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

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.

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.

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."

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'.

Skeptical Inquirer magazine is published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal; founded by the likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman and Philip Klass. While they deny that they are critical of Christianity or any religion they mean only so long as it is completely secular. They make people like John Dominic Crossan and John Shelby Spong seem like pious saints.

As for Joe Nickell, a magician by trade, he is a crusading iconoclast who deals only in selective facts and fantastic made up garbage. For instance he keeps claiming it is tempera paint even though the chemical analysis disproves that. Nickell has never examined the Shroud or any of the thousands of particles collected from its surface. He wouldn't understand spectral analysis anyways. Spectrophotometry, fluorescence photography, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, microscopy, microchemistry, laser microprobe Raman spectrometry, and pyrolysis mass spectrometry all prove that he doesn't know what he is talking about. This is a picture of some imaging from the tip of the nose. Those little straw-colored fibers are about 15% as thick as a human hair. The image is superficial. There is no image below the topmost fibers. In some case one fiber is colored, the next one not, and the one next to it colored. No liquids have been applied (unless it was done with a very tiny one-hair brush under a microscope).

The actual chemistry of the image is a carbohydrate layer that coats the individual fibers. In some places the layer has been chemically altered to create double-double carbon bonds with chromophores needed for us to see the yellow.

What Joe Nickell is throwing out is absolute garbage.

Oh yes, as for the mystery artist. You are referring of course to the claims of an inquest by Bishop Henri de Poitiers of Troyes conducted in the 14th century. It is funny that Henri never recorded anything about that inquest although he seems to have recorded everything else. It appears, from the clear historical record, that another bishop made the claim in an attempt to discredit a relic in another competing diocese. That sort of stuff went on.

Historians of any attitude towards the Shroud don't take Nickell seriously.

Shroudie

Although there is little doubt that McCrone found iron oxide and mercury, nowhere on the Shroud are there sufficient concentrations of these chemical components of paint pigments to form a visible image. Moreover, McCrone’s findings do not necessarily establish that paint was used on the Shroud. Iron oxide, for one thing, is a component of blood. It is expected. It would also be a byproduct of retting flax in iron rich water in the production of linen. As miniscule particles of rust (iron oxide) is often found in dust, so too might mercuric sulphide be present in dust, particularly in churches and cathedrals with frescoed walls and ceilings and old paintings. There is another possibility that might well explain the presence of paint particles on the Shroud. Many painted copies of the Shroud were produced. It was, after all, a revered relic. We know from history of a practice whereby artists would touch or lay their paintings on the Shroud for sanctification.

In 1965, Yale researchers discovered a map produced at least fifty years before Columbus’ first journey to America. Showing Vinlandia Insula, the Island of Vinland or Newfoundland as it is known today, the map was part of a small medieval volume, the Tartar Relation. The Tartar Relation had originally been bound together with the Vinland Map and another medieval volume, the Speculum Historiale. Wormhole alignments between the map and both volumes clearly showed that they had been all bound together at one time. The Tartar Relation volume was reliably dated by contemporaneous references to the Katatas people (Mongols) who dominated one end of the Eurasian land mass. There were also references to a certain bishop of Gada and Greenland that further corroborated the dating.

The map was significant because it supported archeological finds of Norse landings in Newfoundland as well as medieval Icelandic chronicles, the Graenlendinga Saga and Eirik’s Saga. The map was chronological proof that by the time Columbus made his famous journey of discovery, some people in Europe clearly knew about North America.

In 1972, Walter McCrone, who would later debunk the Shroud, examined some particles of ink and found titanium anatase, a material scientist discovered in the 1920s. He thus concluded that the map was a recent relic-forgery.

Several people doubted McCrone’s conclusion including George Painter, the curator of ancient documents of the British Museum. In 1985, physicist Thomas Cahill, of the University of California at Davis, analyzed the map using a newly developed process, Particle Induced X-ray Emission, and found only minute traces of titanium anatase, amounts that were consistent with what would be expected in the common green vitoral ink of the 15th century. As with the Shroud, McCrone had found the substances that he claimed were there. They are there, but in amounts too miniscule to support his conclusions. Columbus, who did not discover that the world was round, did not discover America ahead of the Norsemen.

