroud of Turin.
I obtained 32 samples from the shroud: 18 from areas where there are images both of a body and of bloodstains) and 14 from non-image areas (some from clear areas that served as controls, others from scorch and water stains caused by a fire in 1532). The samples were taken with squares of sticky tape, each of which exceeded a square inch in area and held more than 1,000 linen fibers and any materials attached to the shroud. They were excellent samples. I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud.
To determine what substances are present in the shroud images, I conducted tests based on polarized light microscopy. I identified the substance of the body-and-blood images as the paint pigment red ochre, in a collagen tempera medium. The blood image areas consist of another pigment, ver-milion, in addition to red ochre and tempera. These paints were in common use during the Middle Ages.
The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution). I made up such a paint and an artist friend, Walter Sanford, painted an excellent shroud-like image (see photo at right and my book Judgement Day for the Shroud [Chicago: Mccrone Research Institute, 1996]. pp.145.149). Known as grisaille, the style of the painting, with its very faint, monochromatic image, was also common in the 14th century.
Based on the complete absence of any reference to the shroud before 1356, Bishop Henri of Poitiers’s statement that he knew’ the artist, the 14th-century painting style and my test results, I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 (’to give the paint a year to dry”). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints. Eight years after my published results, the carbon-dating results were reported as 1325 ± 65 year - thus confirming my date of 1355.
An expert in microanalysis and painting authentication, Walter C. McCrone is director emeritus of the McCrone Reaearch Institute in Chicago, Illinois.
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#sidebar
If you would like me to take you seriously, and I usually do, please provide support and links for your assertions.
1. McCrone has been pwned so many times, it's not worth mentioning him.
A high-level summary of this is in the article at the top of the thread; his name was even in boldface. A little gem you missed, from the article which started this thread:
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.
2. The article you just posted has been riddled full of holes -- e.g.
The samples were taken with squares of sticky tape, each of which exceeded a square inch in area and held more than 1,000 linen fibers and any materials attached to the shroud. They were excellent samples.
Get Shroudie or Swordmaker to buy you a clue -- I'm getting ready for work -- about McCrone's mis-handling of the sticky tape.
I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud.
Did you notice he doesn't mention with any specificity *which* tests were performed; he doesn't quantify the results; he does not mention the presence of any controls; and that other workers, using multiple different methods, have all found blood? And again, that they blood is not what makes the image?
The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution).
How does he know the original composition of the non-existent paint? (The image is due to Maillard reactions with the cloth, not paint.)
And again, re-read posts 47 and 69 for links.
And again, why are you cherry-picking from the sites you quote, and ignoring more recent studies also linked in those sites, which contradict the links you quote?
Finally -- and this is important:
(see photo at right and my book Judgement Day for the Shroud [Chicago: Mccrone Research Institute, 1996]. pp.145.149).
I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 (’to give the paint a year to dry”). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints.
That's great. Did you happen to scroll down the VERY PAGE YOU JUST LINKED TO YOUR ARTICLE??!!!
One of the outstanding attributes of BAR is the airing of both sides of controversies. I am an archaeological chemist and a professor emeritus who has carried out research related to the shroud, and I would like to make several points. (1) The carbon 14 test: I accept the test date of 1325 A.D. +/- 65 years as having about a 95 percent probability of being correct. However, 5 percent uncertainty for an object having the potential importance of the shroud is intolerably large. More testing must be done. In any chemical analysis, if the sampling is faulty, then the results are highly questionable. Such is the case for the shroud because careful procedures for sampling and testing were ignored in favor of sampling the shroud from its most contaminated area, where it had been handled frequently and where threads from a side panel were woven into the sample. Add to this the possibility that previous attempts at conserving the shroud may have included the application of organic materials. Linen fibrils are hollow, and if organic material diffused slowly into the fibres over a long period of time, a thorough cleaning just before C-14 testing would not remove the interior contamination. However, a large amount of contamination would be necessary to skew the date from about 30 A.D. to 1300 A.D. (2) According to "The Shroud Painting Explained," by Walter McCrone, (November/December 1998), "There is no blood on the shroud." Professor Alan Adler, a chemist highly skilled in this area of testing, states that the stains on the shroud were from blood. Do you believe a highly skilled microscopist (McCrone) or a