… and several other questions, too.
To keep up with all the Tweets to Mark click on @goodacre
To follow the continuing dialog on Facebook, visit facebook.com/FindingJesusCNN
Mark, a professor of New Testament and Christian Origins in the Department of Religious Studies at Duke University, is a featured expert in the CNN series, Finding Jesus.
Here are his answers to two carbon dating questions:
Vance Lipsey: Is there a better way to check the shroud than carbon dating? I’ve been told carbon dating is very inaccurate.
Goodacre: Actually, carbon dating is an excellent way to ascertain the date of an artifact. Many are disappointed, not surprisingly, that the shroud dated to between AD 1260 and 1390. I recall my own disappointment (but not surprise) on hearing the results back in 1988. But the scientists doing the carbon dating were not amateurs, and the samples were tested in three separate labs. Moreover, the carbon date cohered with other evidence that the shroud was a medieval forgery, like the fact that there is no evidence of its existence until the 14th century.
Cynthia Restivo: So I know the carbon dating was off, but wasn’t it later shown that the piece of cloth used for the testing was a section that had been repaired after some fire damage or something? Which would explain why it dated different?
Goodacre: No, that’s not been established. Those who defend the authenticity of the shroud often say the sample might have been taken from a part of the shroud that was repaired after it was damaged by fire in the 16th century. But this is special pleading. The scientists who took the sample knew what they were doing. Professor Christopher Ramsey noted that the unusual weave on the sample matched the weave on the rest of the shroud perfectly.
The ignorance of the Professor Goodacre about the validity of the carbon dating is in proportion to the ignorance of the interlocutor and those on this blog who will defend carbon dating to the end. The following is an excerpt from my book that cites an item by Ian Wilson from the BSTS Newsletter published in 1990.
“The first intimation of the dangling cotton thread came to the Shroud world in an article by Ian Wilson in the September-October 1990 issue of the BSTS Newsletter entitled “Cotton On The Oxford Carbon Dating Sample:
“Kindly brought to our attention by the Revd. Kim Dreisbach of Atlanta is a hitherto unnoticed report in the journal Textile Horizons of December 1988 concerning the Shroud sample supplied to the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory. Apparently the British company Precision Processes (Textiles) Ltd of Ambergate, Derbyshire was asked by the Oxford laboratory to help identify certain ‘foreign’ fibres observed, isolated and extracted from the Shroud sample prior to its destruction during the carbon dating process.
“According to Precision Processes managing director, Peter South:
“‘It was while the sample was undergoing tests at the radiocarbon acceleration unit in Oxford that Professor Edward Hall noticed two or three fibres which looked out of place. He mentioned this to his friend Sir James Spooner, chairman of Coats Viyella, to which our firm belongs. Consequently, after several telephone calls, the minute samples, which looked like human hair, were sent to us.’
“Magnified two hundred times by a Precision Processes microscope the fibres became immediately identified as cotton. This might have been explicable as merely from the cotton gloves worn by members of the STURP team in 1978, but for the subsequent information imparted by Peter South:”
‘The cotton is a fine, dark yellow strand, possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old. Unfortunately it is impossible to say how it ended up on the Shroud, which is basically made from linen. It may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply became bound in when the linen fabric was woven.’
“This is not the first time that cotton strands have been identified on a Shroud sample. The Belgian Professor Gilbert Raes observed the same on the sample he studied in 1973, and he deduced that this was a strong indication of Middle Eastern manufacture. Clearly it could be of great interest to learn more both of the age of this cotton, and of the exact reason for its presence on the Shroud.”
“BSTS Newsletter No. 26 – September/October 1990 (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n26part6.pdf)”
Please note the phrase “bound-in.”
This was not random surface contamination. And please note that Oxford knew this before the release of the carbon dating results. The red lights were flashing and the siren was blaring. For the labs to have stepped back a bit and dealt with this in their report would have resulted not only in a delay in a releasing their results and probably required a whole new sampling, something that would have virtually impossible to happen.
In The Sign, de Wesselow wrote:
“The carbon dating of the Shroud will probably go down in history as one of the greatest fiascos in the history of science. It would make an excellent case study for any sociologist interested in exploring the ways in which science is affected by professional biases, prejudices and ambitions, not to mention religious (and irreligious) beliefs.”
“Fiasco” was a gross understatement.
http://johnklotz.blogspot.com
John.
Why don’t you try to educate the CNN “expert” yourself on his own profile? Don’t forget to send him Rogers’ as well as Benford & Marino papers.
Excellent idea O.K. Can’t do it today though. I driving up to Boston with my wife who is attending a professional seminar Friday and Saturday. but will have some time on my hands. I’ll see what I can do.
(As quoted by Klotz.) “The cotton is a fine, dark yellow strand, possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old.” What are the criteria for establishing that a cotton fiber is Egyptian? Is it possible to distinguish a fiber of Egyptian origin from a fiber originating elsewhere in the Old World? “And quite old”. How much old? Ancient Egypt was the land of flax, not of cotton. It is not even sure that cotton was known in Egypt at the time of Christ. Possibly cotton was introduced to low Egypt only centuries later.
