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]

> You are ignoring the science.

No. My only problem here is that I'm debating a zealot.

> You are ignoring the fact that the image is superficial to
the outer crowns on the outmost fibers of the cloth faces. In other word capillary action will not work

Sorry, wrong. Capillary action will do this quite nicely. Fluids will often traverse cloth, leaving a dark stain at the outer extent, and little to no stain over the areas they've covered in gettign there. Now, if you have a stained cloth produced in the 1300's, and then allowed to age for 650 years... it's easy to see how the fainter areas in the interior will get even fainter, leaving only the exterior areas to have any visibility whatsoever.

Ergo: dye not on the interior =/ miracle.

And of course, if the dye or paint or stain or egg whites or whatever were not applied thickly, then it's again easy to see why the interior would not be stained, but just the exterior. And as for the "other" face...it's astonishingly easy to see two entirely amterialistic reasons for it to be there, as well, especially if it's seen via image processing.

>Any shrouds that were used for a few would have decomposed in the tomb unless the tomb was empty.

Huh. Then, how do we even know that this is an accurate burial shroud, and not just a fourteenth century beach towel? If all burial shrouds except for those magical few used in cases of resurection have decomposed... we'd have mighty few burial shoruds, wouldn't we? And if this one is the only one... how do you know it is what it's said to be?

> I am wasting my time replying to you. But it is fun.

No doubt it is. I'm sure you're using this as an excercise in your cutting-and-pasting skills.

[Swordmaker]

Uh... yes, you do. If the "patches" were made at the same time as the shroud, then they're the same age. . . .

Not quite right. Same age, yes, but composition is irrelvant. . . .

There is ABSOLUTELY nothing even approaching the scientific method in those statements. You indict yourself with your statements. You DO NOT understand the scientific method, regardless of how much you claim you do!

The second statement is particularly ridiculous because the offending sample includes EUROPEAN COTTON, which is found nowhere else on the Shroud. That makes the composition relevant. Very relevant!

The FACT, and that is what it is, that the area from which the C14 samples were taken is NOT exemplar is the balance of the Shroud is the defining test that invalidates a permissable general statement about the age of the rest of the material. It is entirely illogical to state that a PATCH, which could have been added at anytime since the original cloth was woven, can give any definititive age for the cloth to which it is applied. That is what makes the 1989 C14 tests invalid as a general statement for the SHROUD.

The tests, are also invalid for providing the age of the sample itself since it has been proved, again beyond a reasonable doubt, to be a melange of materials, including newer linen expertly rewoven into the original linen. Therefore, the laboratories burned a MIXTURE of unknowns and found an average age for those unknowns, not an absolute date for any of them.

This is simple logic, Orionblamblam, something that is PART of the Scientific Method... and something you seem to be lacking.

The proper test logic:

A (Sample) is equal to B (Shroud)

A is 650 years old.

Therefore: B is 650 years old.

That is the logic used to design the tests (indeed any sampled test). However if ANY of the premises are wrong, then the conclusion DOES NOT FOLLOW! In this instance:

A (Sample) is NOT equal to B (Shroud)

A is 650 years old.

Therefore: B is still unknown.

It may be that, as you illogically assume, that the patches WERE applied as soon as the cloth was woven. It may be, as I assume, based on history and other data about the patched area, that the patches were applied in the 16th Century using 16th Century sourced materials. The point, Orion, is that WE DON'T KNOW WHEN the patches were applied for certain. This one point invalidates the entire C14 test.

No matter how much you wish it were different or demand that we provide the age of the patches, just the mere FACT that A ? B makes any test of A irrelevant in providing information about B!

It means that reports from 700 years ago, when the shroud was new, said that the image was clearly visible to the naked eye. Now it's faint.

700 years ago it was clearly visible to the naked eye when the viewer was standing 15 or more feet away... in 2002, when it was last exhibited, it was clearly visible to the naked eye when the viewer was standing 15 or more feet away. I see no change.

[Swordmaker]

No. My only problem here is that I'm debating a zealot.