Yet, myths and doubts about the Vinland Map persist. Why? Because a scientist had proven it was a hoax and PBS television reported the results of McCrone’s findings.
There was very little reporting about the Cahill’s later findings at Cal-Davis.

McCrone never examined the Shroud. Instead he examined particulate matter collected from the Shroud’s surface and having found, by polarized light microscopy, trace amounts of material, arrived at unquantifiable conclusions (for instance he found 8 partly-vermillion particles. Other peer reviewed research shows clearly that nowhere on the Shroud is there a sufficiently visible quantity of pigment material.

McCrone’s work has been completely discredited. No one takes him seriously or in any current documentaries, whether pro or con on authenticity, is he mentioned any more.

At the risk of repeating myself, that it is not a painting is verified by spectrophotometry, fluorescence photography, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, microscopy, microchemistry, laser microprobe Raman spectrometry, and pyrolysis mass spectrometry. While non-image contaminants of pigments used in paint and dye are found on the surface of the Shroud (as there are many other particles), nowhere on the Shroud is there a sufficient concentration of this material to form a visible image.

Shroudie

To understand ancient Jewish practice, we have recourse to the Mishnah and its attendant commentary the Gemara in the Talmud (Palestinian or Babylonian). Or we have recourse to other tractates outside the Talmud such as Semachoth [or Semahot "Joys" = euphemism for "mourning"] (See Dov Zlotnick's edition (Yale University) for a convenient English edition with commentary). We also have a carbonized Shroud from a first century Jerusalem tomb at the valley of Hinnom.

What is most likely is this. Linen strips were used to bind the hand and feet and a face cloth may have been used. In some cases it may have been left in place inside the burial shroud and at other times, not. Linen strips were also probably used to tie the jaw closed.

Every thing from the verse you cite is consistent with this understanding of second-Temple era burial in Jerusalem. There is absolutely no evidence of winding cloth strips or circular wrapping either from the Bible, from Mishnah or Talmudic sources, or from archeological sources.

The confusion is caused by the Aramaic word soudara, used by John to describe the Holy Shroud (the other synoptic writers used the Greek word sindon to represent Christ's burial cloth). John's soudara was translated to the Greek soudarion, then to the Latin sudarium, which means a small cloth used to wipe sweat from the face. In other words, a handkerchief, or a "napkin." Some biblical exegetes have interpreted John's "napkin" (John 20:7) to be the chin band wrapped around Christ's head in the tomb. But why would a napkin or a chin band be "apart" from the other linen cloths securing the Shroud to Christ's body? And why would seeing a napkin or a chin band cause John to believe?
The difficulty is resolved if the "napkin" or "chin band" becomes "Shroud". Shroud is a more accurate translation of the Aramaic soudara, which in Aramaic translations of the Old Testament is used to designate a large cloak, or a veil. For instance, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai, his face shining with the glory of God, he covered his face with a soudara, as his fellow Hebrews could not withstand his dazzling countenance, radiant as it was with divine light.

While Moses used a soudara to veil God's glory on Mount Sinai, Christ was veiled by a soudara - the Holy Shroud- after His passion, crucifixion, and redemptive death. This was when God's glory shown most brightly on His Son, although man sees only the material aspect of Christ's humiliation. Perhaps John's use of soudara to describe the Holy Shroud does not contradict the other gospel writers, but instead, is John's attempt to underline the divine glory of Christ's passion, and to draw a parallel between Christ and Moses, as he does elsewhere (see John 1:17).

Shroudie

The results of the microanalysis and carbon dating tests Nickell describes have been challenged by those who accept the Shroud's authenticity on faith, but have yet to be scientifically invalidated.

Sorry. This is wrong on both counts. Both McCrone's "microanalysis," which bears more relationship to Percival Lowell's canals on Mars than to objective science, and the Carbon 14 test, which threw out the agreed sampling protocols and as a result invalidated the findings (Garbage In, Garbage Out), have been scientifically (complete with peer reviewed publication) invalidated.

