Turin Shroud Back Side Shows Face

Discovery Channel News ^ | April 11, 2004 | Rossella Lorenzi

[shroudie]

A new study will be published on Tuesday by one of the peer reviewed scientific journals of the Institute of Physics, "The Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics." This may be one of the most revealing discoveries in the last few years in addition to the debunking of the carbon 14 testing and the discovery of the images chemical nature.

Giulio Fanti, professor of Mechanical and Thermic Measurements at Padua University and main author of the study, told Discovery News in an interview:

"On both sides, the face image is superficial, involving only the outermost linen fibers. When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle. It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."

[shroudie]

This virtually eliminates painting, proto-photography, and any yet-so-far imagined hoax theory.

Shroudie

[cvq3842]

Thanks for posting! I'll have to bookmark this.

:)

[Sacajaweau]

Even it is not a hoax in itself, i.e., it is a real burial shroud, it can never be proven to be Jesus'. And that is where it will always end.

[brityank]

Looks as if the Back shot has been reversed in this presentation. Why?

[anniegetyourgun]

Needing no signs, images, or trinkets - I look forward to the day I will see Him face-to-face.

[Ichneumon]

This virtually eliminates painting, proto-photography, and any yet-so-far imagined hoax theory.

No, it doesn't. For example the hoaxer/artist/whatever could have used what is now the "back" side of the cloth during one of his earlier imaging attempts, which didn't work well and left only a faint impression. Later after refining his techniques he succeeded more to his liking on the other side.

I'm constantly amazed at how credulous shroud believers can be, declaring "this proves it, no other explanation is possible!" at every little observation.

[Ichneumon]

"On both sides, the face image is superficial, involving only the outermost linen fibers. When a cross-section of the fabric is made, one extremely superficial image appears above and one below, but there is nothing in the middle.

Okay, I'll bite -- exactly when did anyone actually "make a cross-section" through the face part of the shroud?

As far as I know, no one ever has (nor would any such damage be permitted). And from the linked excerpt from the article, it appears that Fanti only had access to photographic images of the backside of the shroud IN A BOOK, and enhanced those photographs, but never had access to the shroud itself.

If true, any assertions he makes about whether or not the "image" exists in the cloth between the upper and lower surfaces is nothing but pure speculation.

It is extremely difficult to make a fake with these features."

Nonsense -- see my previous post.

[Ichneumon]

This may be one of the most revealing discoveries in the last few years in addition to the debunking of the carbon 14 testing

The Carbon-14 dating has in no way been "debunked". Shroud supporters have attempted to challenge the results in different ways, but that's hardly the same as having actually "debunked" them.

[Miles Bennel]

As tempting as this research is, I use Christ's own words help me refocus. (note: He wasn't too politically correct about it):

Luke 11:28-30 - (KJV)
28 But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
29 And when the people were gathered thick together, he began to say, This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; and there shall no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.

[shroudie]

Debunked is opinion, well supported with evidence. At the very least we can say the carbon 14 testing can no longer by viewed as definative. Recent, thorough, well-documented and confirmable studies by several researchers explain why the radiocarbon dating was incorrect.

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.

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.

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

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.

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).

According to Ray Rogers:

"I believe that this is one of the most important photographs of the Shroud that has been taken. It 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 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."

Archeologists know well that carbon 14 testing is best suited for testing things that have been undisturbed and well protected from natural or manufactured contamination. Because of this problem and because unexplained anomalies in the measurements often occur, corroborating evidence of another kind is sought. For instance, an archeologist might try to compare the cloth with other linen examples from antiquity.

According to Methchild Flury-Lemberg, a leading authority on historic textiles and the former curator of Switzerland’s Abegg Foundation Textile Museum, it is similar to linen woven on Egyptian or Syrian tombs and used in Roman occupied Palestine. Flury-Lemberg reports that the Shroud resembles unique ancient textiles found in tombs of the Jewish palace-fortress Masada, reliably dated to between 40 BCE and 73 CE.

