Shroud to be discussed on The O'Reilly Factor Tonight

The Shroud of Turin Story ^ | January 27, 2005 | Dan Porter

[shroudie]

Barrie Schwortz, Shroud Scholar and a Member of STURP that examined the Shroud in Turin in 1978, will appear on the O'Reilly Factor, Thursday, January 27, 2005 to discuss the Carbon 14 Dating. See foxnews.com for local schedule information.

This is a developing story. A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.

[Swordmaker]

I personally think the shroud is cool looking and whether real or fake, it’s not going to change anyone’s belief in God.  So in my opinion, this whole discussion is simply academic.

McCrone's work has NEVER been duplicated by any other scientist who has worked on the shroud and he has not published his findings in any peer-reviewed journal. Instead, he held press conferences.

[churchillbuff]

Why won't the Catholic Church simply allow the Shroud to be fully examined, over a generously allocated period of time, under protocols that would both allow for an exhaustive range of tests and supervision that would ensure that it wasn't damaged? Maybe the cardinals are fearful that exhaustive tests would in fact prove it's a fake?

[Blzbba]

The examples of Christians who scoff at dating techniques are numerous.

However, you may be slightly correct - I'm probably mixing up Catholic Christians with the fundies when I think of who considers this stuff authentic.

[Blzbba]

"Feel free to be skeptical but I don't think you should mock those who believe in its authenticity. Yes, the Medieval Church had a lot of corruption and a lot of bogus artifacts. But unlike the Spear of Longinus, for example, which has characteristics of later weapons or other artifacts that are obviously bogus to a modern eye, this one sticks out as being fairly solid."


If I've mocked, I apologize.

As far as your 'being faitly solid', that's why I am curious of an aging technique being properly used on this artifact, to put the issue to rest once and for all.

This in comparison to (say) that supposed box of "James brother of Jesus" found last year that's already been debunked. There's no reason to consider that as 'actual', since the evidence is overwhelming to its artificiality.

[Blzbba]

"No, Balzeeba, you are the fake, not the Shroud, and science is demonstrating this today."


No, I'm quite real and can prove my existence. Your Shroud is a different story.

You horridly misspelled my name, btw.

[Blzbba]

"Like you would know what God thinks!"


He told me this last nite.

[Blzbba]

"So Billy Graham is a fake? He has made a lot of money too, no? "

I don't think he made his money off of displaying the Shroud. You have an awfully dificult time making a point, much less sticking to the topic.


"Alot of money has been made at the National Archives letting people see the Declaration of Independence; so that must be fake too. "


The Archives are a non-profit gig. No money has been made. Also, the Declaration passes the age test. Boy, you're not a very good debater!


"You are such a knee-jerk wacko. "

REsorting to name-calling? After those threadbare arguments above, I guess I can't blame ya!


"Why ever you left the Catholic Church is your own personal hell, not mine. But please dont dump your emotional baggage on or near me."


Ummm..why are you taking any of this personal? "Not mine"? Did I ever try to relate my religious experiences with you or to you? And as far as 'dumping' goes - here's a clue: Don't read my posts!

In fact, PLEASE don't read my posts. Your replies are not worth reading.

[JFK_Lib]

"Why won't the Catholic Church simply allow the Shroud to be fully examined, over a generously allocated period of time, under protocols that would both allow for an exhaustive range of tests and supervision that would ensure that it wasn't damaged? Maybe the cardinals are fearful that exhaustive tests would in fact prove it's a fake?"

Yeah, and maybe they are afraid of little imps flying out of Balzeebels' Gluti.....nm.

Look, the Shroud has been around for 2k years, apparently based on chemical testing and the record if it is the Mandylion of the Byzantine Empire and plenty of evidence suggests it may well be.

If every time some scientist was allowed to cut a piece out of it to perform some test, there wont be much of the Shroud left in a few centuries.

The church takes a long term view over things because it isnt some fly-by-night denomination with a scant thre or four century history.

