Replies

The idea that the "blood" preceded the image is a product of the casual observation of a single fibril by one of the researchers in the case (I can't recall who, but the entire scenario is outlined by Heller in his book on the shroud). It was an offhand observation, that has become perpetuated over the years by people who should know better--the same people who are the first to crow over the "scientific" backing for the shroud as a relic, but who revert to theories based on faith and casual observation when the science doesn't support their beliefs.

Sorry, that is misinformation put out by skeptic organizations. The FACT that the image does not exist under the blood stains has been confirmed in other research, most recently during the 2002 "restoration" of the shroud... and it has been peer reviewed and the work duplicated. Heller reported on the first observation in his book published in 1983. Do you think that no other research has been done on the blood on the shroud since then? Other researchers set out to either prove or disprove the observation. It has been proved to be true.

Sculpture in stone does not "fly in the face" of any artistic tradition or style.

It does if the STYLE does not match the work done in that time and period. Extreme realism in sculpture, especially showing a naked form in an area where sculptures were very stylized, would "fly in the face" of what would be expected... especially mounted over a city gate.

Logic would have dictated that the best form of rebuttal to those findings would have been the provenance of the specimens, but that's not how it was done.

Actually, it was. Some, when presented with the results of the C14 tests, immediately began claiming fraud... and blaming various people for "substituting" bogus linen for the Shroud linen. One published article accused a curator from the British Museum because he was seeking "herringbone Twill linen of medieval provenance" from other museums. The author did not know about the need for a "control" sample... which they never found... and misconstrued the legitimate search for that control as a "conspiracy" to fake the C14 test by substituting 13th Century linen for the Shroud samples,

Others started looking for scientific reasons why, among a flood of evidence that the Shroud's provenance is much older than 1260 -1390AD, this ONE test claims that date. Challenges were immediately made about the last minute changes in protocols about the sampling location, the number of samples, and several of the STURP team even stated that the results would be questioned because the sample was taken from the ONE location that every member of the STURP team was in agreement should be avoided. The major problem was that they had been left out of the loop on the C14 tests... and their recommendations were ignored.

Some of those hypotheses why the C14 date was so out of step with all the other evidence were outlandish...or crackpot... or not based in science... and it was THESE researchers who negated everyone of those and finally found the key... a medieval patch that has now been conclusively proved to be the answer.

Read the papers... they are available at Shroud.com. You will find that the scientists set out to disprove most of these "theories" and succeeded. The "bio-plastic coating of microbe poop" theory was put forward by a pediatrician... it was shot down almost immediately in the SCIENCE... but the popular press you have been reading kept it alive far beyond the disproving. The altering of the C14/C12 ratios because of fire was ALSO shot down in Science... and again, the popular press kept that hypothesis alive.

The one hypothesis that was proposed was that of the patch... which survived the science.... was not disproved... and has now been proved to be true. The C14 labs did an excellent job of dating the sample they were given... a sample that WAS taken from the Shroud but that was contaminated with 16th Century linen and cotton.

I have just returned from a Shroud conference in which Barrie Schworz showed the micro-photographs of Rogers' findings. Rogers had in his possession the middle sample of the five cut from the Shroud for C14 (four were destroyed in testing) and the Raes sample taken in 1973 from the area just below the 1988 C14 sample. The photomicrographs of these samples CLEARLY show the change over from old material to new material... and the very skillful splices where 16th Century Linen/Cotton fiber was spliced into the original Shroud linen. In addition, it can be clearly seen that the "patch" was surface dyed in place to match the darker original shroud material. This can be seen where the dye did not color threads passing under others. This was GOOD science.

The protocols for the C14 test REQUIRED the chemical testing of the samples, All three labs ignored that protocol and later, when asked why, one spokesman replied "Why should we? We knew it was from the shroud!" That's BAD science.

Challenges were immediately made about the last minute changes in protocols about the sampling location, the number of samples, and several of the STURP team even stated that the results would be questioned because the sample was taken from the ONE location that every member of the STURP team was in agreement should be avoided. The major problem was that they had been left out of the loop on the C14 tests... and their recommendations were ignored.

Was any explanation ever given for why they ignored STURP's recommendations on how to take the Shroud samples?

Is there any assurance that they will follow such advice if another series of samples is taken or that some other kind of mistake wont also be made?

If another inexplicable mistake is made and the C14 test comes out with a 7th century date, for example, would this not just about destroy any further exploration into the Shrouds origin?

I am just curious about how those in charge of any C14 dating will be able to know that they have a reliable sample.

Also, if the dating does come back as 1st century AD, will that settle the argument? I am doubtful on that score.