Second Face on the Shroud of Turin

Institute of Physics ^ | April 13, 2004 | Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo

[shroudie]

The most definitive evidence yet that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake-relic. This is big stuff, published on a highly respected scientific organizations website, the Institute of Physics, a 37,000 member organization of physicists. Their journal is an ethical journal of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The Washington Times, BBC, the Observer, the Telegraph of London, ABC Australia, the Chicago Sun-Times and several outlets have picked up the story in the last few hours. In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous. It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, it can almost certainly be inferred that it is Jesus. If that is so, it buries the extra-liberal revisionism of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who argue that Jesus was not buried.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products?

The story at the link is quite technical. I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image.

From the extract: "Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing . . . was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations.

[orionblamblam]

> The tests are invalid as the material tested has been proven to be unrepresentative of the cloth.

Proven... or suspected? And what proof is there that they are a day newer than the shroud itself?

> I doubt that will happen because the Catholic church has taken a firm position that no more invasive test will be done and no more dating will be done.

The one organization with the greatest interest in seeing the shroud shown to be 1st century doesn;t want to see it so shown. huh.

> So what can we expect your reply to be regarding the vanillin.

I dunno. What DO you expect?

[A.J.Armitage]

The shroud shoud be studied by scientists, forensic investigators, magicians and artists, all working together, and with far better access than they've had to date.

Why should you care? You've already said pretty explicitly that you'll believe anything except that it is the burial shroud of Jesus. If these first-rate magicians say it's real, you've already said you'll believe a convoluted scam happened (they were bribed or whatever -- literally whatever). Be honest: you'd believe the Shroud was dropped off by space aliens to test our faith in atheism rather than believe it's a miraculous image of Jesus, wouldn't you?

[orionblamblam]

> You've already said pretty explicitly that you'll believe anything except that it is the burial shroud of Jesus.

Pfah. Back to DU with you.

[A.J.Armitage]

You've been here since January, and you're telling me to go "back". This is because you have no answer.

[Swordmaker]

Proven... or suspected? And what proof is there that they are a day newer than the shroud itself?

Proven.

Proven visually; proven microscopically; proven physically; proven chemically; proven in spinning technique; proven in composition; proven in retting differing processes; proven in all of these ways that DEMONSTRATE to any scientist that the test area is DIFFERENT than the main body of the item to be tested.

It has been proven everywhich way except a way that would be acceptable to Orionblamblam who unreasonably demands that we have to prove to him that although A DOES NOT EQUAL B, that somehow the facts of B ARE THE ALSO NOT THE SAME AS B.

Absurd... The one organization with the greatest interest in seeing the shroud shown to be 1st century doesn;t want to see it so shown. huh.

The Catholic Church also has a duty to preserve the Shroud. Carbon14 testing is, by its very nature, destructive. When scientists first requested a Carbon 14 test, the amount of material required would have necessitated burnng 10% of the shroud as a sample! It took years of effort and many technical advances in reducing the amount of material required before the Church finally, reluctantly acquiesced to the Carbon 14 test.

> So what can we expect your reply to be regarding the vanillin.

I dunno. What DO you expect?

I don't know what shroudie expects of you, but I expect you to ignore it. It doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

It would be interesting to see if a new dating technique can be developed out of the Vanillin presence. However, I can see too many variables for it to be of much use. Amount of lignen at start, temperatures the item has been subjected to over the years and for how long, since it is a chemical reaction (Which, Orion, could raise problems about using the lack of Vanillin on the Shroud as any proof, because we know the shroud was subjected to temperatures high enough to melt the silver reliquary, and burn and singe parts of the Shroud), what control period would we need to explore, etc.

[orionblamblam]

>>Proven... or suspected? And what proof is there that they are a day newer than the shroud itself?

> Proven visually; proven microscopically; proven physically; proven chemically; proven in spinning technique; proven in composition; proven in retting differing processes; proven in all of these ways that DEMONSTRATE to any scientist that the test area is DIFFERENT than the main body of the item to be tested.

That's nice. What proof is there that those areas which you claim are proven differnt are one second younger than the rest?


> It doesn't fit your preconceived notions.

Hogwah. I have no preconcieved notions about vanillin except that it's probably not vanilla.

[orionblamblam]

> This is because you have no answer.

So... rather than simply accept "I don't know", you leap on comforting superstitious answers.

That's why I suggested you go back to DU. They like superstitious answers there, too.

