"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Isaiah 53:5
Posted on 05/03/2015 10:03:13 AM PDT by marshmallow
Alfonso Sánchez Hermosilla, Spanish doctor in forensic medicine, stated this at the annual conference of the International Centre of Syndonology, which took place in Turin today
All the information obtained from the studies and research” carried out on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo “is in tune with what one would expect - from a forensic medicine point of view - to happen to cloths with these characteristics were they to cover the head of a body featuring the kind of lesions Jesus of Nazareth suffered, just as the Gospels tell us.” Alfonso Sánchez Hermosilla, Doctor in Forensic Medicine, stated this at a conference held by the International Centre of Syndonology in Turin today. The conference looked at updates to the “main themes” regarding the Shroud.
The conference was not open to the public but reserved for members of the Centre, though this year the invitation was extended to groups and organisations, based in various parts of the world, that work with the Centre in Turin. More than 300 scholars and experts came from France, England, Spain, Peru, Mexico, Brazil and Bolivia. “Once again, it is not the authenticity of the Shroud that is at the centre of the debate and various speeches,” explained Gian Maria Zaccone, scientific director of the Museum of the Holy Shroud. “The point of this meeting is to discuss updates regarding certain areas of Shroud research which require further examination. For example, the role of pollen research and the significance of historical and informatics research on the Shroud.”
Sánchez Hermosilla, director of the Research Team of the Spanish Centre for Syndonology (EDICES) was among the experts who spoke at the conference. Hermosilla is the forensic expert who took over the study of the Oviedo Sudarium from Mgr. Giulio Ricci, who began examining it....
(Excerpt) Read more at vaticaninsider.lastampa.it ...
The C-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin has been falsified by three totally different approaches that have all showed that the test failed right from the start at the breaking of the sample taking protocol. . . when instead of following the agreed six samples from six different locations on the Shroud, they took ONE sample from ONE site. . . and cut it into six pieces and then discarded one because of observed differences in the threads. it turned out that should have raised a HUGE red flag that their sample was contaminated with foreign threads from a patch added later. It was, added in the 17th century. That skewed the dating by a huge amount because more than 50% of the tested material was NOT original Shroud material. The sample was not homogenous with what they intended to date. The first rule of C-14 dating was not just ignored, it was swept under the rug!
The second red flag that the referees completely ignored is that the four sub-samples tested by three labs ALL returned different dates, and NOT ONE of those different dates, which spanned 180 years from 1260 AD to 1390 AD with all having a 25 year plus or minus degree of confidence, OVERLAPPED each other! That should have told the dating scientists that the sample they were testing was not homogenous in and of itself, varying in age from one end to the other because it was a blend of old and newer materials! But they were so determined to prove the Shroud a hoax they ignored the anomalous data, just as they discarded the sub-sample with the anomalous threads, and AVERAGED their results to come up with their 1350 AD results. . . a humungous no-no! They hid this in the details that only came out later, where two forensic statisticians found it.
Fourteen years later, Pyrologist Chemist Raymond Rogers, in attempting to falsify what he thought was a crackpot hypothesis that what had been tested was a patch done in the Seventeenth Century by a technique called French Invisible Reweaving, found much to his surprise his testing of threads from the left-over fifth sub-sample from the 1988 C-14 test, that instead of FALSIFYING the hypothesis, he CONFIRMED IT! He found that one side of the sample was made of original Shroud Flax Linen while the other side was made of skillfully dyed and woven in COTTON! Moreover, the change-over was at a slight angle as the difference traversed the sample from one side to the other, accounting for the differing ages of the other sub-samples with the youngest sample having the greatest amount of newer material and the oldest with the least. Rogers published his findings in the Peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermocemica Acte.
Shortly after Rogers work, Physicist John Brown, PhD, working with some of the threads taken from the 1973 Raes Sample, taken from the same area near the 1988 C-14 sample, found that one of the threads fell into two pieces. One of those two pieces was examined and found to be dyed Cotton, grown only in France, and dyed by a technique developed only in the 15th Century. The other half was undyed pure Flax Linen. The Cotton was spun in an "S" twist, while the Linen was in a "Z" twist. The two thread pieces had been carefully and skillfully intertwined to make one thread. This also confirmed that the C-14 tested sample could have been testing a contaminated melange patch of combined FIRST and SEVENTEENTH CENTURY grown FLAX and COTTON!
I.E. The C-14 labs accurately tested what they were given, a broken protocol sampled mixture of old 40-60% FIRST CENTURY FLAX and newer 60% -40% SEVENTEENTH CENTURY COTTON, which returned accurate dates for the mix of between 1260 AD +/- 25 years to 1390 AD +/- 25 years. Funny thing, the University of Arizona lab got BOTH EXTREMES. . . and even questioned whether their two samples were even the same cloth at all! It was the Oxford Lab, and the Referee, who averaged everything and ignored their questioning. . . and, ignoring all the red flags, "gleefully" announced the 1350AD date and the Shroud of Turin a "fraud."