“Gilbert Raes … deduced that this was a strong indication of Middle Eastern manufacture.” Raes did not state exactly this, and if he did he would have been wrong. Cotton was surely used in Europe in the 14th century. Was it used in the Palestine of 1st century? Orit Shamir, in a 2015 paper from the Bari conference, has given a tabulation of the type of fiber for 1635 textile specimens of the Roman period from 23 sites in Israel:
http://www.shs-conferences.org/articles/shsconf/pdf/2015/02/shsconf_atsi2014_00010.pdf
There is a lot of wool and linen, some goat hair and just three camel hair, but there is not one example of cotton.
It may also be useful to quote the final conclusion of Shamir:
“The Turin Shroud was probably not manufactured in the Land of Israel neither in the Roman nor in the Medevial period. It may not have been imported in none of these periods because not one textile with the above weaving technique was found in the Land of Israel.”
Klotz will educate the expert.
I would point out the Professor Goodacre is a theologian not a scientist and swallows whole the carbon dating. I would be happy to debate him anytime about the carbon dating. However, I have an advantage. I have taken the time to explore the scientific issues of the carbon dating and he swallows whole a statement by Ramsey which has been rebutted by experts.
I suggest that you and he read the following paper by Pam Moon:
http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Three_threads_files/BL%20Sebastian%20for%20website%201.pdf
Then get back to me. Please note that Pam cites experts and illustrates anomalies. She had to bring an English equivalent of a FOIA demand (Freedom of Information Act) to get the photographs from Oxford. Fact is that US and British taxpayers footed a good chunk of the bill for the carbon dating.
Maybe someone should explore using FOIA on Arizona given the fact that grants of a US agency funded at least in part the Arizona’s tests (You are aware of that, aren’t you?)
The biggest gaff in the carbon dating was restricting the sampling to a single site. Once that was bypassed, interpretation of the results became much more unclear than it had to be.
There is a reason that sampling from multiple sites was specified in the original protocol.
Interesting to speculate, if the results had landed square in 30 AD, would a similar amount of criticism be levied that the sampling was just from a single site? Experimental design is there for a purpose-should have been followed.
“The biggest gaff in the carbon dating was restricting the sampling to a single site. ”
I completely agree.
In addition we have many clues that this part of the TS has been “manipulated”.
– It was dyed
– It does contain much more cotton fibers than the rest of the TS
– It does contain much more lignin than the rest of the TS
– http://www.academicjournals.org/article/article1380798975_Morgan.pdf
clearly shows another anomaly in the UV-Vis photograph.
etc..
Each of these clues can be disputed.
But, the fact is that the entirety of the clues strongly suggests that the Raes/C14 corner is anomalous with regard to the main shroud.
About cotton in Oxford sample: ” The cotton is a fine, dark yellow strand, possibly of Egyptian origin and quite old.” What are the criteria for establishing that a cotton fiber is Egyptian? Is it possible to distinguish a fiber of Egyptian origin from a fiber originating elsewhere in the Old World? “And quite old”. How much old? ”
I agree with Gian Marco Rinaldi.
The British company Precision Processes (Textiles) Ltd found that these fibers were cotton fibers from the ‘old world’. This means that these cotton fibers were not modern cotton (G. hirsutum), but Gossypium herbaceum or Gossypium arboreum.
There is no mean for establishing that a cotton fiber is Egyptian.
Cotton from the ‘old world’ simply means that it is not modern cotton, the kind of cotton likely found in the gloves of STURP. It is not a modern contamination.
This kind of cotton can be found in ancient fabrics as well as in European medieval fabrics.
If a drug company seeking FDA approval were required to have 7 subjects undergo a clinical trial and then the drug company just decided on their own to only test 3 people. They would never get FDA Approval. Apparently strict guidelines and testing rules don’t apply The Shroud. New drugs on the market are more important?! . Alrighty then.
It is much easier to get favorable results from a Chi Value Square test with a smaller sample group. Much easier. I believe that was the thinking behind using 3 samples instead of 7.
In the case of the 1988 Radio Carbon Dating, they could not even pass a Chi Value Square test with a very small sample group?! 3 in this case. It is a huge red flag.
British Museum chose the Chi Value Square test as the deciding factor for whether or not the results could be published and be 95% accurate.
The Samples did not pass the Chi Square Value Test.
My question is why were they allowed to publish the results in the 1st place?!
This would be not unlike a piece of equipment failing a critical safety test but then just go ahead and sell it on the market anyway. “No big deal, no one will find out”
If this was a drug company and they failed such a simple test and then still went to the FDA and asked “Can we still get approval for our drug even though we failed the X squared test?
The FDA would think the drug company was completely insane. NO, would be the answer, go back and start over. 7 samples, like agreed and the sample group must pass the Chi Value Square Test. If not, don’t publish the results. It means there is something wrong.
Ray Rodgers work only confirmed what the Chi Value Square test results revealed all the way back to the 1988. Inconsistency and or tampering occurred within the sample group.
Jesus said, “let your yes be yes and let your no, be no. any thing other than this shows something is wrong and comes from the evil one”
Sample failed critical test. NO, results not acceptable. Start over. There is no in between.
Hi Dave
Sorry to troble you. Could you please give us a example explaining why Chi Value Square test failed in the case of the 1988 Radio Carbon Dating. Thank you.
