Shroud of Turin tests miff scientists, religious scholars

AP Online ^ | 8-21-02 | ROXANA M. POPESCU

[HumanaeVitae]

Also, an electron microsope that was trained over one of the "eyes" of the shroud clearly picked out the words "UCAI", part of an inscription of a Roman lepton that was only issued in upper Palestine, i.e. Jerusalem, under Pontius Pilate between 29-31 AD. But anyway, who cares. You don't wanna see it, you ain't gonna see it. I didn't come to FR to proselytize. If people want the "Full Dante" in the next world be my guest.

[HumanaeVitae]

'Night.

[gcruse]

You know what your statement says to me? This:
"I really, really want to be an atheist". That's it. Anyway, enough throwing
pearls before swine. if you don't want to see it, you'll never see it.

That wasn't my statement.    I included the
url links for my posts, which is more than
you did to back up yours.  If you wish
to refute the points the authors made,
I'm sure they will appreciate being corrected.

[MonroeDNA]

If the shroud does not date to what the bible says, well, then, maybe the bible is wrong about dates. As in, not fallable.

That would mean that people would have to think for themselves, and search for God on their own.

[Dinsdale]

if you don't want to see it, you'll never see it.

And if you want to see it no amount of carbon dating or plausable ways it could have developed will convince you otherwise.

It certainly was'nt a photographic technique. Cloths laying on bodys (in any era) can be stained by molds etc where there is contact. Also a statue heated then overlayed with a cloth produces images very like those on the shroud. Almost certainly a midevil fraud, just like the 'saint blood' that is supposed to reliquify on call (which has been reproduced using period chemicals and methods, does'nt change anything or anybodys beliefs).

The most cynical thing I've ever read is 'Life is like a long meeting, nothing gets resolved and nobodies opinions get changed'

[Nebullis]

[mysterio]

I think I can help here.

I did my master's degree research on biofilm that builds up in water lines.
Let me explain this simply.
Over the centuries, the Shroud has undergone some decay, just like any other piece of cloth that you might find from that era, only more limited due to care and preservation efforts.
Bacteria have been breaking down the cloth since it was woven into the Shroud. Now, when bacteria break down some of the cloth, divide, and die, do you think they just fall off the cloth? Well, some do. Many, however, do not. They form a microscopic layer around the thread. New bacteria are constantly growing on the cloth, and they colonize on the layer of bacteria which has been breaking down the cloth.
Multiply this times many centuries. Now, envision a strand of thread surrounded by many layers of a substance that is almost like plastic or scotch guard. A cross section would look something like the rings of a tree. The center layer would be the actual thread, while the surrounding layers would be dead and living bacteria.
Carbon dating measures C14. Since the decay of carbon 14 is constant and known, one can measure it and thus determine how long it has been decaying. This tells the researcher the age of the item being dated.
Now, is it only the actual cloth that is being carbon dated? No. It is the thread, plus all of the layers of bacteria, dating back from the cloth's origin to the present. One layer may be 2000 years old. One layer may be 10 years old. One layer may be 5 years old.
Thus, the initial carbon date obtained in the 1980s did not determine the age of just the Shroud. It determined the average age of the thread combined with the many layers of bacteria surrounding it. If it had determined that the age of the Shroud was 2000 years, we could thus assume that the Shroud is actually much older. If, however, all of the bacterial layers are removed, we are testing only the actual thread that forms the cloth. Thus, the new reading should be quite a bit more accurate.

I hope this helps. If you have any questions about this, I might be able to answer them a little more thoroughly.

[Young Werther]

I read somewhere that pollen taken from the cloth was consistent with the biologicals that existed around Jerusalem around 29-31 AD. You can fake a picture but what 13th Century forger would have the knowledge and wherewithal to include pollen "For Christ's Sake"? {Religious Pun intended}!

A relic in a monestary in Spain is supposed to be the veil of Veronica, the woman who wiped Jesus' face as he marched to Golgotha. The veil maintined the print of his face. Photographic/computer analysis confirms the thorn puncture wounds on his face are in the same place on both cloths. The scientist that did this analysis stated that he felt that these divine icons formed the basis for all artistic representation of Jesus and not vice versa.

I choose to believe!

[RightWhale]

That's him alright. Same schnozola, can't hide that.

The shroud could be as old as they say, but the images aren't. They are two separate images. The body probably isn't Leonardo, but the head is separate and is Leonardo. He got great mileage out of his camera obscura, used it all the time.

