Second Face on the Shroud of Turin

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

[Graymatter]

I would have said that it is extremely easy to make a fake with these features, since by the 21st c. we are so clever...and then, if it is just a matter of some sugars and starches, let these brilliant physicists of ours replicate it. Can someone not make a linen as linens were made, dry it in the sun, cover a dead critter for a few hours and see what they get? If it's gaseous diffusion of heavy amines it should happen with the usual reliability of natural phenomena.

This chemical explanation is fine with me but can they demonstrate it?

[Netizen]

Thanks for the links. The second one, dating from April 9, 2004 was VERY interesting!

[orionblamblam]

> To say it's a fake without any idea of HOW it could be faked is simply denial.

Incorrect. Here's the logic:

Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.

Theory refuted; it's a fake. Exactly how the image got there is another matter; but the evidence shows it to *not* be the shroud of Jesus

[orionblamblam]

> The color is within a thin carbohydrate film that is 180 to 600 nanometers thick on fibers that average 13 microns in diameter

Heck, that's *easy.* Paint the image on a sheet of paper, place cloth on paper, press. SHAZAM! Instant Shroud, ready to recieve income.

[EternalHope]

Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.

Guess you're not up to date on the carbon dating actually used.

The sample used was from a corner the Catholic Church felt was not essential to the shroud. It had been contaminated in a fire, and restored in a way that invalidated its use for carbon dating purposes. In addition, it was subsequently shown that the individual fibers in the shroud had grown a biological "sheath" that was not removed prior to testing, and added new biomass to the original material. Since this new growth was obviously younger than the shroud itself, it undoubtedly changed the tested age of the sample.

Attempts have been made to mathematically correct for these problems. You may choose to dispute the math, but the correction results in a first century date for the shroud.

[shroudie]

In regards to the carbon 14 testing which has been completely discredited: M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, in collaboration with number of textile experts, identified clear evidence of medieval mending on the Shroud. A patch was expertly sewn to or rewoven into the fabric to repair a damaged edge. It was from this patch—quite likely nothing more than a piece of medieval cloth—that the samples were taken. From documenting photographs of the sample areas, the textile experts identified enough newer thread to permit Ronald Hatfield, of the prestigious radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic, to estimate that the true date of the cloth is much older—perhaps even 1st century.

Independently, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory have explored the chemical nature of the sample area. They have confirmed the finding of Benford and Marino. Ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis show that the area from which the samples were taken was chemically unlike the rest of the cloth. Chemical analysis reveals the presence of Madder root dye and an aluminum oxide mordant (a reagent that fixes dyes to textiles) not found elsewhere on Shroud. Medieval artisans often dyed threads in this manner when mending damaged tapestries. This was simply to make the repairs less noticeable. The presence of Madder root and mordant suggests that the Shroud was mended in this way.

This photograph, by Vern Miller, was taken before the samples carbon 14 testing were cut from the Shroud. It was taken with a heavily-filtered ultraviolet lighting (black light) that did not emit any visible light at all. All of the light you see in the photograph was produced by the fluorescence of chemical compounds on the Shroud. Any variations in color and brightness are a direct result of the chemical composition.

The dark brown region across the bottom of the picture is the mended area. The place from which the carbon 14 samples were cut is in the dark brown area just above the tiny triangular white spot located on the bottom edge. (The tiny white triangle is where a small sample was trimmed from the Shroud in 1973 by Gilbert Raes).

Microchemical tests also reveal vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) in an area of the cloth from which the carbon 14 sample were cut. But the rest of the cloth does not test positive for it. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin.

This is an important find. It suggests that the tested samples were possibly much newer and it underscores that the chemical nature of the carbon 14 samples and the main part of the cloth are outstandingly different.

[orionblamblam]

> . It had been contaminated in a fire

Except, of course, fire does not invalidate carbon dating.

> and added new biomass

This is another red herring. The mass of "biosheath" required to throw off the dating by the required amount would exceed the mass of the shroud itself.

The carbon dating may be off by a few dacades, tops. That's why, when it's presented, it's always presented with error bars.

The carbon dating still stands.

[shroudie]

Maybe this chart will help.