McCrone's microanalysis is worthless. Walter C. McCrone is the ONLY scientist who sees what he claims to see in his optical microscope. McCrone's claims were released to the general press and were not published in any peer reviewed publication. In fact, after McCrone's papers were rejected by peer reviewed publications, he published them in The Microscope which is published by McCrone Associates, Inc., and edited by Walter C. McCrone. He claimed his magazine is "peer reviewed" because his associates (employees) "reviewed" his articles.

Other scientists have been unable to duplicate McCrone's findings. McCrone is not even consistent in what he claims to have found:

"McCrone . . . has alleged at various times that the ‘blood’ images are 1) simply iron oxide particles, 2) simply post-1800s iron oxide particles, 3) iron oxide particles of a form derived from the earth and available for tens of thousands of years, all in a proteinaceous medium, i.e. liquid earthy iron-oxide paint, and 4) liquid earthy iron-oxide and liquid mercury-sulfide (HgS) paint. . . .
. . . McCrone’s devotion to the microscope prevented him from taking into account peer-reviewed data from physics-based instruments and wet-chemistry testing contrary to his painting conclusions. McCrone’s failure to respond in print to contrary peer-reviewed data and conclusions, and his allegation that H&A and STURP fabricated data, were presaged by the fact that both before and after resigning from STURP, McCrone exhibited marked reluctance to defend his claims before other STURP scientists.
McCrone appealed to microscope appearance when making the conflicting statements that the ‘blood’ had the appearance of post-1800s iron oxide, and the appearance of a form of iron oxide existing for tens of thousands of years, and still later, the appearance of iron-oxide and mercury-sulfide.

Researchers using MUCH MORE SOPHISTICATED instruments than a visible light microscope have published articles in peer reviewed scientific publications showing that the image IS NOT A PAINTING OF ANY KIND. While Iron Oxide is present on the shroud, it is not in sufficient quantities to be seen, much less present an image. Studies using electron microscopes of various types have magnified image fibrils down to the molecular level and have found NO PIGMENTS that could be responsible for the image, Pyrolysis/Mass spectrometry analysis also shows no pigments.

McCrone was wrong.

McCrone also claimed that there is no blood on the Shroud. He claimed that he saw Iron Oxide and Vermillion (Mercuric Sulfide) in the blood stains... and that, according to McCrone proves the blood is paint. Unfortunately for McCrone, numerous other scientists more qualified in the identification of blood and blood products have conclusively proven that the stains on the Shroud ARE BLOOD. Again, no one can find the amounts of Iron Oxide and Mercuric Sulfide that McCrone claims. Again the other scientists published THEIR articles in peer reviewed journals AND defended their findings in symposia.

Biophysicist Dr. John Heller and Biochemist Alan Adler performed numerous tests identifying the stains in the blood area. A paper written by historian David Ford gives an excellent overview of their efforts AND of Walter McCrone's effort to sabotage their research by deliberately withholding samples and sending them samples that had little or no blood stains. The source is another PDF file (requires Adobe Acrobat Reader).

The Shroud of Turin's 'Blood' Images: Blood, or Paint? History of Science Inquiry

Some of the tests they applied and reported as positive for blood are reported in this excerpt:

. . . Regarding the ‘blood,’ Heller and Adler concluded that it was actual blood material on the basis of physics-based and chemistrybased testing, most tests of which will be discussed, specifically the following: detection of higher-than elsewhere levels of iron in ‘blood’ areas via X-ray fluorescence, indicative spectra obtained by microspectrophotometry, generation with chemicals and ultraviolet light of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence, positive tests for hemochromagen using hydrazine, positive tests for cyanmethemoglobin using a neutralized cyanide solution, positive tests for the bile pigment bilirubin, positive tests for protein, and use of proteolytic enzymes on ‘blood’ material, leaving no residues. The tests and data not discussed 3 are the reflection spectra indicative of bilirubin’s32 and blood’s presence,33 chemical detection of the specific protein albumin,34 the presence of serum halos around various ‘blood’ marks when viewed under ultraviolet light,35 the immunological determination that the ‘blood’ is of primate origin,36 and the forensic judgment that the various blood and wound marks appear extremely realistic.37

Heller and Adler checked their results with other scientists even more expert than they:

