Fresh tests on Shroud of Turin

It is fairly common knowledge that a man executed by the state would only be given into the hands of a family member.

I ask again, is this common knowledge founded on anything factual? What Roman law was this, or if the text has not survived, is there an ancient Roman writer who refers to this strict policy?

I ask again, is this common knowledge founded on anything factual? What Roman law was this, or if the text has not survived, is there an ancient Roman writer who refers to this strict policy?

I would not attribute it so much to Roman law as to Roman acquiescence to Hebrew burial traditions, just as the Romans acquiesced to Hebrew religious and tribal law where they could (where it was not of a necessity trumped by Roman authority).

It is the head of the household that is responsible for the preparation of the body of a deceased family member according to the Hebrew tradition. It has been a long time since I studied these things, but I will try to find you some scripture or links in that regard.

Oh baloney. The verdict of the scientific and historical community is clear, and the efforts of the fringe who gainsay it are riddled with flaws that those links illustrate.

Baloney right back at you, Springheel. You keep referring to ONE scientist who refused to have his work peer reviewed and who's work has been incapable of duplication by dozens of other scientists. Photomicrographs of the image threads and fibers, including scanning electron microscope images, are readily available on the net... and they DO NOT SHOW WHAT McCRONE SAYS HE SAW. It's that simple. That says enough. Even your enumeration of "flaws" were not submitted in the normal peer review process where scientists could examine, rebut or agree, but were instead merely published in the popular press or on the web. That is not good enough.

Go and find qualified scientists who have done Microxrayspectrometry of the samples from the Shroud and who found Vermilion and Red Ochre in any quantities significantly different between image and non-image areas. Find other scientists who actually performed immuno-assay testing and found that Egg albumin would react with Primate proteins and give false positives. Even your admired McCrone claimed that the Iron Oxide he saw only "became visible" at 2500 X magnification... and that's why other microscopists failed to see what he saw... but it's really invisible unless you are McCrone... ignoring that it would be impossible for a medieval grinder to reduce Iron Oxide to such consistently small particles - sp he then claimed it was a form of Jeweler's Rouge that was only developed after 1830... and also ignoring the scanning electron microscope work at 40,000 Magnification that failed to see the Fe₂O₃ that is, according to McCrone, in sufficient quantities and concentration to be seen from 20 feet away but not at 40X-400X magnification. Absurd.

You attitude is that any scientists, regardless of their qualifications and the peer reviews of their work, who find something McCrone didn't or who challenge McCrone's findings, or find something inexplicable about the shroud, are somehow biased and therefore unqualified and their results junk. Perhaps you should examine McCrone's avowed Atheism and realize that he is biased... and that his science suffered for it. His efforts to sabotage the blood investigators is proof of his bias. When dozens of well qualified scientists have attempted to find what McCrone claims, using his own described techniques, and FAILED, then his work is not reproducible, it's not science. I think that McCrone's Vermilion and Red Ochre are equivalent to Percival Lowell's canals on Mars... wishful thinking.

Why do you ignore the findings that prove the C14 samples were not homogenous with the main body of the Shroud and therefore invalid? Instead, you insist the 1988 tests were valid... with bad samples.

The fallacious “Pope Stephen” quote. Quoting from an excerpt of a book published by Ian Wilson that’s searchable on the net: “For instance, interpolated sometime before 1130 into the text of a sermon attributed to the eighth-century Pope Stephen III was the following remark concerning the `holy face’ of Edessa: `For this same mediator between God and men, in order that in all things and in every way he might satisfy this king [i.e. Abgar] spread out his entire body on a linen cloth that was white as snow. On this cloth, marvellous as it is to see or even hear such a thing, the glorious image of the Lord’s face, and the length of his entire and most noble body, has been divinely transferred ... [italics mine].’” That’s in reference to the Abgar legend, and according to “Stephen” it was done by the living Christ in answer to a request by Abgar for an image, and hence could not possibly refer to the Shroud of Turin with its dead Jesus.

I see... so sometime before 1130 AD, some prescient nobody inserted the phrases into the 8th Century sermon... somebody who KNEW that in 1260 to 1390 AD, an anonymous hoaxer would make a fake shroud with near miraculous secret processes and added a description of it to an much older obscure document so that it could be found in the 20th Century to provide bona fides to the 14th Century fraud. Right.

Spring, the Agbar legend is just that... a legend that has several varied forms that have developed over the years. Like many legends, it may have some kernels of truth but at this late date it is impossible to determine which version is closer to that truth. Why do you think an 8th Century Pope would have the absolute truth of what he may or may not have been talking about....

