Shroud of Turin debate starts again

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | April 13, 2004 | BY ROGER HIGHFIELD

[shroudie]

"On Monday, the [Institute of Physics in London] said: 'Lying behind the known image of the bearded man bearing the marks of crucifixion, the new image has striking three-dimensional quality and matches in form, size and position the known face.'"

This is turning out to be a seminal finding. It virtually eliminates various hoax hypotheses and some miraculous and naturalistic hypotheses as well. It leaves many very puzzled.

For more information read first Chemistry of the Image and then Details about the back image.

These links will take you to other information including a discussion of the carbon 14 dating discussed in the Chicago Sun-Times article.

There have been other threads on this topic as well. But this is the firm announcement of the back of the cloth image.

The story is sourced from the Telegraph in London

[shroudie]

Day by day the evidence is mounting that the Shroud is a genuine burial cloth of a first century Roman-style crucifixion victim and very likely the Jesus' shroud. That means that we very likely have a picture of Jesus.

Shroudie

[xrp]

Fascinating.

[Eala]

Shroudie, I've read your excellent site -- but this second image doesn't seem to fit any of the theories, including the miraculous (suspension of the strong force). I am puzzled...

[shroudie]

The Guardian also has a story. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1190554,00.html

Shroudie

[ken5050]

Did you see the PBS show a few days ago...It was most excellent..

[shroudie]

I think we have to begin with known basic information

Fact: Cellulose fibers that make up the threads of the Shroud's cloth are coated with a thin carbohydrate layer of starch fractions, various sugars and other impurities. This chemical layer, which is about as thick as the transparent scratch-resistant coatings used for eye glasses, is essentially colorless. It varies between 180 and 600 nanometers in thickness. In some places, the layer has undergone a chemical change that appears straw-yellow. This chemical change is similar to the change that takes place when sugar is heated to make caramel or when proteins react with sugar giving beer its color. And it is the straw-yellow, selectively present in some parts of the carbohydrate layer, that makes up the image we see on the Shroud. This does not say to us how the image was formed in the layer; only that it is a change of state. A change of state can be caused by a chemical ingredient chemical reaction, a radiation induced chemical reaction (or at a level beyond where science can go, a miraculous causation).

Historical Evidence: If the cloth is truly from Jesus' era, then our best source of information is from the Roman encyclopedist, Pliny the Elder (Caius Plinius Secundus) (23-79 CE). In the ancient production of linen on vertical hand looms, warp threads, the up and down threads on the loom, were lubricated with starch to make it easier to weave the weft threads over and under the warp threads. The starch also protected the threads from fraying or unraveling. After weaving, the cloth was washed with a natural soap made from the soapwort plant (Saponaria officinalis). It was then dried flat over bushes in the open air. Washing, even with rinsing in clear water, never removes everything and small residual amounts of material remain on the cloth. This would include starch fractions, various types of sugar in Saponaria, and other impurities dissolved or suspended in the wash water. As the cloth dries, all these residual chemicals concentrate at the evaporation surface, forming the colorless carbohydrate layer on the outermost edges of the top fibers in the thread. Concentration at the evaporation edge is a very natural phenomenon when cloth is air dried.

Fact: The layer found on the Shroud is completely consistent with this manner of production. It is significantly not consistent with medieval linen.

Significant: One side of the cloth will get the major layer of impurities and one side will get a minor layer if the cloth is dried in natural sunlight across bushes as Pliny tells us it was.

Hypothesis: If the image was formed by heavy amines reacting from the body with the known and identified reactive saccharide impurities in the coating (a Maillard reaction) we would have an image on both side (a strong front image and a weak back image. It is perfectly demonstrated that these amine will diffuse through the cloth and form a backside reaction. We just don’t know if this is how it happened. But it is chemically consistent. The image would be much as the image appears on the backside of the cloth.

Questions: Why so only for the face (as discussed in the press) and the hands (as Fanti also discovered)?

But that it is an image of carbohydrate chromophores is something that is not in doubt. It does not rule out some form of penetrating ionizing radiation. IR is pretty much ruled out as it would alter the structure of the cellulose fibers. They are unaffected. When adhesive is used to pull of the coating (both imaged and non-imaged) clear, or when it was reduced with diimide, unaffected fiber is seen.

I welcome the questions this stimulates and the near-certain additional proof that this cloth is not a hoax.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

Did you see the PBS show a few days ago...It was most excellent..

Absolutely. It was excellent. By the way this is certainly a challenge to the Nicholas Allen proto-photograph hypothesis.