Chemical Differences	Carbon 14 Sample Area	Main Part of the Shroud of Turin
aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing	Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud)	Virtually none
Madder-root dye (alizarin and purpurin)	Found	Not found
a gum medium  (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant	Found	Not present
Lignin at fiber growth nodes	Very little	Significant
vanillin in lignin	Found	Not found
ultraviolet fluorescence	significant	less
cotton fiber in thread	Found	Not found
spliced fibers	Found	Not found

The photograph shown in a previous posting, according to Ray Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a chemist who has scientifically examined the Shroud -- in Turin -- and studied the object for more than 27 years, "shows the fluorescence of the area of the radiocarbon sample. It proves that the radiocarbon sample did not have the same chemical composition as the rest of the cloth. This is a fact - not an interpretation. . . Notice that the entire area above the Raes sample [the tiny white triangle on the bottom edge] and along the seam is darker than the main part of the cloth. It does not fluoresce. . .Its chemical composition is different from the Shroud. That is exactly the area sampled for the 1988 dating fiasco. . . The radiocarbon sample was invalid. No strange, magical events are needed to explain the invalid date. I do not know what the real date is, but I know the sample used in 1988 did not yield a valid date. The poor preparation for sampling in 1988, the poor verification of the sample, the failure to follow written protocols, and the unrealistic claims made about "unreliable" radiocarbon dating have done great damage."

The carbon 14 testing, sadly attested to in Nature Magazine in 1989, joins the ranks of junk science. It wasn't the labs that failed. It was the gross incompetence of the sample selection process.

[EternalHope]

The carbon dating still stands.

The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail. To sum up the current state of the scientific investigation, the carbon dating does NOT still stand.

As additional information you might consider the book, The Blood and the Shroud, by Ian Wilson, published in 1998. To quote The Washington Post (sorry 'bout that), "Wilson's outstanding study must surely be the most complete yet undertaken of the subject." Although it is the most recent book I have personally read on the subject, you can probably find more up to date info. However, it is quite readable and answers most of the non-radiocarbon dating questions quite well.

The recent discoveries (repairs at the site of sample used for radiocarbon dating, 1st century stitching methodology, image on the back) are obviously not addressed in the book.

Since you raised the radiocarbon dating question, I should re-emphasize the two points I made in my earlier post: fire and biocontamination. Both are addressed in the above referenced book, and both have the potential to skew the results substantially more than you might realize.

1. The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud, binding carbon items from the atmosphere at the time of the fire.

2. The biological "sheath" was quite thick, resulting in enough biomass to skew the results substantially.

These two points are separate from the repairs made to the cloth at the site of the sample, which is sufficient to invalidate the radiocarbon testing all by itself.

[Swordmaker]

Incorrect. Here's the logic:
Theory: This is the Actual Shroud OF Jesus.
Refutation: Carbon dating puts it at less than a thousand years old. Theory conclusively refuted.
Theory refuted; it's a fake.

I would agree... IF they had tested the Shroud and not a 16th Century PATCH.

It has now been almost conclusively proven that the Carbon 14 testng was done on material that had been patched in the 16th Century, probaby 1535 or 1552. The C14 sample was taken from an area of the Shroud that was SIGNIFICANTLY different from the rest of the Shroud..

The following table is borrowed from shroudie's Shroud Story website and shows the results of the tests comparing the C14 sample piece with the Shroud itself:

 

Chemical Differences	Carbon 14 Sample Area	Main Part of the Shroud of Turin
aluminum as hydrated oxide, common in textile dyeing	Significant (10 to 20 times as much as found on main part of Shroud)	Virtually none
Madder-root dye (alizarin and purpurin)	Found	Not found
a gum medium  (probably Gum Arabic) vehicle for dye and mordant	Found	Not present
Lignin at fiber growth nodes	Very little	Significant
vanillin in lignin	Found	Not found
ultraviolet fluorescence	significant	less
cotton fiber in thread	Found	Not found
spliced fibers	Found	Not found

So we have a C14 Sample that is:

CHEMICALLY different from the body of the Shroud in that it contained Rose Madder-root Dye, Aluminum Oxide (bauxite), Gum coating on the fibers as a mordant (a chemical to "bite" into the linen to allow dyes to adhere), and Vanillin (a decomposition product of lignin that disappears over time), and other chemicals not found elsewhere on the Shroud.