What is certain, if we are to believe Ian Wilson (and he is not infallible and has retracted some of his statements when further research proved his conclusions wrong), is that someone BEFORE 1130, i.e., more than 130 years before the earliest possible C14 date (1260AD) for the creation of the Shroud, was describing a cloth with a full length image on it... not just a face.

I also find it amusing you criticized someone for apparently using Wikipedia as an authoritative source and you are doing the same thing...

This is a really bad analogy, and it's not true anyway. There are inscriptions from his period, and the insinuation that the bishop was lying reflects a colossal will to believe in something with no history prior to that bishop's lifetime.

Oh, it IS a good analogy. Tutankhamen had been almost totally erased from Egyptian history because of his family's radical religious views. Tut's original name was Tutankhenaten showing his parent's and his fidelity to the Sun God Aten. While there were hints about his reign, that's all there were. The internal turmoil from three generations of Pharaohs deemphasizing the pantheon of gods in favor of a unitary god resulted in a rabid backlash against anyone associated with it including poor Tut... who tried to put things back the way they had been. Until Carter opened his tomb and found "wonderful things" not much was known about Tut.

There were many hints about the existence of a cloth with the image of Christ on it in the First millennium. They may have been called by different names... Image of Eddessa, The Mandylion, The Veronica, they all seem to have been referring to the cloth that we now know as the Shroud. While some cloths still survive today that go by the name the Mandylion and the Veronica, they are obvious paintings. Why shouldn't it be postulated that the Bishop might be lying? He certainly had a strong enough motive. Business. During this period high offices in the Roman church were often sold to the highest bidder... and a See was a very lucrative office. Sales of Indulgences and donations enriched the coffers of the Cathedral and allowed the Bishops to live like wealthy noblemen. Perhaps Henri was not one who bribed his way to his See, but it was common. This was a time in which there were two popes because of such shenanigans.

You have no trouble ascribing venal motives and unscrupulous actions to a French knight whose well documented history is impeccable (Standard bearer for the King and author of the Code of Chivalry) and who almost bankrupted his family supporting a Church to house his most prized possession, the Shroud.

If the Church ever allows a further Carbon-14 test on another piece of the cloth it'll just repeat the 1988 results, though I don't expect the excuse-mongering will ever stop

What part of "the tested samples were not the same as the main body of the shroud" do you fail to understand?

You have ignored everything I have posted to you about the invalid samples. Did you even read it? I don't think so. The scientists who reviewed the data found it compelling. Those are scientists with no axe to grind in this argument.

I also told you that an unauthorized C14 test was performed on a thread from the main body of the Shroud... and returned a date consistent with mid 1st Century, plus or minus 50 years. The large range of confidence is caused by the fact that the sample was very small.

Harry Gove, the inventor of the process used by all three labs in the 1988 test, when presented with the evidence developed independently by Drs. Rogers and Brown that the samples were compromised, contaminated with non-shroud material added by skillful repairs most likely done in the 16th century, calculated that given the observed percentages of contamination with repair material from the 16th Century, the original material mixed in would have had to have been First Century, give or take 100 years, to produce the ages reported in the tests.

No doubt you'll say your 14th Century hoaxer would have had the foresight to obtain some original 1st century linen cloth to use for his hoax in anticipation of the Carbon 14 tests. Some skeptics have actually claimed that.

You deliberately refuse to see what is before your nose.... Your mind is closed.

I just read the Gregory sermon and the image it describes was clearly only of a face, supposedly created while he wept in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Just the face? I don't think so.

"For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint23 of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side."

Which "side" is that, Jack? The one below the eye? No, it's pretty obvious that Gregory is describing a body... not a face.

By the way, it's also pretty obvious why you didn't link to the original page where you found Ian Wilson's writings... it must be because the entire page contains many more earlier literary references to a full body IMAGE on the Image of Edessa at the time the Shroud was added to the inventory in Constantinople and the Image of mysteriously Edessa dropped.

Just one example:

". . . a comparatively humble knight from Picardy in France, Robert de Clari who, as a member of the Fourth Crusade in 1203, toured Constantinople as a guest after having helped depose the Byzantine usurper Alexius III. Goggle-eyed at the wonders he saw around him, out-dazzling anything in western Europe, de Clari wrote an account of it, a History of those who Conquered Constantinople, which survives in a single manuscript in the Royal Library, Copenhagen. In this he noted: `... about the other marvels that are there [in Constantinople] ... there was another church called My Lady St Mary of Blachernae, where there was the shroud [sydoines] in which [lit. where] Our Lord had been wrapped, which every Friday raised itself upright, so that one could see the figure of Our Lord on it [lit. there] ... above].' Particularly in the light of the shroud carbon dating, for us this is one of the most crucial documents of any we have considered. Writing in the third person, Robert de Clari insisted `he may not have recounted in as fair a fashion as many a good author would have done, yet he always told the strict truth,' and there is nothing in his book to suggest otherwise. Authoritatively and unequivocally he tells us that as early as 1203 there existed in Constantinople a shroud with an imprint of Christ's body - thus corresponding in all essential features to the one that carbon dating and Bishop d'Arcis would have us believe was so cunningly forged in France a century and a half later." (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, 1991, pp.155-156)