After the (microspectrophotometer results) coordinates had been plotted on graph paper, Adler observed, “John, this is hemoglobin. It’s the acid methemoglobin form, and it’s denatured and very old.” Heller “beamed” before noting, “But Al. We don’t have the requisite fine structure,” to which Adler replied, “Fine structure, my foot! Do you think this is the spectrum of sauteed artichoke hearts? Don’t be ridiculous.” Suggested Heller, “Let’s check with at least two other top hemoglobin hotshots and see if they are as sure as we are. Pick anyone you want.” Adler’s choice gave the answer of old acid methemoglobin. They then spoke via speakerphone to Bruce Cameron, “whose double -doctorate is dedicated to hemoglobin in all its many forms,” and upon receiving and plotting the numbers, Cameron said, “You both should know what it is. It’s old acid methemoglobin. I don’t know why you wanted to bother me with something you know as well as I do... Hey, wait a minute. Are you two idiots working on the Shroud of Turin?”

Needless to say (since I already did) Heller's and Adler's research has been published in peer reviewed journals and has been duplicated by other scientists. To reiterate, McCrone's has not.

McCrone is also famous for his findings (again by microscopic examination) that the controversial Vinland Map is a modern forgery... except that finding has also been found to be false. Again, other scientists were unable to duplicate McCrone's findings and, in some instances, found either sloppy errors (or deliberate falsifications) in chemical data from McCrone Associates that seemed to support McCrone's findings.

Is this sufficient to impeach Walter C. McCrone as qualified to have ANY valid opinion on the authenticity of the Shroud?

The Carbon 14 test

In addition to the exhaustive data I and Shroudie provided earlier on the horrendously flawed sample taking for the C14 tests, there is even more conclusive data proving that what was tested was an adulterated sample and combined more modern material with original shroud material, skewing the results. At worst, the results are useless; at best, they give us an opportunity to calculate an age for the percentage of the sample that are genuine shroud compared to the observable patched percentage.

The Pyrolysis/Mass Spectrometry analysis that found no visible quantity pigments provides more proof that the C14 dating was fatally flawed by the sample taken contrary to the agreed protocol. The following link to a PDF file (you'll need Adobe Acrobat Reader) by Dr. Ray Rogers detailing the research provides more information:

Pyrolysis/Mass Spectrometry Applied to the Shroud of Turin

Synopsis of the article:

A technical paper from Ray Rogers that explains how Pyrolysis/Mass Spectrometry was used to detect impurities (like painting mediums) on samples of the Shroud of Turin. Interestingly, a gum coating was found on the fibers of the Raes Sample, a section cut from the Shroud in 1973 from an area directly adjoining the 1988 c14 sample. However, this gum coating was not found on any fibers from anywhere else on the Shroud. The tests provided quantitative evidence that the Raes sample and consequently, the adjoining 1988 c14 sample, were both anomalous and different from the rest of the Shroud. With this, and a significant amount of other corroborative scientific evidence, the validity of the 1988 c14 dating of the Shroud is even further in doubt.

The Carbon 14 tests are too flawed to be used to claim the Shroud is a forgery.

Joe Nikkell

Joe Nikkell has a book to sell and an agenda to support. Joe Nickell's expertise in science is nonexistent. His degrees are in Art and English. His claim to have "duplicated" the shroud using art techniques is a laughable failure, meeting none of the criteria established for a successful duplication example. The Skeptical Inquirer's article (1996) on the Shroud is outdated (8 years and counting) and quite biased, ignoring any VALID research that does not agree with their position. They dismiss the peer reviewed research without giving an explanation except to fall back on already discredited findings.

Joe Nikkell's fake vs. the Shroud

The Catholic Encyclopedia

You also cited The Catholic Encyclopedia as a source. The on-line version of The Catholic Encyclopedia is copyrighted 1912. There has been a lot of research done in the intervening 92 years. The The Catholic Encyclopedia revised the article in 1968... and even that article is completely outdated.

You denigrate the challengers to Nickell's position by claiming they do so because of "faith", but that is not true either. The scientists involved in these studies include Christians (both Catholic and Protestant), Agnostics, Atheists, and Jews. THEY are following the science.

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.