More significant is the fact that the yarn was bleached before the cloth was woven. This is not how linen was produced in Europe during the time in question. There and then, the entire linen was bleached after weaving. More ancient linen was manufactured as described by Pliny the Elder: individual hanks of yarn were bleached and dried before weaving. This produced batches of thread with slightly different off-white coloration. With lighting from behind, X-ray-transmission, ultraviolet light and contrast-enhanced photography we can see discrete bands of yarn with different visual characteristics (x-ray densities and corresponding color densities). Some areas show darker warp yarns and some show darker weft yarns. In places bands of darker or lighter color cross producing plaid effect. Archeologically speaking, the cloth of the Shroud was not produced when the carbon 14 testing determined that it was.

Shroudie

[beachnut]

I'll just make one quote about the carbon dating process
exposing this fraud below. Then there's the art historian's exposee pointing to its insipiration in the middle ages. For me the final point is that the 'blood' on the wrists has been positively tested to be dye. Why would a burial shroud have red ochre and vermillion paint on it? It's a fraud!


According to Dr. Walter McCrone and his colleagues at McCrone Associates, the 3+ by 14+ foot cloth depicting Christ's crucified body is an inspired painting produced by a Medieval artist just before its first appearance in recorded history in 1356.
Experimental details on the tests carried out at McCrone Associates or the McCrone Research Institute are available in five papers published in three different peer-reviewed journal articles: Microscope 1980, 28, 105, 115; 1981, 29, 19; Wiener Berichte uber Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50 and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.
Conclusion:
The "Shroud" is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.

[shroudie]

With 100% percent alignment? Remember, we are talking about a discovery appearing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which requires absolute confirmation of the methodology (though not necessarily the conclusions) that completely adheres to strict scientific methodology.

I never said, "this proves it." Nor has Fanti, nor have any of the responsible researchers that I know of. Can you provide a quote to support your claim? I would love to challenge that person.

And check out:

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

Shroudie

[Ditter]

Amen annie!

[shroudie]

Crosssection was probably a bad choice of words. In reality, the image has been explored with probing tools. There is no image on an fibers below the crown fibers on the highest point of the surface threads. This means that something caused the image to occur only at the superficial face of the cloth, front and back. This in fact argues against any fluid pigment, dye, or reactive chemical other than one that is vaporous. It also greatly weakens extant "miracle" explanations that suggest radiation or some unexplained energetic. As we know that the chemical nature of the image is in a carbohydrate coating on the fibers, it supports the hypothesis of heavy reactive amines reacting with saccrides and starch fractions in the coating; a perfectly natural phenomenon. That, of course, introduces all kinds of new questions. See:

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

It is not pure speculation. BTW, microscopically, cross sections of individual fibers have been done. The fiber, itself, is not colored. The image is in the coating which is between 180 and 600 nanometers thick, about the thickness of scratch-proof coatings on eye glasses.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

I'm with you on that. There is a misconception that people try to prove the Shroud's authenticity to shore up their faith. While that may be true for some, the vast majority of researchers are either drawn to the Shroud because their faith makes them interested in it (my case) or they are challenged by the scientific mystery of it. Some, in fact quite a few, of the Shroud researchers are Jewish.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

McCrone was a hack. He said, in his book, that pigment was suspended in a gelatin solution of one part gelatin and ten parts water. Try this: Take some household (or laboratory grade) gelatin. Dissolve it in a glass of water: it doesn’t matter how much. Now paint it onto a piece of cloth. Let it dry completely. Now look at the dry gelatin layer. How much water was in the glass? The guy was a hack.

Although there is little doubt that McCrone found iron oxide and mercury, nowhere on the Shroud are there sufficient concentrations of these chemical components of paint pigments to form a visible image. Moreover, McCrone’s findings do not necessarily establish that paint was used on the Shroud. Iron oxide, for one thing, is a component of blood. It is expected. It would also be a byproduct of retting flax in iron rich water in the production of linen. As miniscule particles of rust (iron oxide) is often found in dust, so too might mercuric sulphide be present in dust, particularly in churches and cathedrals with frescoed walls and ceilings and old paintings. There is another possibility that might well explain the presence of paint particles on the Shroud. Many painted copies of the Shroud were produced. It was, after all, a revered relic. We know from history of a practice whereby artists would touch or lay their paintings on the Shroud for sanctification.