Thanks for the ping...upon further review, I have found SpringheelJack's position:

"McCrone said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

How...special.

Cheers!

My attitude is that of the scientific and historical community, which judges the work of those like McCrone impressive but finds the work of people you want to trumpet lacking. For example, the current Encyclopedia Britannica on McCrone specifically: "His biggest discovery came in 1978 when he concluded that the Shroud of Turin dated back only to the Middle Ages and thus could not have been the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. McCrone attended Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., before moving to Chicago, where he was credited with having revolutionized the design and use of light microscopes and electron microscopes and with having led the growth of his research institute as it attained the status of a world leader."

Those "findings" that the 1988 tests were invalid aren't truly findings. As discussed in the article below, it relied on a bogus study for the claim that the sample derived from a 16th century patch, analyzed threads that had serious chain of custody issues, and used methods that other scientists have called unserious.

As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not.

Detailed photographs of the area from which the sample was removed clearly reveal that there was no patch there. (How could Benford and Marino's unnamed "textile experts" observe the correct proportions of 1st century and 16th century threads from the "patch" using photographs, while the legitimate experts named above--using both photographs and personal examination of the actual Shroud!--miss seeing that there was a patch there in the first place?) There is no 16th century patch in the area from where the 14C samples were removed; patches can be found only where the fire had burned the linen in 1532, and of course there is the Holland backing cloth. Both the patches and Holland cloth have weaves completely different from the Shroud's distinct herringbone pattern, which was easily identifiable by the radiocarbon dating scientists when they processed the cloth sample. Benford and Marino laughably publish a photo of a historical Shroud replica that they claim shows a missing corner section that was later patched; but this photo is a low-resolution JPEG image and the "missing corner" is really an artifact produced when low-resolution JPEG images are magnified beyond their true size! This anecdote just further illustrates their incompetence.

The tiny patch threads that Rogers analyzed are suspect: there is no official record of the supposed removal or donation of the radiocarbon dating sample threads or the Raes sample threads Rogers claims to possess (personal communication, Antonio Lombatti). "I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample" (p. 190). If Gonella's statement is true, then he seriously violated the protocols of sample removal and performed an irresponsible act. Furthermore, to receive threads of this spurious sample at this late date suggests that the threads are suspect and not to be trusted as really being from the sample sent out for radiocarbon dating. Rogers' entire argument rests on his analysis of these two tiny threads and the addiitonal Raes sample threads he claims to possess. I have no evidence to disprove Rogers' claim that the Raes sample fibers--supplied to him by Luigi Gonella and supposedly taken from the original Raes sample adjacent to the radiocarbon samples--are from the Shroud ("I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella . . . "; p. 189). But I question this claim also, since this was also undocumented and unsanctioned. The samples used by the academic radiocarbon labs to date the Shroud, on the other hand, were officially removed, witnessed, and sanctioned. Are Rogers' two tiny threads truly from the same sample as the ones used for radiocarbon dating? If not, Rogers' entire argument is invalid, since Rogers' claim is that the radiocarbon samples have completely different chemical properties than the main part of the Shroud, and he purports that his two tiny threads are representative of the radiocarbon-dated samples. He could only know this if the threads he tested were actually from the same sample used for radiocarbon dating, and we must trust the words of Rogers and Gonella for this (for Rogers' word, see below).

