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'.

Where to start? This interview with Joe Nickell is completely full of inaccuracies and downright lies invented by Joe Nickell and unsupported by any research.

Joe Nickell: Well, its name is the Shroud of Turin; but, of course it's not a shroud (it's never held a body).

Let's see, On Joe's side we have Joe Nickell, BA Degrees in Art and English, who states ex cathedra that it never held a body.

On the other we have several dozen PhDs in various scientific specialties including medical doctors and at least a dozen Forensic Pathologists who state that the Shroud did indeed once contain a human corpse.

In this contest, Joe loses... big time!

Joe Nickell: Needless to say, I suppose, the Jews did not bury their dead in that manner . . . the Shroud of Turin is not compatible with the description that John's gospel gives. . . .

Sorry, Joe, wrong again. Joe assumes it is "needless to say" because he buys into the wrong notion that Hebrews adopted Egyptian burial practices and swaddled their dead like mummies. Archaeology and Jewish written tradition tell us this is not true. I suggest you and Joe read Shroudie's excellent reply on the subject for a good overview of First Century Jewish burial practices. As for whether the Shroud is "compatible" with the Gospels, the problems arise from misinterpretations of Aramaic words into Koinic Greek and Koinic Greek into Latin or English. Once you find the correct translations, the problems go away.

Joe Nickell: . . . until the middle of the 14th century, at which time it shows up in a chapel in Lirey, France in the possession of a soldier of fortune who cannot or will not say how he acquired the most holy relic in all of Christendom.

My, my, my, how Joe LIES and slurs the excellent reputation of Geoffrey de Charny. Note the snide implication that Geoffrey has something to hide... when, in fact, HE WAS NEVER ASKED WHERE THE SHROUD CAME FROM. Little Joey Nickell calls Geoffrey a "soldier of fortune" when he is about as far from a mercenary as General George Patton was. Geoffrey de Charny, a Knight is service and Fealty to the King of France, was no "soldier of fortune." Geoffrey was not only a knight, he was the STANDARD BEARER for the King. This meant that he carried the King's banner in battle and was entrusted to never leave the King's side. He was, Joe, THE most trusted knight in France!

Geoffrey de Charny is also an author. It is HE who established the Code of Chivalry for Knights... you know, Joe, the one that was adopted by Sir Thomas Mallory in his Le Morte de Arthur that recounted the tale of King Arthur, Excalibur, the Round Table, Lancelot and Guinevere... and the Code of Chivalry!

Now we can add SLANDER and LIBEL to Joe Nickell's resume.

Incidentally, Nickell shows his ignorance of history by implying that Geoffrey de Charny had taken part in the Crusades. The fourth and last Crusade that resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, was in 1204... but Geoffrey de Charny first displayed the Shroud in 1355... 151 years later! Could Joe be a little deficient in his history?

Joe Nickell: Eventually, the granddaughter of Geoffrey de Charny makes off with the Shroud during a religious war on the pretext of safekeeping, then later refuses to give it back - she's excommunicated for this.

Joe now extends his calumny to de Charny's granddaughter, Margaret. How can you "make off" with something that belongs to you? Who is she supposed to "give it back to?" The story is a little convoluted here. Geoffrey built a wooden chapel on his property to hold the Shroud, funded it from his family coffers, and retained ownership. Catholic priests were allowed to operate the chapel and they assumed a degree of "ownership" in their own minds. When Geoffrey's granddaughter removed HER property, the head priest demanded its return, excommunicated her (later rescinded by the Pope), and generally made an ass of himself. Joe then implies it was somehow unethical for her to sell her possession to the House of Savoy. It wasn't.

Joe Nickell: The Bishop tried to put an end to it; people wouldn't listen to him. He appeals to Pope Clement; Pope Clement hears the matter and adjudicates it; he determines the Shroud is just a representation and not the True Shroud. The fact of the matter is that the Bishop's predecessor had actually found the artist and he had confessed.

Nickell does not tell the WHOLE story. First of all, the letter cannot be found in the files of the Vatican... which is notorious for the completeness of its files. The extant letters in France are "Rough drafts" and no final letter has ever been found. The Pope did intervene in the rivalry between the Bishop of Troyes and the de Charnys giving the de Charnys Papal permission to exhibit a "representation of the Shroud of our Lord" AND punishing the Bishop, placing him under a command of eternal silence on the subject! In other words, the Pope told the Bishop to "Shut up!" The De Charnys won... and Joe Nickell loses another round.

Joe Nickell: It was not really a commission; it was not sanctioned or organized by the Turin people.