Hi Sampath, here is a link to a paper you will no doubt find very interesting to read. This will answer all your questions and then some. I can make some comparison analogies that make it easier to understand but in the meantime read this.
https://www.shroud.com/vanhels5.pdf
It gets a bit complicated and one could get easily get confused going through all the numbers but the bottom line Is; The Samples Failed The X Squared Test.
Here is a highlight quote:
“A computcr programmed statistical analysis using the X² with a test value of 8.56 showed beyond any doubt that the maximum value for the three laboratories with 95% confidence is 5.99 (2). In the case of such high X² test values it is recommended that conclusions be postponed in order to obtain better samples and to conduct new tests”
If that information was given to any ruling authority in a authenticity court room type setting the carbon dating results would be ruled inadmissible evidence and that would be the last time it was mentioned again. The results of the X Squared Test is not unlike a sword that cuts off the head of the radio carbon dating serpent. He was the star witness for the anti authenticity side. That was the cornerstone on which their case was built. Without the cornerstone everything collapses that was built on top of it.
https://www.shroud.com/vanhels5.pdf
Another highlight quote”
“Again I verified the consistency of these FOUR results by the Chi^2 test. A NEGATIVE Chi^2
value of 8.40 > 7.81, the critical Chi^2 value for 95 % confidence and (4-1) degrees of
freedom, indicates that the sample for Arizona is not homogenous. Nevertheless, these
values are given as INDEPENDENT values in Table 1 of Nature. As one will see in the notes
by the Nature report, Dr. Leese will explain in a very complicated way, how but NOT why he
did bias the results, in order to TURN the NEGATIVE Chi^2 value of 8.55, first into a
“borderline” case 6.4 and secondly, as by magic, into “95 % confidence” !
https://www.shroud.com/vanhelst.htm
There is no way to escape the simple fact the 1988 sample failed the Chi Square Value Test,
In such a case there is only 1 obvious logical course of action to take,
1. Start over with a new sample group.
And before publishing the results, make sure the new sample group passes the X Squared test.
Hi Sampath, An X Squared Test will reveal if there is an inconsistency and or tampering of a sample group. Mixing old fabric with new fabric would be a way to get inconsistent results. None of the 3 labs were in agreement on a date despite testing the same fabric from the exact same location.
In a clinical trial if 3 people suffering from chronic pain were given a new pain drug and the results were
Person 1. The new drug alleviated the pain
Person 2. The new drug did not alleviate the pain.
Person 3. The New drug made the pain worse.
Those results would fail an X squared test, because the results are inconsistent.
The results from the 3 labs who tested Shroud Samples were also inconsistent.
Minor inconsistency is to be expected to some degree within a sample group. X squared test sets parameters and limits to how much inconsistency can occur before it “crosses the safety line” and a new sample group would be required and repeat the tests.
It is a mathematical way to be sure you can trust the results of things being tested within groups of 3 , 7, 9 or more.
I am not a expert on the subject. But I hope this helps you understand it better.
Thank you Dave for the link.
Best fit, Mean, Standard deviation, Chi Value Square interesting.
First grab sample, then ignore internal contamination and external contamination. Coming to a conclusion of the date of Shroud by ignoring the 95% confidence level of Carbon Dating results and also condemning it as a medieval fake is a joke. How bad is this? Those scientists deceived the world.
Thank you Louis for the link of Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro interview. This convinced me that no medieval artists or technologist can make an image or painting like the image on the Shroud of Turin.
Thank you again
It is beyond annoying that anyone gets away with saying the first appearance of the Shroud is in the 14th century. A fact for western Europe but totally ignores the clear likelihood the Shroud was stolen from Constantinople in 1204. There was clearly a shroud in Constantinople, it clearly had an image on it with descriptions that match the TS. The HPM clearly links the two cloths with the obvious burn holes. The inconvenient truth is that 1204 is already older than the oldest carbon date of 1260. It doesn’t prove the Shroud is first century but it certainly indicates the carbon date is wrong.
FINDING WORDS OF JESUS IN REGARDS TO THE 1988 RADIO CARBON DATING
36 Luke 5:36-39
“No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old”
Fact: 1988 Samples Failed the Chi Value Square Test (X Squared Test)
The Chi Value Square Test will reveal if there is an inconsistency and or tampering of the sample group.
Max Limit Set by British Museum was set 5.99 Samples tested out at 8.56
Way Over The Limit!
To further confuse the debate there are those that will argue the 8.56 figure in not right, and that the samples failed the X squared test by a smaller margin, but they still FAILED.
That’s it, it’ over. That means you have to start over again with a new sample group and re do the carbon date test over again. It really is that simple. That is why the British Museum chose the X squared test, because it is the acid test to know if the results could be trusted as being 95% accurate or not. Results should never have been published in the 1st place.
. Based on that alone the carbon dating results would be ruled admissible evidence by any ruling authority in a court of law as evidence.
If a forensic detective collected 3 blood samples off The Shroud and one came back as being type O, another type AB and another Type B………..STOP THERE
Need more be explained?
The matter of the authenticity of The Shroud belongs in a higher court type setting, where a judge or ruling authority decides what can be presented and what cannot presented as evidence. The carbon dating results would never be allowed as admissible evidence.
In the same way some of things the pro authenticity side is presenting would not be admissible as evidence. . The sword would cut both ways.
Question: Does the forensic evidence agree with the X squared test?