highly skilled chemist (Adler)? McCrone found the presence of mercury (from the pigment vermilion) by X-ray fluorescence. XRF happens to be my specialty, and I wrote to McCrone years ago pointing out a misinterpretation of the mercury lines. There is far less mercury present than McCrone believes. Mercury is probably present due to artists touching their paintings with the shroud. (3) McCrone believes that the image of the body is primarily iron oxide in a collagen tempera medium. Adler and others have shown that at least 90 percent of the iron present on the shroud is bonded to cellulose and is not present as colored iron oxide. Further, Adler has explained the coloration of the body image as due to dehydrative oxidation of cellulose. If even very low concentrations of iron are present in water that is used to ret linen (soaking to decompose the nonfibrous materials), linen will react chemically with this iron, and the iron will be bound to the cellulose. Other scientists and I have found that iron catalyzes the dehydrative oxidation of cellulose, producing a coloration similar to that found on the shroud. Certain highly colored threads, and in particular one outstanding dark thread, run vertically in the shroud and are colored much darker than surrounding threads. The obvious explanation is that these threads probably contain relatively high concentrations of iron (this could be tested may) compared with their neighbors, and iron caused these threads to darken more when the image was formed. Certainly these dark threads were not painted by an artist. Also the body image penetrates only a minute distance into the linen. It seems impossible that a painter could reproduce this, particularly because the image is fuzzy and vague and can only be recognized from a distance of several feet. (4) One of McCrone's shroud paintings was tested by a chemist in my presence, and several tests proved this painting to be unlike the Shroud of Turin, thus debunking the debunker. (5) Swiss and Israeli scientists have found pollen particles on the shroud from plants found only in the region of Israel. It is most unlikely that these particles could have been transferred by wind from Israel to France or Spain, where the shroud was 'made" according to Gary Vikan ('Debunking the Shroud: Made by Human Hands, November/ December 1998). (6) Some correct three-dimensional information is present in the shroud image. When artists tried to make sketches containing three-dimensional information, only grossly distorted 3-D images resulted when tested with special instrumentation. An artist in the 14th century could not even conceive that a painting could incorporate 3-D information, let alone be able to produce such a painting. 7) McCrone claims there is a complete absence of any mention of the shroud before 1356. The Mandylion, a relic showing the face of Jesus Christ on a cloth, was famous for centuries and was displayed many times to the public. Many believe that the Mandylion, which disappeared when Constantinople was sacked in 1204, is indeed the shroud (this is the hypothesis of the British historian Ian Wilson). if so, then the shroud was mentioned frequently throughout history. (8) Vikan writes, "The shroud is in no way unique in appearance among its object type." Other art historians vehemently disagree with Vikan. It is my understanding that the others feel the concept and style of the shroud are unique. If Vikan does not agree with this, he should produce photographs of the other shrouds or objects that he talks about. (9) Of the 14th-century bishops' letters to the Pope claiming the shroud was a fake, Vikan says, 'The competition for [relics and pilgrimages] ... was intense. And stealing and forgery were both part of the business." Perhaps false reports that a competitor's relic was a fake was also "part of the business." (10) There are icons predating 1300 A.D. and coins made before 1000 A.D. that have the same details as the facial image of the shroud; these could have influenced a later painter. But if the shroud were copied from some previous representation of Christ, why is it unique in showing nail holes through the wrists and a totally naked figure of Christ, both front and back? In fairness to both sides of this controversy, I believe that BAR should have an article written by some of the "pro- shroud" experts, and I think that it would be great if BAR would fund a project by McCrone to reproduce the image of the Shroud of Turin (the face only would be sufficient, plus some bloodstains). Then let others, such as Professor Adler, test the McCrone shroud and publish the results. Finally, I hope that BAR will lend its weight toward convincing the Vatican that the shroud must be tested further. Incidentally, in 1978 some scientists who studied the shroud thought they would make short work of it and prove it was a fake. They failed. Giles F. Carter Clemson, South Carolina
If you want to scroll down and read the rest of YOUR OWN PAGE, you might learn something. (Even McCrone's attempted refutations, which lead to further controversies elsewhere, with more experts than he can keep up with, so he resorts to ad hominem as opposed to the patient, systematic, specific, reproducible, converging lines of evidence of everyone else. Along the way, note the credentials of those, and the widely differing specialties, of those who have examined the Shroud critically and found it to be genuine from their own specialties.
Why did you leave out (or worse, suppress) their comments on your own page?
Cheers!
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.