The Shroud needs to be preserved far more than it needs verification for the sake of skeptics who will never be convinced no matter what the evidence.

[G Larry]

And your "scientific" reasoning for assessing the Shroud as bogus?

[terycarl]

let's see now....Christ stated that he would be with the church "from now till the end of time" and then abandoned her till the protestants came along....1500 years later...I don't think so...He was and is with the Catholic church from then till now...the protestant "Johnnie come latelys" can protest the truth all they want...all to no avain...Catholocism is the only true Christian denomination that there ever was....

[terycarl]

avain=avail

[olde north church]

1. Jews did and do use shrouds for burial. It is traditional for the a Jewish woman's bridal gown to be used as her burial shroud. The kittle can also be used as a burial shroud. Jewish tradition is actually prefers to use a shroud without a coffin except where law mandates. The body is to be buried in a white, linen shroud and not street clothes.
2. Paul, who was struck with a seizure ( a temporal lobe seizure, indicated by the flash of blinding light, loss of coordination and Divine vision) on his way to Damascus was not the arbiter of law at the time. It was my understanding the Prophet Immanuel left the Church upon His rock Peter.
3. Only a moron would be fooled by a box that claimed to contain the bones of the James, the brother of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, for lack of a better term, was a nickname.
4. According to the dogma of the group of 1960's "evangelicals" who recognized what a brilliant marketing slogan "Born Again" was, Roman Catholics ARE NOT Christians.
5. It's not the American Fundamentalist's intolerance of other religions that is at fault, it's their intolerance of any religious discussion beyond their own small-minded and laughable interpretations of the Bible.
a. The interpretation of The Alpha and The Omega as being the first and last or the beginning and the end and not "The All", that from which the universe is derived shows the simplicity and lack of comprehension of these Pharisees.
b. The utter arrogance of these individuals to judge who will be able to enter Heaven only through the acceptance of Christ as their Savior is cretinism to an exponential level. It is by following His example that one regains eternal life. That is how spirit and flesh rejoined.
In closing these people forget the whole point of the Prophet Immanuel's teachings, it's not the word of the law but the spirit of the law. Doesn't seem anybody has a problem bringing the moneychangers into the temple, does it?

[Swordmaker]

Why won't the Catholic Church simply allow the Shroud to be fully examined, over a generously allocated period of time, under protocols that would both allow for an exhaustive range of tests and supervision that would ensure that it wasn't damaged? Maybe the cardinals are fearful that exhaustive tests would in fact prove it's a fake?

They did... in 1978 the Shroud of Turin Research Project was allowed almost two weeks of direct examination of the Shroud under controlled conditions.

[Swordmaker]

This in comparison to (say) that supposed box of "James brother of Jesus" found last year that's already been debunked. There's no reason to consider that as 'actual', since the evidence is overwhelming to its artificiality.

Actually, BLzbba, the Ossuary of James is a REAL first century Jewish ossuary... it is the inscription additions that are fake.

[Swordmaker]

The Jews didn't use shrouds and the 2 Commandment is still there.

As a matter of fact, proven by OTHER shrouds found in 1st Century Jewish cemetaries, they did indeed use shrouds. They also used additional cloths as bindings... to hold the arms together, to close the mouth (under the chin and over the head), and to cover the face while preparations for burial were being made.

The idea of bodies being wrapped in strips is a confabulation of Egyptian mummy wrappings and the bindings reported in the Gospels.

[Adder]

Thanks!! I based my comments in part on this article: adler which suggested that the shroud was not patched and that there was no evidence of reweaving. Interesting stuff, this.