Was there an inconsistency in the sample group?
According to Ray Rodgers there was.
FACT: Shroud of Turin is a pure linen garment and does NOT contain cotton
FACT: 1988 Samples contained cotton intertwined with pure linen fabric
FACT Shroud of Turin is a pure linen fabric and does NOT contain any dyes
FACT: 1988 Samples contained dyes in the fabric
FACT: Shroud of Turin fabric does NOT contain any vanillin
FACT 1988 Samples contained vanillin indicating a midcentury age.
3 MAJOR DIFFERENCES.
FINDING WORDS OF JESUS
“No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old”
Forensic Evidence and Scripture are in agreement.
Hello Dave.
A few months ago we talked about image overlaying and Manoppello.
I asked you about making the similar video like that http://shroudstory.com/2014/08/19/matching-faces-is-it-possible/ with Manoppello and Shroud faces I sent you.
Do you plan to make it?
Hello OK. It is nearly complete. What caught my eye and delayed me from uploading it, was when I noticed how the Manoppello image had lower set eyebrows that matched the 1898 version of The Shroud, with color correction. Most (if not all) the early frescoes replicate the owl like eyes and the “falsely perceived” high set eyebrows. The Manoppello image does not do that. If one was to argue this was made by men in the mid centuries what was used as a role model? Because they surely did not use the negative Shroud Image on linen otherwise they would have copied the owl like eyes and the high set eyebrows, like everyone did. How did they get such a perfect match without having the 1898 version to use as a role model?
If the Pantocrator really has 180 points of congruency, then the Manoppello image has more. It is a better match. However looking at the 2, they look completely unrelated. The Manoppello image looks like a painting, it does not look authentic, yet could very well be authentic, I believe it is possible the cloth did make contact with Jesus and color was added by someone after. How that was done? I don’t know. But it looks that way. Contact image with color added later. Part Original, Part Not Original.
Because of this, the video requires narration along with the images and I need more knowledge of it’s history before I can present it. I must have a more complete understanding of the image and it’s history before I present it.
I know I have a few hundred hours alone into it, just looking at the images overlaid together.
I need more time. I need the aid of a “Higher Power Intelligence” before I can complete it. Hopefully soon.
Hi Russ, I performed an X Squared Test on my own post and found an inconsistency.
Unfortunately my post was published with an error just like the results of the 1988 Radio Carbon Dating.
I wrote . “Based on that alone the carbon dating results would be ruled admissible evidence by any ruling authority in a court of law”
Hello there…………
Correction: “Based on that alone the carbon dating results would be ruled INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE by any ruling authority in a court of law”
I apologize for making the error. The X squared test caught my error. I have now corrected it. Now the British Museum needs to do the same thing. I am leading by example. They made a mistake. We all make mistakes. We can forgive and forget. Be Understanding.
It is important that we recognize our mistakes and make corrections as soon as possible.
The 1988 samples did not pass the X Squared Test. (Chi Value Square Test)
That is not a minor issue, it is a major problem. If it happens in a clinical trial, the drug company doing the testing MUST start over again with a new sample group, no exceptions.
To get FDA approval on a drug, drug being tested must pass the X squared test.
If not, they will not get FDA approval.
In the same way the results of the 1988 Radio Carbon Dating should never have been approved or published as being 95% accurate.
Knowing these facts how could anyone in their right mind still stand up and defend the carbon dating as being accurate?
Apparently they must not be aware of how important a Chi Value Square Test is. The public needs to be more educated in this regard. I blame myself for not having a video that explains this in simple terms so that everyone can clearly understand.
God willing I will have one made very soon. Good luck with the ongoing “The Shroud Encounter US Tour”
Dear me. How John Klotz manipulates the evidence. As it was, it was worth a mention as a possible point of discussion; as it is, it is somewhat overhyped, and surely damages the very cause he is trying to champion.
“The ignorance of the interlocutor and those on this blog who will defend carbon dating to the end.” This is just rude. There are many on this blog who think that the radiocarbon dating is correct. We will not defend this conclusion in the face of any convincing evidence to the contrary, but so far, such evidence had not been forthcoming.
“Professor Edward Hall noticed two or three fibres which looked out of place.” He did indeed. And he removed them, in case they were contaminants.
“The cotton is a fine, dark yellow strand, possibly of Egyptian origin.” Possibly. Quite so. And possibly not.
“It may have been used for repairs.” Possibly. Although the greater the probability that it was used for repairs, the smaller the probability that it was of Egyptian origin.
“Or simply became bound in when the linen fabric was woven.’ Yes, indeed, it may be contemporaneous with the weaving of the Shroud, medieval or first century.
” [Gilbert Raes] deduced that this was a strong indication of Middle Eastern manufacture.” Did he? What did he actually say? ‘In view of these observations, one can say that we have no precise indication permitting us to affirm with certainty that the fabric does not date from the time of Christ. It is, however,equally true that there is nothing that would permit us to state that the manufacture of this fabric was effected in that period.’ Equally true, note. That’s not a strong indication in either direction.
” [Pam Moon] had to bring an English equivalent of a FOIA demand (Freedom of Information Act) to get the photographs from Oxford. Fact is that US and British taxpayers footed a good chunk of the bill for the carbon dating.” The British taxpayer also funded the retrieval of the old records. I am glad we waited for an FOI request, so that we knew we weren’t wasting our money frivolously.