No, the only problem here is that both Shroudie and I are debating a Zealot for atheism (the belief that God does not exist is just as much of an unprovable as that he does) who also does not know history or the scientific method.

You displayed your ignorance when you claimed in an earlier post:

"Why? If this shroud is, as it's history suggests, a painting done for the Pope around 1357 . . ."

and you repeated this ignorance of history later when you said:

"Not when the fake is to be delivered to the Pope. And not in an age when people such as Da Vinci were running around creating an artistic Rennaissance, and tryign to mess with the system... ".

These claims are false. They are UNTRUE. The Shroud was not a "painting done for the Pope" as the Pope did not even become involved in the dispute until 37 years after the first exposition of the Shroud in Lirey. In fact, according to the record, the first Pope to even SEE the shroud was Pope Pius VII who saw the Shroud when he was being forced to travel to Paris to crown Napoleaon in 1804!

As to the absurd inclusion of Leonardo Da Vinci in the debate, Leonardo was born 102 years AFTER the first Lirey exposition. This would be akin to arguing that Abraham Lincoln was instrumental in forming the United Nations, or that JFK (the first one, not the soon to be DemocRat candidate) was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation. Incidentally, there is no evidence that Da Vinci ever tried to "mess with the system" except in some popular fiction books and another work of fiction by Picknett and Prince.

You expound on things you DO NOT KNOW ABOUT. You claim as FACT things that are not true. You ignore proven facts. You cite historical evidence that exists only in your own mind.

Your mind is closed. You are an atheistic Zealot. I agree with Shroudie, you are a waste of our time.

[Swordmaker]

Check out the previous post... I too have given up on Orionblamblam. Nothing moves him. He is willfully ignorant.

[shroudie]

Actual he is into the miraculous without even knowing it.

[shroudie]

I checked with two phyical chemists about blamblam's claim about capillary action and they both told me he doesn't know what he is talking about. To imagine that a dye or stain would, by capillary action, move from one outer surface edge to the other extreme surface edge and not stain along the way is preposterous; certainly not when a thread is made up of 70 to 120 twisted fibers with many various paths of different separation. In many places there would be closed pockets and funnels. Furthermore, the stain would not make it to the crowns but settle in regions between two fibers. Capillary action will emphatically not work, and as there is none in evidence, it further strengthens the argument that the two superficial images could not have been produced by a colorant such as paint, dye, or stain.

[orionblamblam]

> the only problem here is that both Shroudie and I are debating a Zealot for atheism

Ummm... I defy you to show where I've mentioned the existence or non-existence of any god or other anywhere in this thread. Whether the Shroud or Turin, or the Shroud of Bayonne for that matter, is 650 years old or 1970 years old does not affectGod one way or the other. If God exists, findign out that many relics are frauds will not make him disappear into a puff of logic.

The fact that you wish to turn a debate over the authenticity of an artifact into an irrelevant slap-fest over the existence of your preferred God says much about you.

[orionblamblam]

>I checked with two phyical chemists about blamblam's claim about capillary action and they
both told me he doesn't know what he is talking about. To imagine that a dye or stain would,
by capillary action, move from one outer surface edge to the other extreme surface edge and
not stain along the way is preposterous

Well, that's a shame, especially as I've seen it happen. Perhaps your friends need to do some actual experiments?

[orionblamblam]

> To imagine that a dye or stain would, by capillary action, move from one outer surface edge to the other extreme surface edge and not stain along the way is preposterous

Just for grins, I ran a little experiment that you too can run. Take a reciept, preferably one of the thermal paper types (like crappy fax machine paper) such as from a grocery store and some acetone. Drop a few drops of acetone onto the reciept, and watch what happens.

What happens?

The acetone picks up the ink, and migrates it to the furthest extent. You wind up with a circular stain with no ink in the interior. So, just like on the shroud... capillary action carries the stain to the outside. Whterh the stain was blood, egg whites, paint or beer... capillary action is quite adequate to explain why it may not appear in interior surfaces... especailly if it was thinned with some carrier fluid (such as acetone in my experiment).