The alleged differences between the Raes sample and the main Shroud samples that Rogers elucidates include (1) different amounts of vanillin (main Shroud absent, Raes sample present), (2) cotton fibers and madder root dye in the Raes sample, but none in the main Shroud samples, and (3) the Raes fibers have been "dyed" with some chemical, but not the fibers of the main Shroud. Rogers is incorrect about all of these. For the different amounts of vanillin, see below. It has long been known that cotton fibers occur elsewhere in the Shroud, being observed by several investigators including Italian textile experts and Walter McCrone. I don't doubt that cotton fiber impurities made their way into the flax used to make the linen cloth; it would be difficult to keep them separate, and contrary to Rogers, such fibers are found throughout the Shroud. As for madder root dye, McCrone detected rose madder pigment on the Shroud's blood areas and reported this. It is reasonable to believe that this pigment could have ended up anywhere on the Shroud, including a non-blood area. Finally, the entire Shroud is covered by a coating of very thin tempera protein paint used by the artist as a binder; its oxidation over time gives the Shroud its characteristic sepia color (very slightly yellowish-brown; natural linen is white). The tempera binder was not used as a paint but to shape or mold the linen over a bas relief carving or cast, and was used to bind the loose particles of red ocher pigment when still damp. Rogers identifies this as a "dye" only on the Raes threads, but in fact all Shroud fibers have this thin tempera coating and characteristic color, as is readily perceived by simply viewing the photographs. Rogers identification of a colored "dye" is the first admission by a STURP member that fibers of the Shroud have been painted or coated.

Rogers' new method of using the amount of vanillin in a sample to determine its age is useless and incompetent. According to Rogers, the vanillin in known Shroud fibers is missing, but the Raes "patch" fibers do possess vanillin from his tests. Thus, he concludes that the amount of vanillin (a breakdown product of flax over time) can be used to age date his samples, and because "the Shroud and other very old linens do not give the vanillin test, the cloth must be very old," thus making it "very unlikely that the linen was produced during medieval times." But this is nonsense: to demonstrate the efficacy of his new dating method and thus prove his claim of age discrepancy, Rogers first must date his Shroud samples by independent methods and must demonstrate the effectiveness of his method using other independent samples, and he fails to do both of these! Rogers refers to the presence of vanillin in "all other medieval linens," but he provides no evidence to support this statement.

Jay Ingram, writing in the Toronto Star, discusses a topic with which I was not familiar. Ingram interviewed Clint Chapple, a biochemist at Purdue University, and Malcolm Campbell, a botanist at the University of Toronto. Chapple points out that it was odd that Rogers used a powerful and precise technique, pyrolysis mass spectrometry, to assess the carbohydrates in the cloth, but didn't choose to apply that technique to the vanillin. This was odd because the incredible accuracy of this technique as applied to vanillin is scientifically well-documented. "I've published using this method and have this instrument in my own lab. The method would have easily revealed the presence (or absence) of degradation products like vanillin had the author been seriously interested in testing his hypothesis," Chapple says. Instead, Rogers used a staining technique that reveals the presence of vanillin if you get a color change. But this is a qualitative, not a quantitative test.

Malcolm Campbell states that, "in biological sciences, a scientist would be hard-pressed to get their paper published if they ever attempted to quantify vanillin on the basis of this staining technique." Staining is a rough guide to the presence of vanillin and cannot detect very small amounts. (In fact, the pyrolysis mass spectrometry was conducted by STURP in 1981 when they had access to the facility, but Rogers only had his kitchen laboratory, so a poor and inadequate staining technique was all he could manage.) Campbell and Chapple identified other flaws in the paper, such as the same lack of controls and replication that I describe above. As Ingram writes, "these should have been enough to deter the editors of Thermochimica Acta from publishing it. Why didn't they? Maybe they were unfamiliar with the chemistry of linen and its breakdown products; maybe they have a soft spot in their heart for the shroud. Who knows?" Ingram concludes, "the incident just underlines the fact that the Shroud of Turin will never go away, and believers will try anything, including arguments masquerading as science, to prove its authenticity."

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic//shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

No, it’s not. What little information we had about Tutankhamen was a reflection of how few writings we had from ancient Pharaonic Egypt, until modern-era archaeological digs. Christian literature prior to 1350 is and always has been abundant.

All references to a cloth with the image of Christ on it prior to 1350 clearly do not refer to the Shroud of Turin, but are reflections of the Veronica and Abgar legends, which purported to document something that the living Christ did.

Just the face? I don't think so.

Let's look at the part of that quote you omitted (which I'll put in bold):

"This reflection, however – let everyone be inspired with the explanation – has been imprinted only by the sweat from the face of the originator of life, falling like drops of blood, and by the finger of God. For these are the beauties that have made up the true imprint of Christ, since after the drops fell, it was embellished by drops from his own side. Both are highly instructive – blood and water there, here sweat and image. Oh equality of happenings, since both have their origin in the same person. The source of living water can be seen and it gives us water, showing us that the origin of the image made by sweat is in fact of the same nature as the origin of that which makes the liquid flow from the side."

From the references in Gregory's sermon it is clear that the image was only of his face, although the cloth with the facial image appears to have later been "embellished" (his words) with drops of blood. Gregory was also clear in stating that the image was not a reflection of the martyred Jesus. I'll append all that Gregory has to say about the image and how it was formed:

And so, what exactly is it? By the simple touching to the face of Christ, an image of his form was made, so that people would not think in a dangerous or perilous way that it never actually existed and has been invented.