Nothing like cold hard objectivity, is there?
“He did indeed. And he removed them, in case they were contaminants.”
Then what became of them? I would hope they were retained to further study if they were indeed contaminants or if they possibly part of the original linen. Please tell me they weren’t thrown in the dumpster.
Almost certainly dumped. The piece of cloth was being cleaned for dating, not analysed forensically.
Pity.
Mark Goodacre is a respected biblical scholar. He has pointed out where exactly sensationalists and their books have made bad mistakes in attacking the NT narratives and how they try to get away by distorting archaeological findings.
But please don’t expect biblical scholars to have the time to read the extensive literature — scientific and historical — on the Shroud. Their field is full of heated controversy about the Bible.
The 1988 mess was mainly the fault of the Church, specifically, Turin. What started in the wrong direction lead to bad results, the object of heated discussions till today. My next Shroud article will be online next week, dwelling on the image formation process and a bit of what could be done about solving the dating problem. The clergymen have their hands tied.
No one has their hands tied. Teilhard predicted a virtual merger of science and religion as they proceed on parallel paths. A theologian who accepts with blind faith the findings of thawed science is not doing his or her job.
Or to paraphrase and old saying: if you can’t do the science then stay out of commenting on the Shroud. (If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
There are enormous implications of quantum science for religion. Some scientists hypothesize explanations for Near Death Experiences and eternal life. I get tired of typing the URL: but the Hameroff video is a prime example.
Good Video.
The problem, Louis, is that Professor Goodacre, expert in NT history though he is, is not an expert on the Shroud of Turin, and thus shouldn’t be commenting on it as if he were.
Gee if only experts can comment there would be very few, if any could post here, Maybe Mark Goodacre has read the same reports that everyone else had so he is using the expert’s opinions in his own opinion.
Yes, confronted by John Klotz, Goodacre will presumably very easily find a number of experts in radio carbon dating who will tell him that there is no reason to doubt the dating (as I have- they are around).
He will no doubt ask which of the critics of the dating who have confronted him have similar expertise. I can’t imagine that no one will refer him to the paper of Flury-Lemberg which refutes Rogers after her close- up examination of this corner of the Shroud, something never achieved by Marino or Benford.
Anyway no harm in John in trying.
Charles,
Would you care to name your anonymous experts and what they were basing their opinion on?
Play fair.
No, not without their express permission but if Goodacre wants to find them, it would not be difficult. I suspect, in fact, that he would not have been ready to go public in this way without having consulted experts already and as someone with an academic reputation to defend he would have trod carefully before making such a coherent response.
With the failure of Flury-Lemberg and every other expert who has examined the Shroud close-up to find any reweaving and with the total failure of anyone to be able to provide evidence of contamination remaining in sufficient quantities after the cleaning process, the presumption that the carbon -14 dating is correct remains in place. This is what he will be told and as the responses even on this site to John Klotz show, Klotz’s own ‘evidence’ is in itself hardly likely to,convince him otherwise.
CF: “I can’t imagine that no one will refer him to the paper of Flury-Lemberg which refutes Rogers after her close- up examination of this corner of the Shroud, something never achieved by Marino or Benford.”
I would hazard a guess that even a toy microscope would be an instrument of mystery to Frau Flury-Lemberg, whereas the skillful use of such a scientific instrument was regularly employed by Ray Rogers in his work, and enabled him to discern the reality of the contamination. Her search for a “darn” would be pathetic if it weren’t so tragic in its consequences. I imagine that Charles’ familiarity with such an instrument.and its capabilities, might extend to a magnifying glass.
Directed to Julian:
He was asked about it and that was his opinion, Juilan. More needs to be done to convince some people that the 1988 exercise was a fiasco.
“I would hazard a guess that even a toy microscope would be an instrument of mystery to Frau Flury-Lemberg”
daveb should send a toy microscope and a personal memo to Mrs Flury-Lemberg by express courier. I bet that she’ll reply to him.
Everything went wrong in 1988, from beginning to end. It must be emphasised that no examination of the chemical composition of the sample was made. The dating is not the last word on the topic:
https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
“The scientists who took the sample knew what they were doing.”
Would the same scientists be confident in the results of a biopsy of their prostate made of a single tissue sample?
to answer your question I had eight biopsy samples taken and it was positive in three.places.
The problem, Louis, is that Goodacre offers his opinion as if he is an expert.
No, surely he is simply saying what the mainstream academic opinion among the radio carbon community is on this issue. I am assuming that he consulted members of this community, some of whom are fully aware of the controversy but have not been convinced by the opponents of the dating. Does anyone know an hands -on expert in this field who does not believe the dating was correctly done? Surely Flury-Lemberg showed convincingly that there was no reweaving in this area of the Shroud – and what was this massive contamination of?
Directed to Julian:
I have seen biblical scholars and archaeologists, both in and out of Israel and far more important, rejecting the Shroud, Julian. I did speak to them, they are highly qualified, only they do not have the time to read the extensive literature on the Shroud.
In one case I showed an image of the Justinian solidi to one scholar.He liked it and read what I had written in favour of the relic’s authenticity, but just kept quiet. There were very important things for him to write about, time was short for him.
