FRESH CLUE SHOWS TURIN SHROUD MAY BE GENUINE BURIAL CLOTH OF CHRIST

The Mirror ^ | April 2, 2004 | David Edwards

[NYer]

IT'S been called the longest-running hoax in history - an 800-year-old religious riddle that's taken in popes, scientists and believers from all faiths.

The Turin Shroud has been either worshipped as divine proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave or dismissed as a fraud created by medieval forgers.

But new evidence suggests the shroud might be genuine after all.

HAUNTING: The face on the shroud

As Mel Gibson's film The Passion Of The Christ rekindles interest in Jesus, stitching on the shroud which could have been created only during the messiah's lifetime has been uncovered.

At the same time, tests from 1988 that dated the shroud to between 1260 and 1390 have been thrown into doubt.

Swedish textiles expert Dr Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, who discovered the seam at the back of the cloth during a restoration project, says: "There have been attempts to date the shroud from looking at the age of the material, but the style of sewing is the biggest clue.

"It belongs firmly to a style seen in the first century AD or before."

Her findings are being hailed as the most significant since 1988, when scientists controversially carbon-dated the 14ft-long cloth to medieval times, more than 1,000 years after Jesus died.

Yet experts now say the team unwittingly used cloth that had been added during a 16th-century restoration and it could have been contaminated from handling.

Mark Guscin, of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, says: "The discovery of the stitching along with doubt about the carbon-dating all add to the mountain of evidence suggesting this was probably the shroud Jesus was buried in.

"Scientists have been happy to dismiss it as a fake, but they have never been able to answer the central question of how the image of that man got on to the cloth."

Barrie Schwortz, who in 1978 took part in the first scientific examination of the shroud, says: "I was a cynic before I saw it, but I am now convinced this is the cloth that wrapped Jesus of Nazareth after he was crucified."

THE history of the cloth - which bears the ghostly image of a bearded man - is steeped in mystery.

The first documented reference was in 1357, when it was displayed in a church in Lirey, France. The cloth astonished Christians as it showed a man wearing a crown of thorns and bearing wounds on his front, back and right-hand side.

He also had a wrist wound, which confused some pilgrims who thought Jesus was nailed to the cross through his hands. Scientists have since discovered the wrists were used as the hands could not support the body's weight.

Before it arrived in France, it is thought the shroud was known as the Edessa burial sheet, given to King Abgar V by one of Jesus's disciples.

For the next 1,200 years it was kept hidden in the Iraqi city, brought out only for religious festivals. In 944 it is thought to have turned up in Constantinople, Turkey, before being stolen by the French knight Geoffrey de Charny during the Fourth Crusades.

It soon became Europe's most-revered religious artefact, although it was scorched in a fire in 1532. In 1578 it was moved to Turin in northern Italy and was frequently paraded through the streets to huge crowds.

Yet while the shroud attracts hundreds of thousands of pilgrims when it goes on display, it was not photographed until 1898. The photographer, Secondo Pia, was amazed at the incredible depth and detail revealed on the negative.

There were even rumours that the shroud had healing qualities after the British philanthropist Leonard Cheshire took a disabled girl to see it in 1955. After being given permission to touch it, 10-year-old Josephine Woollam made a full recovery.

But it wasn't until 1978 that scientists were allowed to examine the shroud for the first time.

The Shroud of Turin Research Project spent 120 hours examining the cloth in minute detail but was unable to explain how the image had got there. Barrie Schwortz, the project's photographer, says: "We did absolutely every test there was to try to find out how that image had got there.

"We used X-rays, ultra-violet light, spectral imaging and photographed every inch of it in the most minute detail, but we still couldn't come up with any answers.

"We weren't a bunch of amateurs. We had scientists who had worked on the first atomic bomb and the space programme, yet we still couldn't say how the image got there. The only things we could say was what it isn't: that it isn't a photograph and it wasn't a painting.

"It's clear that there has been a direct contact between the shroud and a body, which explains certain features such as the blood, but science just doesn't have an answer of how the image of that body got on to it."

A SECOND study was carried out in 1988, when scientists cut a sliver from the edge of the shroud and subjected it to carbon-dating.

Carbon has a fixed rate of decay, which means that it is possible to accurately measure when the plant materials that formed the basis of the cloth were harvested.

The announcement that the shroud was a fake was made on October 13, 1988, at the British Museum. Scientists compared those who still thought the shroud was authentic to flat-earthers.

It led to the humiliating spectacle of the then Cardinal of Turin, Anastasio Alberto Ballestrero, admitting the garment was a hoax.

The Catholic Church also accepted the scientists' findings - an embarrassing admission given that Pope John Paul II had kissed the shroud eight years earlier.