What conclusions to draw here?

Blood is thick stuff, by nature. But paint can and often is thinned. If blood is used as a pigment, it too may well be thinned...e specailly if the artist is looking to create a relatively faint image. By using thinned stains, you'll increase your chances of getting capillary action to carry the stain itself "outside."

I can, I suppose, post a photo of the reciept with the migrating-ink stains...

[Swordmaker]

I defy you to show where I've mentioned the existence or non-existence of any god or other anywhere in this thread.

Orionblamblam, Reply # 51: "A Jesus of Nazareth may well have existed. But as to him having been anything other than a guy... evidence is entirely lacking."

Orionblamblam, Reply 46: "One True Shroud Of the Theoretical Jesus."

You do know that over 2 BILLION people consider Jesus to be God?

(Incidentally, both the Book of Mormon and the Koran attribute miracles to Jesus. I will grant you the possibility of Scientology, but without knowledge as I don't know what their "holy" books say about Jesus.)

Then there is also that comment you made about the "baby Elvis" and a tortilla... but then, contrary to some of his worshipers, I kinda agree that Elvis isn't a god. :^)

[Swordmaker]

The fact that you wish to turn a debate over the authenticity of an artifact into an irrelevant slap-fest over the existence of your preferred God says much about you.

Sorry, that gets you nowhere, Orion.

It was YOU that first accused Shroudie of being a Zealot. It was YOU who have attempted to turn this into a slap fest with snide comments and derogatory remarks. It is you who refuse to recognize world class scientist's results and YOU who have kept stating nonsense as fact despite our presentation of the current science which has been published in peer reviewed journals.

[orionblamblam]

OK, I concede my mentioning the questionable notion of Jesus being an actual deity.

>You do know that over 2 BILLION people consider Jesus to be God?

And that fact plays into the shroud *how*?

[orionblamblam]

> It was YOU that first accused Shroudie of being a Zealot.

Yeah, and? Don't pretend it ain't true.

> It is you who refuse to recognize world class scientist's results...

McCrone's? How about all the scientists who analyzed the shroud and determiend it to be 14th century?

> despite our presentation of the current science which has been published in peer reviewed journals.

Oh, I'm sorry. Could you re-post the link to the peer-reviewed study that says that the shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ?

[Swordmaker]

McCrone's?

Like you, McCrone refused to recognize ANY research except his own. McCrone's results have NOT been duplicated by any other scientist. He claims to see things that NO OTHER SCIENTIST sees. McCrone's findings have been discredited by EVERY OTHER SCIENTIST DOING RESEARCH ON THE SHROUD.

McCrone is not even being quoted by the TV tabloid shows anymore because he is so easily shown to be wrong by the results of far more sophisticated tests than any McCrone did.

How about all the scientists who analyzed the shroud and determiend it to be 14th century?

Are you still harping on the discredited Carbon 14 test? That is the ONLY research result that "determines" the Shroud might be 14th Century. Throughout this entire thread we have provided you PROOF of the invalidation of the Carbon 14 test.

What OTHER scientists who have analyzed the Shroud and "determined" it to be 14th Century? Please NAME them and show me their work in peer reviewed journals. Exactly what did they SEE in their researches that convinced them that it was 14th Century?

Remember, these have to be scientists, not second rate magicians, journalists, or writers with a book to sell, pushing a pet theory. Oh, and their research has to be since the 1978 STURP investigation.

[Swordmaker]

Oh, I'm sorry. Could you re-post the link to the peer-reviewed study that says that the shroud of Turin is the actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ?

Oh, I'm sorry. Could you re-post the reply on this thread or any Shroud of Turin thread where either shroudie or I claimed the Shroud is the "actual burial shroud of Jesus Christ"? Could you point out where we claimed their was a peer reviewed study that claimed that?

Again, Orion, you are being snide and denigrating.

I think you will find that we have repeatedly said that SCIENCE cannot address that issue. It is YOU that demands such impossible proof.