There is another thing I would like to point out. Even if the relic is “proved” to be authentic it will still leave many questions unanswered, a new understanding of the Bible will be necessary.
See the introduction to
https://www.academia.edu/4700001/What_do_we_know_about_the_Bible_An_interview_with_Joseph_A._Fitzmyer_SJ
The so-called Jesus family tomb gained far more attention from academics. Some, but not all, were more inclined to believe that Jesus was buried in Talpiot, but of course not wrapped in the Turin Shroud:
https://www.academia.edu/7471223/Jesus_was_not_buried_in_Talpiot_-_Part_III
Stay tuned, you will see something about the debate on the image formation process and why the Church appears to be hesitant to move in an article that will be online next week.
If Goodacre had consulted memberos ofthe radio carbon community about the Shroud, then I would expect him to say that he did so. Where exactly did Flury-Lemberg convincingly show that there was no reweaving?
It is easily found online under Flury-Lemberg ‘ The Invisible mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality’ . I think it is standard reading for those who want to know whether Rogers’ hypothesis is supported by an actual examination of the cloth which would have shown the reweaving if there had been any. Flury-Lemberg seems to have had unanimous support from textile experts who have also had the chance to actually examine the Shroud. If Goodacre has not seen this article ,someone will soon put him onto it and he will surely privilege it above theories by people who have never examined the Shroud close -up in this corner .
There is also John Jackson’s dismissal of the reweaving on the grounds that the banding from his photographs continues uninterrupted through the so-called rewoven patch. Goodacre will probably know these articles already but he will soon be put onto them if he has not already. So far as I know there has been no refutation of either- in my experience they have simply been ignored by authenticists.
Has Flury-Lemberg commented on Benford and Marino’s 2008 paper? http://www.ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf
Kelly Kearse: “The biggest gaff in the carbon dating was restricting the sampling to a single site. Once that was bypassed, interpretation of the results became much more unclear than it had to be. / There is a reason that sampling from multiple sites was specified in the original protocol.”
Anoxie: “Would the same scientists be confident in the results of a biopsy of their prostate made of a single tissue sample?”
Recently I had to have a bowel check. Guess how many samples I had to submit (messy). If you said less than three you would have been wrong. Apparently carbon dating on a single suspect sample on a controversial relic can be considered a more reliable result by those who defend it, than the pathology requirements of bowel movements!
I have mentioned previously that experts in various scientific disciplines, evidently including those who lay claim to some scientific expertise on this blog site, are so narrowly focused on their particular specialty, that their ignorance of the fundamental principles of representative sampling protocols is not at all uncommon.
It is the one single reason why the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud is a masquerade in pseudo-science. The downright refusal of the laboratories to allow any other simultaneous testing of the samples, together with the deliberate exclusion of any knowledgeable member of the STURP team merely compounded this error.
agree…believe they even had some evidence that this area of the shroud was different or had different properties before they sampled…..just because someone (whoever chose the
sample site) was intelligent, does not mean they are smart….huge oversight that should have been avoided
c14 issue would have been resolved long ago…as far as goodacre goes..think cnn got who they wanted to form an opinion they wanted….i don’t know if the shroud is real, but e
Thank you Daveb. Why these inteligent people can’t understand the meaning of representative sampling? To justify their claims they purposely ignore this fact and give so many excuses to fool their followers.
As an Envoronmental engineer, I never take the results of a grab sample to give a solution.
We are lucky with the Shroud as it still exists and there have been experts with direct access to it – such as Flury-Lemberg in 2002- who have been able to compare the radio carbon section with the whole and find that Rogers’ hypothesis and any that involve reweaving do not stand up as she states clearly in the article I have quoted. She has expertise in textiles and direct access that Marino, Benford and Rogers ( in this instance) did not have so how would you challenge her?
In 2002 Flury-Lemberg had neither direct access to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva nor the sample used for the official C14 dating since most of it was destroyed in 1988. What now if the invisible reweaving was circumscribed at the very core of the C14 sample? What if there had been two different invisible repairs done in the precise area that is no longer observable in situ textilis (= 2002 TS)?
Where are gone the proper gloves for the right challenge?
Dave Hines:
Because of this, the video requires narration along with the images and I need more knowledge of it’s history before I can present it. I must have a more complete understanding of the image and it’s history before I present it.
It is good to know you have devoted your time for this task.
As to additional information of it, most important links are within my presentations:
https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/manopello-shroud-comparison3d.pdf
https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/addendum-manopello-shroud-comparison3d.pdf
Also there is a nice academic publication in English about it:
http://shroudstory.com/2014/11/01/new-publication-on-manoppello-veil/
Of course the book “the Face of God” by Paul Badde is must read.
Dave Hines:
The Manoppello image looks like a painting, it does not look authentic, yet could very well be authentic, I believe it is possible the cloth did make contact with Jesus and color was added by someone after. How that was done? I don’t know. But it looks that way. Contact image with color added later. Part Original, Part Not Original.
Here you fragment of the scan of right eye from Aszyk-Treppa book:
http://i.imgur.com/DNjZ4Ss.jpg
The average size of the threads on Manoppello is about 0.12 mm -yet there are some extremely sharp details (like the iris border ) marked on 1-2 threads!
For me it’s simply unimaginary how could such thing been obtained with human hands.