[Young Werther]

Follow Up:

Shroud of Turin

[Nebullis]

The mouth is also a bit droopier and wider than the Mandylion, wouldn't you say?

[ALS]

Sorry to burst your bubble but the custom in those days was to wrap in STRIPS of linen, not a sheet.

John 19:40 Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

The "shroud" is just another fill the pews hoax.

[RightWhale]

The self-portrait was late, was he 80 or so? He put himself in many of his group paintings. The shroud would have been when he was mid-forties. When was the Mandylion done? Byzantine? Looks highly stylized.

[Dianna]

The cardinal said the research involved removing impurities and residue from the cloth, which is 13 feet long and three feet wide.

I doubt the Church is "hand-picking" to get certain results. They would have to know that would undermine all their credibility concerning The Shroud.

Me? I'm a believer.

[gcruse]

I doubt the Church is "hand-picking" to get certain results.
They would have to know that would undermine all their credibility
concerning The Shroud.

In order for the results to be widely accepted, the tests
will have to be replicated elsewhere.  So you wonder
why the secrecy, unless the Vatican wants to have a
peg to hang a pronouncement on.  I am always
suspicious of secrecy in science.  It usually accompanies
fraud.

[SkyPilot]

From gcruse's profile:

Ah, religion. Centuries of progress, knowledge, and observation, all mangled and busted like expensive dental braces on a five cent piece of peanut brittle. Evolution must be real, because we still have one foot in the slime, while our heads are in the stars.

[Octar]

You are a lot closer than many here would like to admit. Not to mention, If you need to prove your faith, it isn't worth much.

[Don Joe]

"[I]mage formation techniques employing technology readily available to medieval cultures as far back as the eleventh century strongly suggests that the negative image as found on the Shroud of Turin was the product of a form of primitive photography employing either silver nitrate or silver sulphate as a light sensitive agent."

I looked at that site. The author's knowledge of the photographic processes and optics is seriously flawed. He made a valliant effort though, and even though his understanding of what would have been required to form an develop a crude early form of what's known as a "print out" image is not very accurate, he certainly did not disprove any possibility of it being a silver based photographic image.

Apart from his "sins of commission" (regarding things like optical formulae, the nature of glass Vs. quartz optics, and so forth) was one "sin of omission -- any silver image, when exposed to the atmosphere for a significant period of time (often as little as a half-century or less) will "sulfide". That means that the image -- made of metallic (i.e., "reduced") silver -- will gradually be converted to silver sulfide via the gradual exposure to atmospheric silver.

When you see an old black and white print where the image has been (either totally or in "splotches") been changed from various densities of gray and black to a series of yellow/sepia tones, you are looking at an image that has been sulfided.

You can accomplish the same effect in minutes using a technique called "sepia toning". First, the image is bleached. The photograph is soaked in a solution of potassium ferricyanide and potassium bromide. This converts the image from silver to silver bromide -- first, from silver to silver ferricyanide, then from silver ferricyanide to silver bromide (likely the same silver salt it was when it was fresh unexposed film or paper, although it could also have started out as a different silver salt).

A toned image is very stable, unlike a "raw" silver image. One archival process, used to prevent long term deterioration, is to apply a light selenium toner treatment. This will protect the silver grains from sulfiding, without causing an undue change to the image color.

Does this (sulfiding of silver images) suggest that the shroud image started out as a silver image? No, but it doen't mitigate against it either.

My mind is not made up on the question of whether or not the shroud is as-billed. However, it doesn't really matter to me. My faith is not dependant on a question of whether or not an ancient piece of cloth (which is of genuine historic interest regardless of its actual lineage) is or is not the burial shroud of Christ.

As to my photographic bona fides, I studied photography at one of the premier photographic schools in New York City. I owned several studios and camera repair shops. I did custom darkroom work (black and white, color, color reversal, and cibachrome) for several years, and I created a photographic developer formula (black and white paper and cibachrome) that was very well received by those who worked with it.

[gcruse]

You have my bona fides by freepmail.

I was involved in making a print from an 8x10 neg
of the shroud using, IIRC, a track mounted Durst.
Seeing it as a positive image blown up nearly
life size gave me the chills.  But as to its being
two thousand years old, too much evidence
points the other way, IMO.

[gcruse]

Offtopic, but I hope your Cibachrome formula was better than the P2 (?) I used back in the seventies. The dye bleach was so corrosive it ate the stainless steel baskets and tanks in the Calumet. :)