[King Abgar said:] But tell me how the image on the linen that cured me was made, since I can see it was not produced with ordinary paint, and explain its special strength, since when I saw it unfolded on your face I was cured of my illness and got up from my bed, and I felt the strength that I had in my body when I was in my prime.

And Thaddaios answered, "When Ananias, who you entrusted the letters to, said in hope that apart from your health, you also wished to look upon the likeness of his face as it was seen, Jesus told him to come quickly to you with the letter, in which he promised to send you one of his disciples after his ascension, and I am that disciple. But Jesus, undergoing the passion of his own free will, believing that human nature fears death – indeed death comes upon the very nature that was made to live – taking this linen cloth he wiped the sweat that was falling down his face like drops of blood in his agony. And miraculously, just as he made everything from nothing in his divine strength, he imprinted the reflection of his form on the linen.

I have put it on my face and have shown in silence that this is the reflection of the face you were seeking. It has made itself more visible to you than I have. And best of all, honouring the top part of my body – for the most beautiful part is the face, not that which is below the armpits – I attribute the light shining out not to my own face but rather to the face of the one on the cloth".

The page I found the quote from Ian Wilson is gargantuan and I didn't even notice the bit from Robert de Clari, but if it refers to anything it's far more likely to be the full-length imaged cloth whose existence is mentioned in Codex Vossianus Latinus Q69, which was supposedly created from the living Christ as a gift to King Abgar.

My attitude is that of the scientific and historical community, which judges the work of those like McCrone impressive but finds the work of people you want to trumpet lacking.

Since you have elected to call me a liar in post 290, my attitude is that I am no longer going to respond to your cut and paste articles from Geologist Steven D. Schafersman who claims to be both the Science Consultant and the Administrator of the The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website... which is merely his own vanity site. How can he be a consultant to himself? None of his rebuttal articles have been submitted to peer review. Are you Schafersman, Jack? I suspect you might be.

His primary method of argument is to declare anyone who happens to disagree with him and McCrone as Psuedoscientists and claim that the real problem is the editors of peer-reviewed journals accepting "pseudoscience" articles.

His rebuttal of the Roger's peer-reviewed determination that the 1988 C14 samples were invalid is merely to throw everything he can think of, without citation of proof, against the wall to see what might stick. Some of his rebuttal facts are made up... on the spur of the moment it seems.

The last refuge of those who have no facts is to attack the opponent's character, competence, or motives... in other words, ad hominem... such as you did when you accused me of being mendacious.

An example of Schafersman's Ad hominem attack style is here:

"Ray Rogers is a member of STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project, an organization totally composed of believers in the authenticity of the Shroud)[This is actually false. Many of the 26 scientists recruited to STURP were skeptics, several Jewish, some agnostics, and some even Atheists... like the late Walter C. McCrone] and accepted the authenticity of the Shroud from the very beginning of their work in the middle 1970s. He accepts all the shoddy work [only his characterization.] that STURP passed off as science two and three decades ago. As is well known, STURP's analyses on image formation, identity of the blood, sticky tape pollen, and history were hopelessly incompetent and unscientific [Ad hominem attack], despite their claims and posturing to be rigorously scientific. There is no real blood of any kind on the Shroud. Both the image and "blood" were applied by an artist. These facts were conclusively proved beyond even a shadow of doubt by microscopic chemist Walter McCrone[Who consistently refused to submit his work to peer-reviewed journals.], whose microscopic analysis revealed the presence of abundant iron oxide["The STURP microscopists couldn't see it because they didn't look at 2500X Maginifiction, like I did... you can't see it at lower magnifications" - Walter C. McCrone. ] (red ochre) and cinnabar (vermilion) pigments on the Shroud. "

Geologist Steven D. Schafersman's so-called papers are rife with assertions without proof... or any proper citations. His science is woefully lacking... and full of speculation that is both mischaracterizing of the research that has been done and insulting to the eminently qualified scientists who have been brought in, often without prior knowledge of the Shroud, to do the research using techniques they are very familiar with as they are IN THEIR FIELD of expertise which they use everyday. According to Schafersman, the ONLY competent scientist involved was Walter C. McCrone.