I think Mark Guscin explanation of the Sudarium was the hightlight. And Barrie's explanation of why the carbon 14 dating was wrong was excellent and was Fred Zugibe's explantion of the forensics was too.

PBS, no less. And they must have thrown away their stylebook because the referred to Christ and not just Jesus of Nazareth.

Shroudie

[ken5050]

The last segment was the most controversial..where the guy said that the images showed the body of Jesus passing THROUGH the shroud...i.e. proof of the resurrection....I coun;dn't believe that PBS let this one get through....as an aside, If you have any links to stories about that aspect, I'd be appreciative..regards..

[shroudie]

PBS actually screwed up. I've received email from Joe Accetta. His hypothesis is that radiation of some form may account for the images' characteristics. What he explained to the PBS crew is that those who propose "proof of resurrection/falling cloth hypotheses" (ala John Jackson) can use his data to support their position. He does not feel that the Shroud is proof of the resurrection. He did not say what they said he said.

Unfortunately, the way these shows are done, is producers and writers spend several hours in taping, gathering information and building a story segment. They then go back and edit and add narration. They misrepresented Joe and, believe me, he is upset. Hope this helps.

As far as I know this is the only screw-up. Others are a bit upset because information they felt was meaningful was edited out. For instance, Barrie said much more about why the carbon 14 tests were wrong. Fred, one of the world's leading pathologists, wondered how Nicholas Allen could leave a corpse in the sun for three days and not get a "photograph" of a bloated person.

A minor screw up. The picture they showed to demonstrate Barrie's point about the carbon 14 testing was the wrong picture. Few people recognized that.

Overall, though, it was a good show.

Shroudie

[ken5050]

Thanks for the clarification....I was watching it while on line here..so not completely focused on what was said...another question or two, , if I may, why don't they repeat the carbon 14 dating test, using another part of the cloth that wasn't so contaminated..seems an obvious option..also..any attempt made to try and extract a DNA profile from the blood on the shroud?

[shroudie]

Here is a link to a BBC story on the back of the cloth images:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3621931.stm

Shroudie

[shroudie]

Ping

[shroudie]

Now the Washington Times has picked up the story:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040413-012029-5747r.htm

Shroudie

[lonevoice]

It's great to see more mainstream news outlets picking up the fact that the scientific inquiry regarding the Shroud is ongoing, and uncovering new information. If not for your postings here on FR, I wouldn't have known that the carbon 14 testing that supposedly debunked the Shroud of Turin was, in fact, inaccurate. It seems that the majority are still under that erroneous impression and subsequently lost public interest in the Shroud's origin.

Thank you for continuing to share the results of your inquiries here on Free Republic. It is most appreciated.

[Swordmaker]

Shroud of Turin PING.

If you want to be included or deleted from the Shroud of Turin Ping list, please Freepmail me.

Swordmaker

[Graymatter]

Shroudie, if they can type the blood, why can't they carbon date it?

[Ichneumon]

I wouldn't have known that the carbon 14 testing that supposedly debunked the Shroud of Turin was, in fact, inaccurate.

It's a great overstatement to say that the carbon 14 dating "is, in fact, inaccurate".

It would be a lot closer to the truth to say something like, "there are some observations that *could* indicate that the portion of the shroud carefully dated at around 1300AD may not be representative of the shroud as a whole".

To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the 14C results are greatly exaggerated.

[shroudie]

They could and they will not. Keep in mind that to carbon 14 date something you need to burn it until all that is left is carbon (carbon 12, 14 and 13 isotopes). Although a small amount is all that is needed, the amount would be significant in term of the destruction of the cloth. Scraping alone would probably not produce enough blood and so some would need to be dissolved out. Add to the fact that many people would be insulted by the idea of burning the blood of Christ for a scientific test.

Shroudie

[shroudie]

You wrote: "To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the death of the 14C results are greatly exaggerated."

Ah, the original Mark Twain quip was useful for Twain while he still was alive. But it meant nothing, did it, after he was in fact really dead. He could not go about saying it, could he?

And your paraphrase was useful while some were wildly speculating as to why the carbon 14 testing might be wrong. But now, the carbon 14 results are DEAD. They have been proven inaccurate through faulty sampling. There is no doubt about it. It is over, proven wrong. It is time to get over it and move on. See:

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

For a definative 38 page scientific paper see:

http://shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

Shroudie

[SiliconValleyGuy]

Thanks. Bookmarked for later read.