This is pure GARBAGE. If it wasn't "sanctioned" how did the scientists in STURP get their hands on the Shroud for an unprecedented 5 days? Nickell lies to decrease the validity of the scientists examining the Shroud.

Joe Nickell: And we've heard much about how they were made up of scientists, but the truth is that most of them had no background in testing the questions of the Shroud. Many of them were outside their particular areas of scientific expertise, or lacked the specific expertise that they really needed.

Exaclty what "background" does one need in "testing the questions of the Shroud?" Apparently, Nickell believes that only those who are seeking to learn how it was faked need apply. But even there, he is wrong. Many of the scientists who came, thought they would look at the Shroud, find clear evidence of paint and artifice, make a report and go home. Nickell fails to understand that these scientists came to APPLY their specific fields of expertise to the Shroud to see what information that expertise could provide.

Some of those tests are listed below:

October 8, 1978: At around 10:45 p.m., and slightly ahead of schedule, the Shroud is removed from public display and taken through the Guarini Chapel into the Hall of Visiting Princes within Turin's Royal Palace. Thus begins a five-day period of examination, photography and sample taking by STURP, John Jackson's group of scientists from the U.S.A. Dr. Max Frei, Giovanni Riggi, Professor Pierluigi Baima-Bollone and others carry out independent research programs alongside. During this time the Shroud is lengthily submitted to photographic floodlighting, to low-power X-rays and to narrow band ultraviolet light. Dozens of pieces of sticky tape are pressed onto its surface and removed. A side edge is unstitched and an apparatus inserted between the Shroud and its backing cloth to examine the underside, which has not been seen in over 400 years. The bottom edge (at the foot of the frontal image) is also unstitched and examined. On the night of 9 October Baima Bollone obtains sample of Shroud bloodstain by mechanically disentangling warp and weft threads in the area of the 'small of the back' bloodstain on the Shroud's dorsal image. STURP continues its around-the-clock examination of the Shroud, performing dozens of tests, taking thousands of photographs, photomicrographs, x-rays and spectra. A total of 120 continuous hours of testing is done, with team members working on different parts of the Shroud simultaneously. This is the most in-depth series of tests ever performed on the Shroud of Turin.

Joe Nickell does not suggest any tests that the STURP members failed to do, he just throws baseless allegations at them.

Joe Nickell: Dr. McCrone. And he divided them into groups which either showed no appreciable contamination or, in fact, a pigment called red ochre (which he identified). He also found the pigment vermilion. These are pigments which were common in the Middle Ages. And he found that the blood stains were, in fact, tempera paint, and he first thought that the entire body image was probably just a pigment powder rubbed on, but he later concluded that that also was a very, very dilute tempera paint.

McCrone has been totally discredited. The chemistry of the image is well understood... and it does NOT include in Tempera Paint, Red Ocher, or Vermilion. The Blood is NOT red Tempera Paint as claimed by McCrone. By using a discredited source, Joe Nickell discredits himself. McCrone shows his pettyness in his attempts to derail other researchers investigations:

"Despite Rogers’s directive that Heller be sent slides with material that might be blood, McCrone’s Blood slide (that was sent by McCrone to Heller - Swordmaker) was no such slide; to reiterate from above, the circled ‘blood’ speck was so small that by its appearance under a light microscope, “it could have been blood, dirt, a fragment of a linen fiber--anything.” I infer that McCrone attempted to see to it that Heller could not do any testing for blood. McCrone’s attempt is hardly surprising considering that he long delayed sending Shroud slides for electron microscope examination to people in his own company: writes McCrone,
By January 1980 [i.e., by about 1 year after receiving Shroud slides], I had prepared two technical papers for publication.... Only then, did I allow the electron optics group at McCrone Associates to examine the “Shroud” fibers and tapes. I prevented them from doing this earlier because I (selfishly) wished to see polarized light microscopy solve the “Shroud” problem without assistance.70

His explanation of this self-described selfishness toward his own coworkers is that he “was hurt by” the fact that “an instrument I still found very useful... became the dinosaur of the research and development world,” and thus, “wanted to show ‘them’ [i.e., the world at large] the light microscope is still important.”71

Why don't you read the history of this research your self in Floristic Indicators for the Origin of the Shroud of Turin,

Joe Nickell: And clearly the situation now is, in my opinion, that science won the battle and science proved the truth. Science didn't want to prove that the Shroud was not real; science just wanted to prove the truth. It seems to me that, the pro-Shroud people, having lost the scientific battle, are nevertheless inclined to win the propaganda battle.

And who is it that we see IGNORING the science? Non-scientist Joe Nickell... and he is dancing and jiving as fast as he can.

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.