But experts now say the carbon-dating results are wrong. Ian Wilson, co-author of The Turin Shroud: Unshrouding The Mystery, says they were flawed from the moment the sample was taken.

He says: "What I found quite incredible was that when they had all the scientists there and ready to go, an argument started about where the sample would come from.

"This went on for some considerable time before a very bad decision was made that the cutting would come from a corner that we know was used for holding up the shroud and which would have been more contaminated than anywhere else."

Marc Guscin, author of Burial Cloths Of Christ, believes the most compelling evidence for the shroud's authenticity comes from a small, blood-soaked cloth kept in a cathedral in Oviedo, northern Spain.

The Sudarium is believed to have been used to cover Jesus's head after he died and, unlike the shroud, its history has been traced back to the first century. It contains blood from the rare AB group found on the shroud.

Mark says: "Laboratory tests have shown that these two cloths were used on the same body.

"The fact that the Sudarium has been revered for so long suggests it must have held special significance for people. Everything points towards this cloth being used on the body of Jesus of Nazareth."

Yet despite the latest discoveries, there are still many sceptics.

Professor Stephen Mattingly, from the University of Texas, says the image could have been created by bacteria which flourish on the skin after death. "This is not a miracle," he says. "It's a physical object, so there has to be a scientific explanation. With the right conditions, it could happen to anyone. We could all make our own Turin Shroud."

Another theory, put forward by South African professor Nicholas Allen, is that the image was an early form of photography.

However fierce the controversy, the shroud is still a crowd-puller. When it last went on display in 2000, more than three million people saw it. Many more visitors are expected when it next goes on show in 2025.

Mark believes the argument will rage on. He says: "The debate will go on and on because nobody can prove one way or another if this was the shroud that covered the body of Jesus. There simply isn't a scientific test of 'Christness'.

"But there are lots of pointers to suggest it was."

[RS]

"The closest modern analogue to the Shroud is a radiagraph produced by injecting a subject with a radioactive tracer and counting the decay particles with a multi-million dollar collimated, computerized radiation detector used for heart and brain scans."

... and then printing out a representation of it. Do you have any theory on a piece of "film" that could be used to take such a "photo" ? Is there any known "self-developing" emulsion that the shroud whould show traces of ? If this theory were true, I would suppose that the "background radiation" over thousands of years might have overexposed it.

[RS]

"This man, Dr. D'Mahala, is probably the world's foremost authority on the Shroud of Turin at the moment, so I would be much more likely to believe what he personally said through his own team's research than what some armchair skeptics on FR think."

I have heard almost the exact same statements made by those who believe in UFO's. Does it go without saying that the "worlds foremost authority" on anything has a vested interest in making sure that THEIR knowledge and theories are the "correct and accepted" ones ?

[RS]

Yep, and the writer of the article still calls it only "highly likely" that it was blood...

Anything on how they figured the blood type, and who found the DNA ... ?
( you seem to have found all the good stuff already, I appreciate your research )

[NYer]

speaking for myself the Turin Shroud matters not in my faith and beliefs concerning Jesus Christ.

And it shouldn't! Faith is a gift from God; the Shroud is an article of cloth.

The topic seemed an appropriate one on this holiest of weeks in the Christian calendar. God bless you!

[the OlLine Rebel]

"I won't be holding my breath for any testing of those because if one thing didn't prove out for whatever reason there'd be riots in the streets."

Oh BS, mtb! Boy, how little you think of some people!

BTW, if Jesus didn't have any father's DNA and James was the son of Joseph, not Mary, there wouldn't be anything to that test.

Actually nothing you suggest hurts anything, because we still don't know if the Shroud or anything belongs to Jesus, or if those bones are really James, or anything!

[cyncooper]

Sorry, but as I already pointed out, you are in the stratosphere making assumptions and assigning conclusions and arguments to me that I never made.

Talk to the guy who actually made a conclusion.

I follow logic and what people actually say.

You might ponder that and not arrogantly condescend and assume so much.

[the OlLine Rebel]

You're just upset that he claims he's not a Catholic.

[cyncooper]

Hello. My post merely directed the poster to the point of the article. I don't believe I offered an argument that it was therefore true as regards to the point made about the stitching.

When I was Googling yesterday (I haven't done much research on the subject as y'all have) I found an article that is several years old that also talked about a seam down the center that indicated first century Holy Land origin so my only thought was this "new revelation" wasn't new at all. But I hope you see I'm not out to persuade anyone that therefore the case is closed. Nope.

[shroudie]

Regarding imaging and your question regarding a "film:"

Let’s begin with the fact that the image is contained within a carbohydrate layer that covers crown fibers within the thread of the cloth. There are between 70 and 120 cellulose fibers in single linen threads used to weave the cloth.