Once you have sealed linen with gesso, but not before, you can have very precise details as you know the paint will not flow into the material. It stays on top of the gesso surface. We have some wonderful examples of painted linens where the details are as precise as here.
Just look at some illuminated manuscripts from the medieval period and you will see the incredible detail in which artists of the period were able to work. I was talking to someone recently who reproduces illuminated manuscripts and there are techniques at no one is able to do nowadays. One should never underestimate a period where apprentices started at ten or twelve and often worked hour after hour year after year at some very specific skill. For instance, some craftsmen apparently did nothing but apply gesso to textiles before they were painted on.
Charles,
“One should never underestimate a period where apprentices started at ten or twelve”
I think the average age they died to was like in the 20’s.
That’s why that, “until death do us part” thing wasn’t that bad back then.
Thanks OK. This is going into my files for review.
Admittedly an artist would have to have had an very precise brush; however, I can see places where the iris border is portrayed over at least 3 threads. Do-able.
The veil is byssus, “sea silk”, a product of mollusks, which is said to change color when observed from different angles-is this equivalent to typical linen? Any evidence/examples of gessoed byssus, then painted over? Images present on both sides of the cloth-have similar overlays been done to compare those with each other? Any variation between the two? Is apparent color touch up present on both sides?
Follow up veil question(s)-(I have read Paul Badde’s books), enjoyed both of them-My understanding is that the veil is suggested to have been placed as follows: body/Shroud/veil. Eyes are open on veil, closed on Shroud. Mouth is open on veil, closed on Shroud. With image formation (on both), how does this work?? Also, is there a connection between the veil placed over JP II’s face (per his instruction) after his death and the veil? Is this a customary practice in Jewish burial?
It is not easy to dismiss the Manoppello veil as a painting and the glass is an impediment when it comes to further research. Two scientists who studied the image closely with equipment said that the cloth is linen, not byssus. There is at least one site where there is paint, so perhaps someone thought that adding some colour in one or two regions would make the image look better.
We will have to wait for more research.
Louis,
Do you have a ref? The one scientific study I am most familiar with http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf refers to it as byssus
[BTW-didn’t ever see your message in EM-my EM changed several weeks ago, but sent new one to Dan, asked him to forward it to you ]
Hi Kelly
Both Giulio Fanti and Paolo Di Lazzaro identified the cloth as linen. Although he does not talk about this in the interview posted yesterday:
https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
but on the image formation process my guess is that more work will be needed.
No, Dan did not forward anything to me, but some other Shroudies also have my e-mail.
I will be working on another Shroud article shortly and will need your help.
OK-thanks, little confused as Fanti is co-author on Jaworski study, guessing this was a follow up study? ID’d as linen by visual examination? My recollection is Badde’s books emphasized the byssus quite a bit-several stories revolving around the composition
[Sure, okay-we’ll get in touch]
It seems that the paper co-authored with Jaworski was followed some years later by the statement about linen. I did interview Father Heinrich Pfeiffer, SJ on the topic and he also mentioned the body/shroud/veil, but have not read Badde’s book. I also do not know if Chiara Vigo, who identified the cloth as byssus, has been a major influence. All I can say know is that more research is needed.
Curiously, there seems to be something in common with the Guadalupe image. In this case American scientist Dr. Phil Callahan was of the opinion that we would have to wait till what humans painted over the image turns into flakes. It is also considered to be an acheiropoietos image and I know that the Knights of Columbus published some material about it last year.
Re Dave Hines comments, Mar 7, on chi square test. Caution!!!
The only value of the chi square test in this particular case, is a test within the single sample tested by the three separate laboratories. It cannot be interpreted outside that single sample as being representative of the entire Shroud cloth.
If the test failed (as it seems to have done), then there are two possibilities: Either a) this sample was not homogeneous as divided among the three laboratories; Or b) the testing methods between the three laboratories have an intrinsic systematic error, yielding different ages for a homogeneous sample. Given what is now known of the sample, then a) would seem to be the more likely.
If on the other hand, the chi test had succeeded, it could only be interpreted as: Both c) the sample, and only this sample, was adequately homogeneous within normal limits of error; And d) the methods used by the three laboratories could be asserted as evidently mutually consistent. But e) it could not be asserted that the results are adequately representative of the entire cloth, as representative samples were not taken.
The more usual and conventional use of a chi square test, is to apply it to a full range of samples, alleged to be representative. If that test failed, then it could be concluded that the samples were either not truly representative, or that the cloth is heterogeneous.
So that fundamentally, the only value that this particular test had, was as a comparison between the three laboratories, and as a test on the homogeneity of the single sample. Ironically even this test apparently failed, whereas morally it ought to.have succeeded.
I consider that the way this particular chi test was carried out, was no more than a smokescreen, and the 95% confidence level asserted for it is quite meaningless in terms of the entire cloth!
Thanks for responding. Imagine if a team of researchers spent over 5 years planning to take blood samples from 7 different areas of the Shroud and then when the big moment finally arrived to obtain the 7 samples they took only 1 instead?! Then that same sample was sent to 3 labs and the results came back with inconsistencies? 3 different blood types?
Would anyone question the results? Would anyone question their competence?
That is a bit of a exaggerated comparison analogy to the 1988 Radio Carbon Dating, hopefully you can think of a better one, that is why you are so badly needed on this Shroud Blog Site. We all love your comments!