[shroudie]

I am told that vanillin would not be accurate enough for calibration without knowing the average temperature and humidity. But the fire, while intense, did not last long enough to eliminate vanillin from a ca1300-ca1400 cloth. Most of the cellulose was unaffected except in the areas where molton silver actually burned the cloth. There are no byproducts from scorching on most of the cloth. About all that vanillin can do is argue strongly that the cloth is not medieval. It is but one of many indicators that argue that the cloth is older than medieval.

Of course, the most significant factor regarding the vanillin is that what was tested by carbon 14 testing (which did contain vanillin) was not representative of the cloth (which does not contain vanillin).

The point is that OBB continues only to deal with evidence that suits him combined with his own illogical system of logic.

[A.J.Armitage]

So... rather than simply accept "I don't know", you leap on comforting superstitious answers.

Here, you are assuming. I could repeat the cliche about what you do when you assume, but it's not true: you're only making an ass of yourself. You see, I don't claim to know if the Shroud is authentic or not.

You know full well that you've been claiming this whole thread that you do know, "conclusively", that it isn't authentic. In other words, presenting your position as "I don't know" is a lie.

So you, you presumptuous liar, intentionally reverse the truth. I'm the one agnostic about the Shroud -- which means I'm open to evidence it might be authentic. You claim a knowledge transcending any possible evidence. You will never believe in it no matter what is discovered about it, and you know it.

That's why I suggested you go back to DU. They like superstitious answers there, too.

You presume again. I've never been there. You hardly qualify as a defender of FR anyway: you've been posting for fewer months than I have years.

Now, if you really want to compare who fits more, you have an a priori conclusion, by which you judge the evidence, you lie, you use hysterical ad hominems, you have a jerking knee against anything Christian, and you make very little sense.

BTW, remember: you came on here declaring, as if from the chair, that it was "conclusively" shown to be of Medieval origin, and you've been reduced to suggesting that for all we currently know it might perhaps be of Medieval origin. But you feel so good about your superior intellect, so you really won anyway.

[orionblamblam]

> I don't claim to know if the Shroud is authentic or not.

Huh. Then why the disparagement about "you have no answer?"

> In other words, presenting your position as "I don't
know" is a lie.

Incorrect. I do not know how the shroud was manufactured or exactly when... but I do know that the superstitious/magical hypothesis is by far the least likely. As I've pointed out before, just because something is mysterious doesn;t mean it's a miracle.

> you presumptuous liar

Blah, blah, blah.

> You will never believe in it no matter what is discovered
about it, and you know it.

You go right on telling yourself that.

> you lie, you use hysterical ad hominems, you have a jerking knee against anything Christian

Amazing. Simply stunning. The sheer PRIDE of some Christians, who believe that any debate about artifacts is an attack on their religion! I guess they really do not have much faith.

> you've been posting for fewer months than I have years.

Well, then I guess that makes you King of Free Republic, doesn't it?

[A.J.Armitage]

Huh. Then why the disparagement about "you have no answer?"

Because my point was unanswerable. You proved that by retreating to insults. (You started the insults, remember.)

Incorrect.

Ooooh, a known liar says I'm "incorrect". And then you admit (in almost so many words), that I got it exactly correct.

I do not know how the shroud was manufactured or exactly when... but I do know that the superstitious/magical hypothesis is by far the least likely.

Aliens testing your faith in atheism is a hypothesis. And you just said it's more likely. Just like I said.

"By far the least likely" is a dissembling way of dogmatically restating your transcendent non-evidenciary gnosis that it's a fraud. You will never -- never, never -- accept it. In the "worst" case scenario you would posit that the Vatican replaced the original Shroud with an uber-clever fake designed to fool every possible test. Wouldn't you? Or maybe just some other conspiracy theory. After all, anything is more likely than a miracle.

Amazing. Simply stunning. The sheer PRIDE of some Christians, who believe that any debate about artifacts is an attack on their religion!

As I've already pointed out, I'm not sure it's authentic.

You're not debating, nor can you. You lack the prerequisite of debate, because you judge evidence by the conclusion you desire, not the other way around. So don't flatter yourself. Take your worst stereotypes about a "fundy". Add atheism. The result can be seen in the mirror.

In fact, my willingness to debate is itself the "pride" of which you complain. You guys invariably get indignant when we don't immediately submit ourselves into permanent tutelage to you to be cured of our "superstition".

Well, then I guess that makes you King of Free Republic, doesn't it?

Oh, I'm sorry. It's "PRIDE" not to roll over for the January wonder when he takes charge of things.

[orionblamblam]

> Ooooh, a known liar says I'm "incorrect".

No, I did.

> Aliens testing your faith in atheism is a hypothesis.

What the *hell* are you blathering about? I have no faith in atheism to test. And how did this suddenly become a sci-fi thread?