This carbohydrate layer is very thin; about the thickness of the scratch proof coating on eye glasses. This layer is made up of starch fractions, various saccharides. It is nominally clear. But in some areas it has turned straw-yellow due to a chemical change which is not unlike caramelization (browning of sugar by heat) or Maillard (chemical reaction of sugar with amines or proteins). These yellow areas are on fibers that are only about 15% the thickness of a human hair. In some cases alternating fibers are colored and not colored and it is by this density pattern of colored fibers that different shades of straw-yellow are produced. There is no imaginable way a forger could have applied anything selectively enough to areas so small. It can be done with laser precision but laser light does not produce the effect. Lasers can produce the heat in the carbohydrate layer but they have an effect on the cellulose fibers as well, and the fibers are unaffected on the Shroud.

This leaves two possibilities (or more that have not been thought of): a chemical reaction caused by Maillard, heat, or some unspecified energetic that would work (most ionizing radiations have been tried and eliminated or ruled out). The causation is either natural or miraculous.

Now if it is a natural phenomenon it is a chemical reaction. If it is a miraculously induced images (and it may be) it is still a change of state; call it what you want: a change to the double-double carbon bond chromophores, a dehydration of the coating, etc.. If God etched these images, He did it with a chemical change of state. This is no different than any other miracle. It is a change of state.

Interestingly enough the images can be removed from the fibers with adhesive and dissolved with reducing agents.

What is particularly interesting is this. If it is a chemical reaction it ENDED late enough for there to be a discernable image and it ENDED early enough to not over-saturate the image. There are no over-saturation points found anywhere in the image, what in photography is called over-exposure or wash out. How is that possible? If it is a chemical reaction something caused it to stop at the right time and before any bodily decomposition products damaged or destroyed the cloth or wiped out the image, as they would.

I don’t think it was caused by light of any kind. Nor do I think that ionizing radiation caused the image. Other hypotheses such as corona discharge, IR, UV, etc. don’t fit chemically. Not every possible energetic has been ruled out.

Chemical reaction makes sense as heavy amines (as vapors) would have reacted with impurities to cause an image. YES, without question, there would have been a Maillard reaction of some sort within about 30 hours time and a discoloration of the cloth. But the problem of image resolution, the 3D effects, etc. are hard to explain. And something caused a natural chemical process, if there was one, to stop.

There is something going on here that we cannot imagine. I firmly believe that the measure of a miracle is the result and not the process. Many scientists in Shroud research are confident that the process will one day be explained. I have my doubts.

Shroudie

[cyncooper]

Anything on how they figured the blood type, and who found the DNA ...

I posted a link and name yesterday. Perhaps you missed it?

(and PLEASE, I am not vouching for the test results, but merely pointing out they've been done)

Here's another link:

Science and the Shroud - Microbiology meets Archaeology in a Renewed Quest for Answers

Excerpt:

Adding to the atmosphere, a third member of their team has identified a part of the shroud's markings as that of blood from a human male. No one has conclusively determined how the markings got on the linen, but they appear in bas relief in a perfect negative image. Experts have entertained theories that the markings came from paint, scorching, or accelerated aging. Victor V. Tryon, PhD, assistant professor in microbiology and director of the university's Center for Advanced DNA Technologies, examined the DNA of one so-called "blood glob" from two separate microscopic shroud samples. He reported isolating signals from three different human genes by employing polymerase chain reaction, which can detect pieces of double-stranded DNA.

~snip~

[Badeye]

"Just curious, what kind of proof would convince you that the shroud is not a hoax? Not that it's the burial cloth of Jesus, but that it's not a hoax?"

Given the results from various tests already conducted on this artifact, I don't think there is any way to convince me this is "real" as described by those that believe.

That said, I will always consider anything "new" offered, but as it stands right now, there is nothing to demonstrate this cloth is old enough to be anything beyond a "hoax".

Perhaps "hoax" is too strong a word....which is something to consider as well. Bottom line is the evidence offered to date concerning this doesn't hold up to forensic evaluation.

[RS]

"Interestingly enough the images can be removed from the fibers with adhesive and dissolved with reducing agents."

Is this normal that "in some areas it has turned straw-yellow due to a chemical change which is not unlike caramelization (browning of sugar by heat) or Maillard (chemical reaction of sugar with amines or proteins)" causes enough physical change in the property of the outer layer that it can be selectivly removed by the application of a piece of tape ?

I appreciate the fact that you do not presume to have the answer, not like the "1/10 second burst of energy " supporters.

[Protagoras]

That said, I will always consider anything "new" offered, but as it stands right now, there is nothing to demonstrate this cloth is old enough to be anything beyond a "hoax".

No precisely true. The new observation about the stitching may demonstrate it, albeit not to your satisfaction.