One good example of Schafersman's ad hominem attacks is this comment, attempting to ridicule STURP scientists competence and show the incompetence of Shroud researchers :

"I pointed out that the Christ figure's body, limbs, and fingers were unnaturally elongated, even deformed (amazingly, I was apparently the first person to describe this![AH, No, Schafersman, you weren't. Which really shows the status of your knowledge, or the lack, of the research into the Shroud.]); STURP members eventually claimed that Jesus had Marfan's syndrome or suffered skeletal deformities (odd for God on Earth, but there you are)."

This accusation, made primarily by Shroud skeptics such as Schafersman as evidence it was a fraud, prompted Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.S., M.D., Ph.D., FCAP, FACC, FAAFS (who was NOT a member of STURP), to write "Did Christ Have Marfan's Syndrome?" La Sindon", Turin, Italy, Dec. 1983... and the conclusion was NO. This is the ONLY mention of Jesus possibly having Marfan's Syndrome on the scientific shroud sites found by a Google search. The rest of the Google results are all versions of Schafersman's claim or citations of the same claim - mostly quotations from Schafersman or Joe Nickell.

Who is Dr. Zugibe? He is a world renowned Forensic Pathologist:

"He holds a Bachelor of Science, Master of Science (Anatomy/Electron Microscopy), Ph.D. (Anatomy/ Histochemistry), and an M.D. degree. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Pathology in Anatomic Pathology and Forensic Pathology and a Diplomate of the American Board of Family Practice. Dr. Zugibe is an adjunct Associate Professor of Pathology at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons and is a Fellow of the College of American Pathologists, a Fellow of the American Academy of the Forensic Sciences, Forensic Pathology Section, and a member of the National Association of Medical Examiners."

This is the one of the scientists geologist Schafersman calls incompetent.

Another example of your exalted Schafersman's ad hominem approach to science is this paranoid rant against an esteemed pyrology chemist, Raymond N. Rogers. It is truly amazing:

"In the past I have pointed out that the STURP "scientists" never used a polarizing microscope [False claim... it IS one of the tests that has been repeated following McCrone's own claims... and failed to reproduce McCrone's claims!] to examine their Shroud fiber samples, for if they did, they would have been able to easily identify the iron oxide particles. I even used pictures in my talks of them in front of expensive and elaborate biological microscopes, which are not the polarizing microscopes used for mineralogical, petrographical, forensic, and chemical analysis that McCrone, I, and thousands of other scientists use. Therefore imagine my surprise a week ago when I visited Barrie Schwortz's Shroud of Turin website at http://www.shroud.com/ and saw a photo of the smiling visage of Ray Rogers in front of his polarizing "petrographic microscope"! Now, why does a chemist need a petrographic microscope? [Could it be because Roger's hobby was archaeology and he had been donating his chemical expertise to various archaeology digs since 1968 and used a "petrographic microscope" in pursuit of analysis of microscopic chemical evidence??? Or perhaps he got it to examine the extremely small particles that resulted from the explosions relating to the pyrolysis work that he specialized in?] How long has he had it? Did he get it to use with the Shroud samples, or did he get it recently for the purpose of indirectly refuting me once again! Well, to me this is an example of overreaching yet again, for if Ray actually knew how to use his microscope--of which he appears to be quite proud, exactly mimicking the well-known photo of Walter McCrone!--he would be able to place one of his fiber samples from a Shroud image or blood area under it, add the immersion fluid of proper density, cross the polars, focus up to move the Becke line, and determine that the thousands of tiny orange and red particles he sees covering the fibers have a high index of refraction, revealing them to be iron oxide. That he has apparently neglected to do this reveals Ray Rogers to be either incompetent or mendacious, and thus not deserving of the esteemed designation of microscopist.

Jack, why don't you tell your friend that it really ISN'T all about him? He seems to need some serious counseling if he believe that Rogers got the microscope merely to tweak HIS nose. Your source is outed as a raving lunatic.

Your and Schafersman's approach to discussion is merely to shout "Red Ochre" and "Vermilion" louder. Not to provide ANY other scientists who have found what McCrone claims... against dozens of others who have NOT.

Let's finish with Schafersman's final paragraph where he ignores the hundreds of attempts by scientists, artists, and magicians to duplicate the shroud. In fact, in a leap of illogic, Schaferman ignore's own report just prior to his conclusion of one of the latest failed attempts at duplicating the Shroud. Here is his last paragraph... an example of wishful thinking:

"I have always thought that the Shroud of Turin would be very easy to re-create, but no one has attempted it because either (1) it would reveal the ease of reproducing a Shroud of Turin and thus serve to debunk the magic and mystery that the current Shroud possesses, or (2) the evidence that already exists that the Shroud is an artifact is so overwhelming that it isn't worth anyone's time and expense to reproduce it. No. 2 is certainly my reason for not making a Shroud. And so far, no one has indeed taken the time and expense to duplicate it."