Harry Gove, the inventor of the specific C-14 test used on the Shroud samples was asked what the age of the original material would have to be if approximately 60% of the sample was added had been grown in 1650 AD to result in a tested date of 1350 AD. He did some quick calculations and replied the original 40% in the sample would have had to be FIRST CENTURY origination plus or minus 100 years to get that result. So in a way, the 1988 C-14 test DOES validate the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, IF the added material was added circa 1650 AD, which is when the records of a repair are noted
“Harry Gove, the inventor of the specific C-14 test used on the Shroud samples was asked what the age of the original material would have to be if approximately 60% of the sample was added had been grown in 1650 AD to result in a tested date of 1350 AD.”
Excellent!
The palynology is not so simple as you make it out to be, Fred. It is the pollens from the Jerusalem areas that are co-incindent that are important, not just the similar pollen from other areas. Some of those pollens are VERY specific to a time and place. One pollen is particularly telling because it is of a plant that went extinct everywhere in about the sixth Century and it was found on both the Turin Shroud and on the Sudarium. There is no way any 14th Century Fraudster could have anticipated the need to find the pollen of an extinct Palestinian plant to hide on his hoax for 20th Century palynologists to find and identify for his hoaxing of 14th Century
The greatest percentage of pollens in the census on both cloths were Eastern Mediterranean, with a majority from the area around Israel. The Shroud has some pollens native to the area around Sanliurfa, Turkey, (Edessa) and Istanbul (Constantinople), places we know the from the post 1350AD history of the Turin Shroud it has never been, yet the quantities of pollens present up until 2002 AD indicate extended stays in those areas. In 2002AD the Shroud was both washed, vacuumed, and ironed, in an ill-advised "restoration" under the direction of Madame Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, which removed the in situ pollens and other evidence which could have been studied in the future.
Your skeptical take ignores the fact that the 1988 C-14 test has been falsified by three different peer-reviewed scientific papers, all taking different approaches, and even the head of the Oxford labs has now agreed that the sampling was totally flawed right from the beginning. The protocol was NOT followed and as a result, the dating was flawed and is not reliable for any valid purpose in that the corner where they took the sample was the very corner of the Shroud where all the scientists agreed should have been avoided because it was both chemically and physically different (that corner fluoresces under UV light while the main body of the Shroud does not indicating chemical and physical differences) from the main body of the shroud.
How do you explain the presence of Travertine Aragonite dust with a specific spectrographic signature found only in the area outside the eastern gate of Jerusalem on the back of the Shroud, specifically on the backside of the dorsal image in the areas of the feet, calves, buttocks, shoulders and hear, and on the front side of the dorsal image in the foot print and knees. This Travertine Aragonite, with this particular spectrographic signature, has never, so far, been found anywhere else in the world. Are you going to tell us that a Fourteenth Century forger knew to get dust from the shelf of Tomb in Jerusalem and brush it into the appropriate areas of where the body rested on the back side of the cloth and then only on the foot print on the front of the cloth where the feet and knees would have picked it up on the road to the crucifixion and then transferred it to the cloth? The forger would have been quite a genius to anticipate 20th Century spectrographic analysis. . . or even the need of having the dust there in the first place, or the pollen.
What a brilliant piece of work. . . and not one other sample of his work or anything like it. Which would be the greater miracle, Fred? That a known miracle worker leaves behind this relic of his existence or that an unknown polymath created an artistic work so perfect that no one even with 21st abilities can duplicate it or even determine how it was done or even plumb the depths of mysteries this unknown polymath included in his work for us to find 700 years later? Frankly, Fred, for me, that would be the far greater miracle.
Essentially the same as what I outlined above.
Christ bled out on the cross.
Somewhere on the hard drive of my old, broken computer, I have my correspondence with Barry Schwartz regarding a theory I have about the origin of the shroud. Not being any sort of authority on the subject, I have nonetheless been interested in it for many years.
An earlier discussion here on Free Republic suggested that the image must have been made by the release of some sort of high energy. I remembered a couple of YouTube videos I had seen which showed 1) a man disappear for awhile and then return under unusual circumstances. Both his disappearance and subsequent return were marked with bright flashes of light; and 2) a UFO traversing the sky in a Chinese city. It cruised along at a relatively slow pace for a distance, then disappeared in a bright flash of light.
I pointed out to Mr. Schwartz that scientists had already moved very small particles through similarly small spaces and times but that the experiments required huge amounts of energy to accomplish. My theory was that the corpse wrapped in the shroud had been “transported” away by some outside force using energy we have no knowledge of.
Mr. Schwartz replied that the energy required to do that would be roughly equivalent to that which could be generated by the sudden atomic disintegration of the body being transported.