[shroudie]

Orionblamblam, so your experiment, on “crappy paper” shows that ink travels in all directions by capillary action. Exactly! Duh! But for a superficial image on only the crown fibers of the outermost face sides of the thread, any colorant solution would have to travel in only one direction through a tightly twisted bundle of some 70 to 120 cellulose fibers. If it traveled in all directions, as it would (and left no traces within the thread) it would leave a residue on sides of the thread where there is no image. Macroscopic kitchen experiments do not explain microscopic results. Did you do a cross section of your paper to see that in fact there was no image between the outer faces. Thermal paper, like you used, is about 50 microns thick. Are you sure? Have you done microscopic analysis of the inner fibers of your piece of paper? Are there internal ink residues? And incidentally, we are talking about a woven piece of cloth not paper. On a cloth, the residue of colorants within the yarn and about the surfaces of the yarn would be far more pronounced.

Now evaporation concentration is another matter. And it will cause ink (or dye or stain or paint) particles to concentrate on the outer faces. But it does not eliminate telltale traces of capillary action in all directions. But since it is already proven that the image is contained within a carbohydrate layer coating the fibers, and is not any form of applied colorant, you are presenting silly arguments. And this fact that the image is a Melanoidins (amino-carbonyl, Maillard product) is well established in peer reviewed papers (see my previous posts).

[orionblamblam]

> f it traveled in all directions, as it would (and left no traces within the thread) it would leave a residue on sides of the thread where there is no image.

After 650 years? Are you so certain? Wow.

> But since it is already proven that the image is contained
within a carbohydrate layer coating the fibers...

You keep touting that like it's something special. So what if the image is *on* the fibers and not *in* them?

> And this fact that the image is a Melanoidins (amino-carbonyl, Maillard product) is well established in peer reviewed papers (see my previous posts).

I saw one (1) paper that *suggested* that.

[orionblamblam]

> Throughout this entire thread we have provided you PROOF of the invalidation of the Carbon 14 test.

No, you have not. You have provided SUGGESTIONS that it's invalid. It will only be invalidated with MORE C-14 testing on other areas of the cloth.

> Remember, these have to be scientists, not second rate magicians

Actually a FIRST rate magician would be a marvelous persoon to have on hand here. Magicians such as James Randi or Penn & Teller are valuable resources when attempting to determien if somethign is a fraud, as they see things and think in ways that good scientists simply cannot. Scientists believe the data they produce, which is generally good... except whe they are dealing with someone who is actively trying to fool them.

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.

[shroudie]

orionblamblam, you wrote: "No, you have not [proven the tests are invalid. You have provided SUGGESTIONS that it's invalid. It will only be invalidated with MORE C-14 testing on other areas of the cloth."

You fail to think this through. The tests are invalid as the material tested has been proven to be unrepresentative of the cloth. No one can stand behind the results. Thus the tests are invalid.

We cannot, of course, say that they did not produce a proper date arrived at incorrectly. And should that be the case, that would still not make the tests valid.

I, and every shroud researcher I know, would love nothing more than to see valid tests conducted. 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. In fact, no tests will be done except those related to preservation.

Fortunately, some material is not under their control (although it may be their legal property). And so testing does continue. Regrettably, there is insufficient material to do perform proper carbon 14 testing. Add to that, many scientists have ethical issues in opposing the Church's stance on further dating as the material's ownership is in question.

The best we can do in realizing that the cloth is much older is to examine a preponderance of other evidence such as the Sudarium, historical records, art history, the carbon 14 error estimates from Beta Analytic, fabric science, and the discovery that the Shroud contains no vanillin (which is almost certain thermal decomposition evidence that the Shroud is not medieval).

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

Shroudie

[shroudie]

OBB, I stand partly corrected. I had written: And this fact that the image is a Melanoidins (amino-carbonyl, Maillard product) is well established in peer reviewed papers (see my previous posts).

And you replied: I saw one (1) paper that *suggested* that.

I should have said: "And this fact that the image is a Melanoidins (amino-carbonyl product) is well established in peer reviewed papers. The paper suggests that it may be due to a Maillard reaction."