If it is so easy, WHERE IS SCHAFERSMAN's Shroud, Jack? Where? The man is a coward... hiding behind excuses for something he cannot do.

I have pinged the Shroud ping list members to this comment and invite them to review the quality of the posts that SpringheelJack has cut and pasted together as his arguments. If you care to respond to Springheel, feel free. I will no longer be bothered to because his viewpoint is that I am a liar. His mind is made up... and it is locked like a bank vault. His science (as is his mentor;s Schafersman) is outdated and stuck in time with the poor work and attempts at sabotage done by McCrone 28 years ago.

This is a fascinating topic. Bible is so many things to different people. One person can read a verse and get an entire meaning out of it than someone else. That is why we have different types of denominations and perhaps conflicts also.
Additionally, I feel that we are given certain elements that don’t blare out to everyone the absolute message. This is a shroud and here is the verifiable facts to prove it. That to me is part of the majesty of God. It really takes a superior being to give us just a glimpse of something so that we are driven by faith and not concrete evidence.
I have unanswered questions about the Shroud, however, it is amazing to me that someone if it is a fake, would have the knowledge and foresight to create something that would not be fully revealed until centuries later. Amazing isn’t it?
And that all these scholars have studied it and no one can positively say either way to everyone’s satisfaction is fascinating.

Calm down, sword.

He's a troll, trying to see what kind of reaction he can get.

Check out the pdf version of the link I posted in #160 this thread.

Here are some of the independent tests, with methods and conclusions. Note that the original source is footnoted in the link I gave:

1. Art history
Similarities between the face on the Shroud and the faces of artwork created well before the purported forgery date.
Not a forgery (image known before date of supposed 'forging'.

2. Anatomy
A French zoologist and an artist working together studied the image in 1902 and presented a paper in 1902 concluding that the image was 'medically accurate'.
Not a forgery.

Hint: look at other artwork from the period that a forgery is claimed for. This is before the renaissance and the re-discovery of attention to anatomic detail...

3. X-ray fluorescence
Higher levels of iron in areas of blood than other areas of the portrait.
The team here was from Los Alamos National Labs.
Not a forgery.

3. Microspectrophotometry -- absorption of light by the sample at specific wavelengths of light. Here, at 390 nm correpsonding to an absorption band for the porphyrin.

Old acid methemoglobin -- what you'd find in old dried blood. Confirmed by a double-PhD in the subject of hemeglobin.
Not a forgery.

4. Hydrazine / formic acid test for blood (to identify iron such as found in hemeglobin, then to differentiate from iron oxide such as found in pigments).
Iron found, the sample dissolved in the hydrazine, indicating blood, not inorganic pigments.
It was compared to a control of known blood on other linen which acted the same way.
[By the way, McCrone flatly said that "NONE of the red image-area particles are soluble in hydrazine".
Whereas other debunkers who support McCrone claim that tempura paint made of the pigments and the medium identified by McCrone *do* dissolve in hydrazine to give a false positive for this test. So is McCrone lying and his followers telling the truth? Or was McCrone careless? And a positive for this test alone, does not prove, or give evidence that the Shroud is a forgery: it only indicates that there is a need for more specific testing in order to tell the difference. Other tests were done, as below. Also, McCrone did not use controls when declaring the particles to be iron oxide; and years later he said that the red pigment was red ochre and not iron oxide after all.]
Not a forgery.

5. "Wet-bench" tests for protein and other blood components. These included tests for albumin, bilurubin, and cyanomethemoglobin.
The tests were positive for blood.
Not a forgery.

6. Tests of protein-cleaving enzymes to see if they dissolved the blood stains on samples.
Consistent with blood.
Not a forgery.

That's just the start folks -- and this paper includes counerclaims by skeptics who claim that the stains "could have been" this or that; the difference being that those who did the tests on the Shroud submitted their work to, and had it accepted by, mainstream peer-review journals. Those who engage (again and again) in special pleading, have not submitted to journals.

SpringheelJack merely said, (post 161):

Thanks, but once you cut through the narrative it looks like a mass of special pleading, speculation, circular reasoning and innuendo.

Apparently he ignored all the specific tests consistent with real blood and with the genuineness of the Shroud, and was referring to the evisceration of the skeptics which he himself quoted.

Jack, here's a clue.

Merely stating "I'm a scientist, and I ran a test of something else without controls, and I claim it gave a similar result to the real test" is not proof.