I'm glad we cleared up the "hoax" thing. It could be many things, a hoax is only one, and a very remote one. Mis-attribution of the historical origin of the cloth cannot be fairly described as a hoax. It would take a deliberate attempt to manufacture a misleading item, probably in consort with others, making it a conspiracy as well. Possible, but extremely unlikely.

[ex-snook]

Thanks Ping back.

What the Shroud is will be disclosed in the fullness of time. It is not a defect in Shroud believers that science has not yet attained the capability to explain.

Doubtless the 'scientific poseurs' will be agast as layers of empirical science gradually peel back the Shroud to reveal Jesus Christ. In the words of Pope JP II on the Passion Movie "it is, as it was".

[Badeye]

"The new observation about the stitching may demonstrate it, albeit not to your satisfaction."

Thats it in a nutshell. The "stitching" question doesn't outweight the carbon 14 testing too me.

Like I said, I'll keep checking out anything else that comes up on this topic, but for now I remain unconvinced, and skeptical.

No offense intended towards those that believe as a matter of faith.

[Swordmaker]

... and then printing out a representation of it. Do you have any theory on a piece of "film" that could be used to take such a "photo" ? Is there any known "self-developing" emulsion that the shroud whould show traces of ? If this theory were true, I would suppose that the "background radiation" over thousands of years might have overexposed it.

Ah, there's the rub... Since every radiation source we KNOW about radiates in a spherical pattern from the source, much of the cost of the modern radiation camera is in building it in such a way that only specific, parallel to the collimation radiation can be counted.

The modern device uses long, sheilded tubes which allow only radioactive decay products that enter the tube, travel its length to impinge on a the sensor so as to "ignore" all other particles that are travelling in a path from the source budy that are non-parallel to the tube. This is what is meant by "collimated." (Think of a particle travelling through a soda straw without hitting the sides to hit a sensor at the opposite end.)

A piece of cloth is not thick enough to provide the "tube". I cannot think of ANYTHING that would allow only collimated radiation (Vertically or gravitationally collimated) to strike and form an image on a piece of cloth that will ignore other particles that strike the cloth at a different angle. The radiation (or whatever it was) that formed the image on the shroud went straight up AND straight down... with no particles (or what-ever) going even a little bit sideways!

[shroudie]

Badeye, you wrote: "Bottom line is the evidence offered to date concerning this doesn't hold up to forensic evaluation."

Bottom line is a useful summary of detail that supports it. What, therefore, doesn’t hold up to forensic evaluation?

As I am sure you are aware, several forensic pathologists such as Fred Zugibe, Adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology, Columbia University, College of Physicians & Surgeons, N.Y. and Chief Medical Examiner, Rockland County, N.Y.; Professor James Malcolm Cameron, the distinguished British pathologist famous for his prosecutorial presentations; former Los Angeles forensic pathologist and medical examiner, and Coronor of Las Vegas, Nevada (yes CSI country) Robert Bucklin disagree with your evaluation. They have presented and published papers in peer reviewed journals. Bottom line they all agree that it is a burial cloth of a Roman crucifixion victim and are willing to argue (non-scientifically) that it conforms to biblical accounts of Jesus’ death.

Could you give us the basis for your forensic evaluation bottom line?

Shroudie

[RS]

"The radiation (or whatever it was) that formed the image on the shroud went straight up AND straight down... with no particles (or what-ever) going even a little bit sideways!"

From what you say it is even stranger, as it appears that the radiation (or whatever it was) would have had to strike perpendicular to each piece of cloth, which ITSELF would have been at different angles to each other.

Now that I think about it, dosen't it seem strange also that the image is so perfect, not distorted by being draped over the body on top and bunched under the body on the bottom. I'll have to play around with overlaying the top image with the bottom one.

[Swordmaker]

Thats it in a nutshell. The "stitching" question doesn't outweight the carbon 14 testing too me.

So you would choose to believe a discredited test, that flies in the face of all other scholarship, that has been now PROVEN to have been badly flawed in that it tested a combination of what was meant to be tested and sizeable percentage of added, NEWER MATERIAL.

You apparently believe that if the "facts" that support your position are proven not to be facts, that you can just ignore the disproof??? That is not scientific at all... that becomes a dogmatic desperation in your disbelief.

A scientist has to be willing to follow the data to a conclusion, not start from a conclusion and ignore data that doesn't support his conclusion. Sometimes you have to set aside flawed data and look for more data on which to rest your case. Sometimes the data to support your case has yet to be found or does not exist. Do you then rest on a dogmatic rejection of all other facts for your "considered" opinion???

[RS]

Hmmmm.... Anyone explain where the image from the top of the head went ?

Any links to how these shrouds were normally wrapped around the bodies ?

Were people normally laid out with the opening at the foot ?