In 1965, Yale researchers discovered a map produced at least fifty years before Columbus’ first journey to America. Showing Vinlandia Insula, the Island of Vinland or Newfoundland as it is known today, the map was part of a small medieval volume, the Tartar Relation. The Tartar Relation had originally been bound together with the Vinland Map and another medieval volume, the Speculum Historiale. Wormhole alignments between the map and both volumes clearly showed that they had been all bound together at one time. The Tartar Relation volume was reliably dated by contemporaneous references to the Katatas people (Mongols) who dominated one end of the Eurasian land mass. There were also references to a certain bishop of Gada and Greenland that further corroborated the dating.

The map was significant because it supported archeological finds of Norse landings in Newfoundland as well as medieval Icelandic chronicles, the Graenlendinga Saga and Eirik’s Saga. The map was chronological proof that by the time Columbus made his famous journey of discovery, some people in Europe clearly knew about North America.
In 1972, Walter McCrone, who would later debunk the Shroud, examined some particles of ink and found titanium anatase, a material scientist discovered in the 1920s. He thus concluded that the map was a recent relic-forgery.
Several people doubted McCrone’s conclusion including George Painter, the curator of ancient documents of the British Museum. In 1985, physicist Thomas Cahill, of the University of California at Davis, analyzed the map using a newly developed process, Particle Induced X-ray Emission, and found only minute traces of titanium anatase, amounts that were consistent with what would be expected in the common green vitoral ink of the 15th century. As with the Shroud, McCrone had found the substances that he claimed were there. They are there, but in amounts too miniscule to support his conclusions.

Yet, myths and doubts about the Vinland Map persist. Why? Because a scientist had proven it was a hoax and PBS television reported the results of McCrone’s findings. There was very little reporting about the Cahill’s later findings at Cal-Davis. And myths persist that McCrone proved that the Shroud was a painting. He was a hack.
Many tests including visible, ultraviolet and infrared light spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and direct microscopic viewing of the Shroud confirm that the images were not painted.

Oh, as for the blood: Different scientists working independently conducted immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens that prove it beyond any doubt. And several experts in forensic medicine and blood chemistry conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds on a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth. Many of the stains have the distinctive forensic signature of clotting with red corpuscles about the edge of the clot and a clear yellowish halo of serum.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

I partly agree. I think the evidence makes a strong case that it was a genuine burial cloth of a Roman-style crucifixion victim. But I think the history of the cloth and many characteristics of the cloth let us reasonably infer that it was Jesus' shroud.

What we do know -- and this is where things become very mysterious in irresolute -- the cloth had to have been separated from the deceased within about 30 hours before bodily decomposition products would have ravaged the cloth. How so?

We are also faced with the questions posed by the Sudarium of Oviedo. See:

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

Shroudie

[cyncooper]

Needing no signs, images, or trinkets - I look forward to the day I will see Him face-to-face.

Many of us have faith well before learning of the shroud and it does not form the basis of belief, but I sometimes see comments like the above and think that Jesus did in fact come to earth to live as a man and did in fact perform miracles as signs, so if we are witness to one, it is a wonderful thing to behold.

[lepton]

The other researchers agree that there are trace flecks of red ochre and vermillion on the cloth. These do not however, make up the image. These flecks can be found scattered across the shroud, but not in any concentration enough to be seen by the naked eye or form an image, or even a spot. Why would there be such flecks? Because painters used to paint on canvas, and then place their completed paintings upon the shroud. As far as I recall, none of the other direct researchers agree with McCrones overall findings, including those that think the Shroud a hoax.

The "blood" has been typed.

[cyncooper]

Exactly, But he did perform signs.
As I'm sure you know.

I am not saying the shroud is in fact the burial cloth of Christ, but IF it is, I'm amazed at the pious scorn of some who act like Jesus did not in fact come to earth and work miracles.