You need controls -- in this case, known fresh blood on linen, known aged blood on linen, and specific paints (both organic-based and mineral based, and both fresh and aged) should have been compared. For each one of the tests -- say (photomicroscopy, birefringence, X-ray specrophotometry, fluorescence, wet-bench chemistry, including tests for methemoglobin, bilirubin, cynanomethemeglobin, and any others desired).

Also, strips of linen from the same batch used to prepare the samples, but without any external coloring applied, should have been tested.

Make a matrix of results these tests as controls, and compare the matrix to that of known Shroud material.

The ones who came closest to this were Heller and Adler -- they used known blood on linen and compared the results to the Shroud, and all the tests came up positive. None of the tests came up negative.

Their work was done by independent researchers using widely divergent methods. And it was indpendently peer-reviewed. And their conclusions and statements did not change over time.

McCrone used non-peer-reviewed work (his work was rejected by reviewers; he did not use controls, either known blood or known minerals; some of his tests involved matrix material which was known to be capable of affecting the tests performed; he changed his conclusions over time. His defenders did not use controls, did not use the same tests on known Shroud material to compare, and did not devise any differential testing to distinguish false positives from true positives. They only said "Well our tes t looks like something else could have given a false positive, so there."

Not only that, but there are known, standard, garden-variety physical (not miraculous) chemical mechanisms which are known to create some of the chemical species and physical characteristics of the Shroud. And these chemical reactions are consistent with some chemicals expected in immediate proximity to a dead body.

What on Earth do you lose by admitting the Shroud might really have been used to wrap a dead body?

Cheers!

What on Earth do you lose by admitting the Shroud might really have been used to wrap a dead body?

Ask all the mainstream scientists and historians who say it's a 14th century piece of art; you know where to find all the references.

Ummm, Jack?

Here's a clue.

The whole thing revolves not around the age, but around the chemical composition of the stains.

If the image is that of Maillard reactions with the linen, then the simplest explanation is that the cloth was used to wrap a freshly dead body.

No resurrection need be implied, merely removal of the cloth for reasons unknown, by parties unknown.

History does not claim to be a science, we need not give a good reason for the removal.

And if you are feeling particularly resurrectophobic today, the cloth need not be associated with Jesus at all. Lots of people got sentenced to crucifixion back then.

If the image is that of a forger, we have to unambiguously find evidence of paint, and paint *only*. If there is a significant amount of blood breakdown products, blood proteins, and the like, how did they get there?

The way to solve this is to come up with a series of tests which will unambiguously distinguish between the blood components and pigments.

All of the tests performed so far have in fact been consistent with blood, and have involved the use of controls.

The tests, by the way, are well known and characterized in forensic science (and are admissible in a court of law) outside of the Shroud.

Whereas the supposed tests for the pigments have no such provenance.

Since all the tests done so far are consistent with blood (consistent with the burial cloth of a crucified man, but not with a and with Maillard reactions (consistent with a cloth draped over a newly-dead corpse, but not with any type of paint you can name), and none of these tests were known at the time you claim the Shroud was forged, you're starting in a fairly deep hole to begin with.

Oh, I love the quote from the Brittanica:

McCrone attended Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., before moving to Chicago, where he was credited with having revolutionized the design and use of light microscopes and electron microscopes and with having led the growth of his research institute as it attained the status of a world leader.

That's sweet. I turned down a free ride at Cornell for my PhD. I'm not impressed.

Pat Robertson of The 700 Club has a law degree from Yale, but you wouldn't listen to him on legal matters. And that is why rumor mongering and ad hominem doesn't cut it, such as your cut-n-paste from the "skeptic site" which makes vague claims about "serious custody issues" and "other scientists have called unserious."

If you want, I can show you really nasty professional rivalries between eminent scientists, where all kinds of things are said. But that's not where the truth is found.

It is found in independent peer-reviewed tests, and in multiple tests from different disciplines, all of which give consistent results pointing to a particular physical interpretation.

And all of the peer-reviewed research on the Shroud points to human blood and reactions of gases from a dead body reacting with the linen; to the presence of soil and pollen samples found in proximity to Jerusalem; to anatomical features consistent with a real crucifixion which were in direct contradiction to the 'knowledge' of it which a medieval forger would have possessed.

The problem is, *you* are arguing from authority: and you ar doing it based on sources already shown to be inaccurate. And they have been shown to be inaccurate by the scientific method, Occam's razor, and all that. All the things that 'brights' such as yourself love to masturbate over.

Why are you so threatened by the Shroud? Treat it as a historical record of Roman legal practice, and study it for the cool interactions between a corpse and cloth.

But don't call it a painting. That only reveals you as a close minded, or dishonest troll, or, it is beginning to look like, unbalanced.

(You know, "Shroud Derangement Syndrome").