PHYSICALLY different because the patch fluoresces significantly under an ultra-violet light while the rest of the Shroud material fluoresces dimly, The C14 Sample shows significant differences as a TEXTILE in that the threads of the patch were spun in an "S" (counter-clockwise) twist while the entire rest of the Shroud was spun with a "Z" twist. In addition, the average thread size of the C14 Sample is "significantly" (statistically) smaller than the average thread size of the Shroud. The fibers composing the threads of the patch include WOOL and European COTTON which is found NOWHERE ELSE on the Shroud. Finally, the linen of the C14 sample was "retted" using a completely different process from the rest of the Shroud.

The location where C14 sample was taken.

Diagram of the cutting of the sample for distribution
to the three laboratories.
Photos linked from The 1988 Shroud of Turin Radiocarbon Tests Reconsidered
Paper by Bryan J. Walsh, Shroud of Turin Center, Richmond, VA

The samples provided to the Zurich C14 Lab (top) and the Oxford lab.
Note the obvious changes in thread directionality and tone in
the samples from left side to right side, and the subtle variation between
the direction changes. This has been determined to be an area of "invisible
reweaving" where the 16th Century linen patch material is interwoven
with the original shroud material.

This color photo of the one of the Arizona lab's samples
(the only lab to get two samples) shows a distinct change
in thread quality in the lower right. Note the subtle change
in direction of the "woof" (horizontal) threads.
Sample photos borrowed from
Catholic Counter-Reformation Website

Bryan J. Walsh' statistical analysis of the C14 tests performed by the three laboratories show that given the accepted accuracy of the tests, the test results and the reported ages of the 11 tests (three labs Arizona, Oxford, and Zurich, four samples cut into 11 sub-samples (A-4, O-3, Z-4) for testing) COULD NOT HAVE COME FROM THE SAME HOMOGENOUS POPULATION! In other words, the test results varied so greatly that statistically they could not have come from the same sample! Yet we know they did.

Plotting the age variances in the samples show that the age reported is inverse linear proportion to the distance from the edge of the Shroud toward the center. At the time the statistical analysis was done, the evidence of a patch had not been found.

The distances used were:

                 Laboratory                                    Distance (in mm)

                           Oxford                                50.0  (the approx. distance from the edge of Shroud cloth to center of Oxford sample)

                           Zurich                                64.0  (the Oxford value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)

                           Arizona                              76.0   (the Zurich value plus the approx. distance between the center of both samples)

A regression analysis was then conducted which compared the subsample radiocarbon dates with the corresponding distance from the edge of the Shroud linen. It was determined that there was statistically significant (P>98.8%, r²=0.49) inverse linear relationship between the date measured and the distance from the sample to the edge of the cloth. This finding indicated that there was an apparent gradient of radiocarbon measured on the Shroud sample with higher levels of ¹⁴C measured at increasing distance from the edge of the Shroud linen based on the sample measured. This is illustrated on the following chart:

The data and statistical analysis by Walsh is equally valid if it is not distance from the edge of the cloth but rather proportion of patch to original material in a diagonal change across the flawed sample that results in the statistically anomolous results. This is proof that the samples, although cut from the Shroud, and then further cut from the same sample WERE NOT HOMOGINOUS... and in fact were made up of OLD shroud linen intermixed with NEW patch linen.

Ergo, the test was flawed from the beginning. It is akin to finding a note on a piece of paper scotch taped to the flyleaf of a book, taking that page, including the scotch taped piece and testing it to find the age of the book. The sample was corrupted by additional anachronistic material, the results are wrong.

[Swordmaker]

Check out my C14 reply just above on this thread. I have borrowed a chart from your website. Thanks.

Swordmaker

[shroudie]

Great post!

[EternalHope]

I just visited your website. Quite impressive!

The last time I read anything extensive on the shroud was five years ago, with occassional articles since then as updates. It is obvious: I am quite out of date!

[orionblamblam]

> The post immediately prior to yours (probably posted while you were writing your reply to me) addresses your statement in detail.

The info in the post starts from the position that the shroud is 2k years old, and works backwards from there to "prove" it. It provides zero evidence to refute the medieval age of the shroud.

> The fire had the potential to cause a chemical change in the type of fibers in the shroud,

Irrelevant. Chemistry has nothing to do with radiocarbon dating.

> binding carbon items from the atmosphere

Nope. Fire does not do that to any recognizable degree.


> The biological "sheath" was quite thick

As pointed out, it'd have to be several times the mass of the shroud itself. If that were the case, the face would be invisible under the much.