Perhaps God does work in mysterious ways.
I have done that. . . numerous times in these threads. . . and I did above.
First is the Statistical anomalies: "Radiocarbon Dating The Shroud-A Critical Statistical Analysis.", R. Van Haelst, 1997, Belgium.
Conclusion:An X^2 test value 8.43 > 5.99 states that there is a SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE between the results of the 3 laboratories. From the X^2 test result, one can determinate the % significance level : 2.718^-(8.43/2) = 1.3 %. From this test, one may conclude, that the probability of obtaining, by chance alone, a scatter as high as that observed for the Shroud, is only 13 in 1000. Because we assume all radiocarbon dates to be correct, we must conclude, that the SMALL samples, taken at the same place, do not have the same radioactivity and are not REPRESENTATIVE for the Shroud.
A later statistical paper, using a different statistical approach also came to the same conclusion; "RADIOCARBON DATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN THE NATURE REPORT", R. Van Haelst, 1998, Belgium.
"Because I was Therefore I used the method given in Perry's Chemical Engineering Handbook, my technical bible. The reader is referred to any text-book on statistical analysis.Here the more powerful F-test value is used, instead of the Chi^2 test.
The F-test, for the Shroud, is based on the THREE mean results obtained by the laboratories and the TWELVE independent results taken from Table 1 in Nature. Here the quoted errors will have NO influence. For 95% confidence and (3-1)-(12-3) degrees of freedom, the MAXIMUM F-value, taken from statistic tables is 4.26. I found a F-value of 4.7 >> 4.26, consequently the reported data are NOT CONSISTENT. Such data should not be used in any further calculations.
In other words, the F value to prove homogeneity must be below 4.26, and these samples were not. Ergo, they were not homogenous. . . and falsified the 1988 C-14 testing.
Three separate peer-reviewed scientific papers showing the sample was compromised and contained COTTON form the 17th Century. This was published: "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of turin", Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, 1961 Cumbres Patio, Los Alamos, NM 87544, USA Thermochimica Acta 425 (2005) 189–194
AbstractIn 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth’s production lay between a.d. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample. Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow–brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
All of the scholarship finds the Jewish burial requirements hold that if there was a shroud used, the face was not covered by a separate cloth. However the cloth here was used as a kerchief like rope to tie the jaw closed, and was wrapped AROUND the face. . . under the jaw, passing under the beard, behind the ears and hair, and then being tied above the crown of the head. i.e. around and about the the face to keep the mouth closed in death, otherwise the mouth would gape open. Similarly a coin or potsherd would be placed to weight the eyelids closed (such coins or potsherds are often found in the eyesocktets of skulls). Also the wrists and ankles would be bound with a similar cloth strip of binding to keep them from flopping akimbo when rigor mortis passed. These practices are documented in Jewish writings of the period.
If no shroud were available small cloths and modesty cloths would be used, but cloth was expensive, representing several days to weeks of work by skilled craftsmen and women to produce.
No DNA of sufficient length or non-contamination has been recovered to test with any degree of confidence in the results. The blood is human. . . and does show male markers. The AB markers are there but almost all old blood may show AB after it ages long enough, so that means little. If it is AB, that is a blood type that is much more common among Sephardic Jews and high noble Arabs semitic peoples. That is all we can tell at this time.
Not true. There would be pooled blood in the corpse that would drain when the body was moved into different positions. The Foot wounds would have been insufficient to allow bleed out of the entire blood supply if the heart stopped pumping. Wounds in the arms were elevated. Blood pooled in the chest cavity separated into serous fluid and blood and would flow across the body as it was laid down on its back. The other chambers of the heart would empty. . . and the blood and serous fluid in the longs would drain from below the lance wound. Again, this has been looked at by some of the world's foremost forensic pathologists. . . and these are their findings.
Thanks Swordmaker.
WOW!
He received a spear wound that is written to have caused massive fluid loss.
After that, if the corpse was laid flat on it's back on a level surface, the nose and toes would be the highest point. How in such horizontal orientation would fluids flow up and out the nasal cavity?
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."
Isaiah 53:5
I AM a Catholic, and the authenticity of the shroud doesn’t make a difference. Jesus IS Lord and savior.
Yes, it was. Good point.
I can better understand the part in the Gospels where there executioners chose to draw lots for Jesus' tunic, because it was seamless and woven from a single piece of fabric. They said they didn't want to tear and divide it into four pieces.
:’)
Amen.
It appears the body was carried face down to the Tomb. . . and pleural sera and blood would have flowed from the lungs in that position with the cloth held over the face by a hand, which is seen on the face in blood on the nose, with the fingers toward the mouth. Again, I repeat, this is the results of examination of some of the finest forensic pathologists in the world. They know what they are talking about. . . your amateur skepticism not withstanding, it is possible and most likely possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.