[shroudie]

Actually, what Adler wrote follows. Adler did, in fact, think it was possible that the carbon 14 sample was from a repair. Rogers doubted it until he proved otherwise:

A recent investigation (7) comparing STURP sticky tape sample fibers with those of the radiocarbon sample by Fourier Transform Infrared Microspectrophotometry and also Scanning Electron Microprobe Spectroscopy demonstrated a clear difference in the chemical composition of the radiocarbon fibers from those of the various types of Shroud fibers. (Note that this calls into question the accuracy of the radiocarbon date). In Table 1 (below), it can be seen that the radiocarbon fibers, although they are from a waterstain area, are "saltier" than the waterstain image fibers from the rest of the cloth. Since the edges of the waterstains on the body of the cloth are unbounded permitting free diffusion, this implies that missing panels were already missing at the time of the 1532 fire, as such a bounded edge would concentrate diffusing dissolved salts at such an edge. Therefore, we conclude that the creation of the side strip itself also predates the time of the repairs following the 1532 fire.

This same study (7) provided new evidence confirming previously reported conclusions (3, 6, 8) that the Shroud is not a painted image and that the blood images represent blood derived materials. It was also shown that the congruence of the dorsal head wound images on the Shroud with corresponding images on the Cloth of Oviedo provide strong evidence that the radiocarbon date is not just possibly inaccurate, as suggested by the chemical composition data, but is actually inaccurate in view of the known historical age of the Sudarion. Bollone ( 9) has also independently made this type of comparison between images on these two cloths.

Several authors have suggested that the purpose of a corded side seam might be to facilitate hanging the cloth for exhibition. Certainly many paintings of such medieval exhibitions show the Shroud being displayed in such a manner with the cloth shown along its length and held or suspended along what would appear to be the side seam. It should be noted that this mode of display places maximum stress at the end points of suspension and tearing of the fabric would be expected to proceed firm the ends inward along the seam. Some historical accounts record that certain noteworthies were given pieces of the Shroud. It would be logical to assume that such samples would be taken from such torn end panels, thus providing a simple explanation for the missing panel portions of the side strip. Perhaps the De Charny family decided to repair such damages at the time of their display of the Shroud. Maybe the radiocarbon sample is simply rewoven material from the time of this repair. Had the recommended protocol for taking this sample been followed (7), we would have an answer for these questions. Dan

[Adder]

But previous to your quote is this: Figure 3 shows another magnified section of figure 1 demonstrating that every thread in the weave of the Shroud is continuous through the seam and matches its corresponding side strip thread in position, thickness, and intensity. Viewed at low angles the continuity of the chevrons of the herringbone weave pattern through the seam are also clearly evident. In other radiographs fault patterns in the weave can also be seen to go continuously through the seam. This continuity can be seen for the entire length of the seam, except for the very ends where the situation can not be cleanly resolved. (Figure 3: Magnified section of figure 1 showing that every thread in the weave of the Shroud is continuous through the seam and matches its corresponding side strip thread in position, thickness, and intensity. Viewed at low angles the continuity of the chevrons of the herringbone weave pattern through the seam are also clearly seen.) Of our three original possibilities, situation 1 is clearly rejected and situation 2 also seems highly unlikely in view of the detailed thread matching that would be required and the absence of any evidence of any frayed thread ends along either side of the seam image. Therefore we conclude that the side strip is actually continuous with the rest of the Shroud. The seam image in figure 3 also seems to show some sinusoidal pattern in the seam. However, the resolution is not good enough to determine whether this is a stitch forming the tube or represents an enclosed twisted cord in this seam as has been suggested by some authors." Like I said...interesting. But you have studied this much more than I have so I will defer to you. I DO wish the Church would simply permit the final resolution of this issue in a timely manner.

[shroudie]

There is often confusion between the whole side strip and the proposed patch zone. What Adler was saying was that the side strip was part of the cloth.

I wish that the custodial authorities in Turin would allow testing. There are, from the the 2002 restoration (another subject), scrapings that could be cleaned and used for C14 testing. Regrettably, the work was done in secrecy and therefore there are serious chain-of-custody issues.

I think we are going to be in limbo for a long time. This leaves enough room for doubts and faith; and maybe that's a good thing.

Dan