[shroudie]

Ben Witherington, a well-known, very conservative and respected biblical scholar, wrote that the carbon 14 tests are now significantly disputed. He cited the same material as presented by EternalHope. Until recently, that was the going hypothesis. You are right in saying that the mass of bioplastic would need to be significant. You said more by mass but actual calculations say by as much as 60% because the bioplastic has a moving average age.

The scorching proposal that high temperatures from a fire in 1532, which damaged and nearly destroyed the Shroud, enhanced the mix of radioactive carbon 14 and stable carbon 12 isotopes in the cloth is dubious but not completely eliminated. But experiments to test this idea have not been promising. Any change caused by the fire would likely be too trivial to be significant.

The data was not refuted until recently, and in the best of scientific method, not until a complete analysis could be completed. Even Harry Gove, inventor of AMS carbon 14 tools, was open to the possibility pending full investigation.

The evidence by numerous researchers including Bryan Walsh, M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, Anna Arnoldi of the University of Milan and Raymond N. Rogers, a Fellow of the University of California Los Alamos National Laboratory is now complete. Ron Hatfield of Beta Analytic has even estimated from the composite data that a 1st century date is a reasonable estimate.

Is the cloth really first century? I think so. Other evidence suggests it is. New carbon 14 testing would be a good solution, but it is one that I don't think the Turin authorities are about to entertain in the foreseeable future.

I really do believe that it is a burial cloth of a first century crucifixion victim. And if it is, it is easy and reasonable to infer that it is Jesus' burial cloth. It completely agrees with the biblical narratives of the Passion. Its fuzzy history is better than most history we have for an object such as the Shroud. I am convinced, and not lightly so.

The fact is there may be some bioplastic material and there may be some ion transfer due to the fire, but they are probably a minor factor. The reality is that the radiocarbon dating labs did not test the Shroud but a medieval patch.

Shroudie

[orionblamblam]

> The scorching proposal that high temperatures from a fire in 1532, which damaged and nearly destroyed the Shroud, enhanced the mix of radioactive carbon 14 and stable carbon 12 isotopes in the cloth is dubious ...

It' silly, is what it is. Fire does not effect isotopic ratios of carbon.

> I really do believe that it is a burial cloth of a first century crucifixion victim.

Then that victim was an alien, because the shroud does not conform to human geometry when actual attempts to fold replicas around humans or humaniform manikens have been attempted. It just doesn't work.

[Alex Murphy]

Then that victim was an alien, because the shroud does not conform to human geometry when actual attempts to fold replicas around humans or humaniform manikens have been attempted. It just doesn't work.

Besides, it had to be an alien. Who else would glow-in-the-dark inside a shroud?

[shroudie]

You wrote: "It' silly, is what it is. Fire does not effect isotopic ratios of carbon."

You meant heat, right? In a fire, definate contamination from movement of gaseous products can change the overall molecular level mixture. The heat does not change isotopic ratios of carbon; on that point you are right. But what is the point. It is trivial and not the cause of the carbon 14 error.

As for alien: hmm. Do you know how the image was formed? As we do not know, and as we do not presume a contact mechanism, I don't know how we can simply say it does not conform. The image does definately appear to be collimated. I don't know how the image was formed, and like you I agree that it does not conform to human geometry -- but only for contact mechanisms. I am quite certain it was not faked.

[orionblamblam]

> In a fire, definate contamination from movement of gaseous products can change the overall molecular level mixture.

Errrr.... no. A piece of linen on fire still only has it's own carbon. Fire does nothign to it, with the exception of turning some of it to carbon dioxide, and this is doen at an equal ratio regardless of isotope. Any carbon dioxide in the air nearby *remains* carbon dioxide at any fire temperature likely to be found Way Back Then.

> Do you know how the image was formed?

Artificially seems by far the most likely explanation.

> I am quite certain it was not faked.

I have this bridge...

[shroudie]

Look, if you want to believe it is a fake, go ahead. You said earlier that it was painted. Fine. The fact that there is no paint in the images makes this highly suspect. But believe what you want. But do get your facts straight if you wish to try to convince others. And, do a bit of reading on the carbon 14 problems.

http://shroudstory.com/faq-carbon-14.htm

http://shroudstory.com/faq-fakery.htm

http://shroudstory.com/faq-chemistry.htm

Shroudie