> a dissembling way of dogmatically restating your transcendent non-evidenciary gnosis

Wow. What liberal arts curricula taught you to talk like that?

> You will never -- never, never -- accept it.

Amazing.

> After all, anything is more likely than a miracle.

Answer this: If you have a mystery, and it has several possible explanations, one of which is an oddball but physically possible explanation, and the other is a miracle... which do you choose and why? My choice would not be for the miracle. Not because I'm morally opposed to miracles, but because *there* *haven't* *been* *any*. None documented adequately, at any rate.

As I have repeatedly pointed out... there's a boatload of weird things in this world. But given time and effort, they all, so far, reduce to the purely mundane. Why should I suddenly accept that *this* is an exception?

> Add atheism. The result can be seen in the mirror.

Is calling someone who is not an atheist an atheist the latest rage in ad hominems?

[A.J.Armitage]

Is calling someone who is not an atheist an atheist the latest rage in ad hominems?

Are you claiming not to be an atheist? Then you're either a liar (again), or you can't be bothered by consistency.

Not because I'm morally opposed to miracles, but because *there* *haven't* *been* *any*.

No miracles = no God. Even Deists grant some sort of vaguely miraculous creation.

The rest is mostly ad homs.

[orionblamblam]

> Are you claiming not to be an atheist?

I am not an atheist.

> Then you're either a liar

Yawn. Coming from you...

> The rest is mostly ad homs.

What, you mean this: "As I have repeatedly pointed out... there's a boatload of weird things in this world. But given time and effort, they all, so far, reduce to the purely mundane. Why should I suddenly accept that *this* is an exception? "

Please answer that.

[A.J.Armitage]

What kind of God can't do a miracle now and then? One that doesn't exist. A person who rules out even the possibility of miracles while not being a full-on atheist is simply an example of the refusal to think clearly.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

Interesting! But I distinctly remember hearing a scientist who worked on the Shroud talk about the pollen. Oh well.

[shroudie]

There is pollen on the Shroud, and based on peer-reviewed reports, it can be identified as highly likely coming from the environs of Jerusalem.

As for reasons that the carbon 14 dating is invalid it is unlikely that it is a result of scorching heat effects or a bioplastic growth covering the fibers. RATHER is is because, despite the best intentions of the radiocarbon dating scientists, valid samples were not obtained. This was demonstrated statistically from the test results; it was demonstrated by textile analysis; it was demonstrated by chemical analysis. We now know that the carbon 14 tests are good tests for a non-homogenious sample of cloth consisting largely of medieval fibers used to repair the cloth. That is certain and the tests are invalid.

[shroudie]

Orionblamblams, you state that there haven't been any miracles. You suggest that this is so because none have been documented adequately. This is, of course, your opinion. Plenty of people do believe that miracles are adequately documented. Would you be so kind as to share with us by what criteria you can make such a bold statement.

You and many of the Jesus Seminar folks seem to share a profound faith that miracles do not happen. I recognize that this is an ad hominem statement. What else, however, can I think as you refuse to present a logical case. Their arguments have been that the enlightenment experience has shown that many things once thought miraculous have been shown to have quite natural explanations. But such Newtonian based thinking is shown to be bankrupt by new discoveries in quantum theory, chaos, non-locality and anthropic bias reasoning.

You have a very skewed sense of logic as demonstrated by your unwavering defense of the carbon 14 test validity. Imagine if you will that, in a murder trail, an expert testifies that a gun was used in the murder. But later, it was shown that the forensic evidence was flawed. New evidence makes it clear that no one can know if the gun was used or not. Using your logic we must consider that the gun was used unless it can be proven that the gun was not used.

We know, definatively, that what was tested by radiocarbon dating was not a representative sample of the Shroud. The tests cannot be considered valid. They have been completely discredited. You wish us to trust unrealiable tests in the absence of other tests to the contrary. Are you for real? Shall we hang the poor guy because we don't know know if the gun was used in a murder?

You are clearly out in left field.

[Swordmaker]

There is pollen on the Shroud, and based on peer-reviewed reports, it can be identified as highly likely coming from the environs of Jerusalem.

More correctly, shroudie: "There is pollen on the Shroud, and based on peer-reviewed reports, some of them can be identified as highly likely coming from the environs of Jerusalem."

In actual fact, there are pollen from everyplace that we know or suspect either the Shroud or the Image of Edessa has been. The European pollens are easily explicable because of its presence in Europe for the last 650 years (known beyond any doubt), but the existence of pollen from the area around Jerusalem would be remarkable IF the Shroud were a medieval pious hoax since we also know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it has not left Europe since 1352.

[shroudie]

I stand corrected. Thank you.