1.”We decided not to take samples from 7 different areas as planned, one is good enough”
2.”We are 95% confident the 1 sample represents the other 400 blood stains on Shroud”
3.”We know we spent over 5 years planning to take 7 different blood samples but we decided one would be good enough, besides all those blood stains look the same”
Would someone wanting to determine the age of a classic auto examine only the corner tail light and no other part of the vehicle?!
None of the laboratories reported contamination…
1.”Oxford thank P.H.South
(Precision Processes Textiles) Ltd, Derby, for examining and identifying the cotton found on
the Shroud sample”
2. Prof. Hall noticed two or three strange fibers looking like human hair, they were magnified 200 times and identified as COTTON. Possibly of Egyptian origin and quite OLD
3. Dr.Garza-Valdes, a microbiologist and archaeologist, examined in 1993, with the help of Prof.Riggi, a (non-official) Shroud sample and said : “As soon as I looked at a segment in the
microscope I knew that it was heavily contaminated.”
Main Body of Shroud fabric is pure linen and does not contain cotton.
Weight of 3 Shroud Samples After They Were Cut
1. 52.8 mg
2. 52 mg
3. 53.7 mg
Weight of Samples Recorded By Labs When Received
1. Arizona 52.8 mg
2. Zurich 52,8 mg
3. Oxford 50.0 mg
1.Chi Value Square Test will reveal if there is an inconsistency and or tampering of the sample group.
2 Ray Rodgers stated there were cotton fibers intermixed with the pure linen,
3.His research is in agreement with the Chi Value Square Test results and statements made by others.
A lot of information about Manoppello is available on this site:
http://manoppello.eu/eng/
Louis:
Both Giulio Fanti and Paolo Di Lazzaro identified the cloth as linen. Although he does not talk about this in the interview posted yesterday:
Thanks for the interview, I enjoyed it much.
It is not easy to dismiss the Manoppello veil as a painting
Yes -it is very easy for several “experts” who “know better” -Thomas de Wesselow is one example.
Kelly:
Mouth is open on veil, closed on Shroud.
Mouth is open on both cloths: Shroud and the Veil. On both cloths teeth are actually visible (see my post http://shroudstory.com/2014/07/11/teeth-reconsidered/ )
This is crucial here, as you will see next.
I would like to reveal some of the improved overlays of the Shroud/Manoppello faces on which I have been working for some time:
http://i.imgur.com/vRPoJl0.jpg
Here you have a Shroud negative image with some details marked (including teeth for example).
http://i.imgur.com/qYc6RxQ.jpg
Here is Manoppello with slightly adjusted color balance and marked features (and rotated by the angle of about 2 degrees)
http://i.imgur.com/5z4GRo6.jpg
Here is 1:1 overlay of both of them.
Any comments?
Hi O.K.
Thanks for the remarks.
I do not know if de Wesselow has made a complete study of the image and do feel that more research is needed. The problem is that the Church moves very slowly at times and there are many relics that are worthwhile studying by means of close examination with adequate equipment. From one Shroud scholar whose name I cannot reveal I learnt that his request to study one relic was turned down and the sad part is that he has the qualifications.
I appreciate all the excellent work you have been doing with the images and did see the site you refer to. It does indeed have some good information.
There is one problem that Kelly mentioned and I myself had noted years ago during an interview with Father H. Pfeiffer. It is the order: body/shroud/veil. The Manoppello veil does not exactly show signs of a crucfixion victim.
I guess you will get my point.
There are things that those in the realm of Shroud studies should not forget:
Why blame Professor Goodacre when even Ian Wilson, foremost Shroud scholar, states in his book that no scientist has been able to convincingly challenge the 1988 carbon dating results?
Further, in his address at the Saint Louis Shroud conference Bishop Michael Sheridan pointed out that more studies are under way and I have been criticised for stating that the Church has its hands tied. See the last Q/A:
https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
I would like to know what exactly the solution is.
O.K.,
Thanks for posting these
Comments:
1. I’ve always been open to the possibility that teeth are visible on the Shroud image; to me, the mouth on the Shroud looks more closed, though.
2. What happened to the rest of the mustache/beard on the veil relative to the Shroud?
3. For me, the main things with overlays is what about control images, i.e. doing the same analysis on 3 unrelated bearded men-there has to be a certain amount of overlap between all of them-how much, I think, can be relatively subjective. The cloning enthusiasts show a pretty reasonable morphing/overlay of Prince William & the Shroud, including bearded & clean shaven PW versions. Do the front & back images of the veil superimpose/overlay precisely or is there some drift?
Hi Kelly
If you wish to contact me it can be via
lcdf72@gmail.com
Hello Kelly:
2. What happened to the rest of the mustache/beard on the veil relative to the Shroud?
Who knows? ;-)
Generally one should stress out, that although the faces on both Shroud and Manoppello are supposed to be the same, and represent the same person, they are not identical in every detail. Contrary to popularised phrase, Manoppello is not a positive of the negative image on the Shroud, not in technical sense. There are some differences, notably the open/closed eyes, the more prominent beard and mustache on the Shroud image (although this still may be illusion, as the imaging mechanism on the Shroud depends on body cloth distance, also modulated in masterful way by several lighter and darked bands across the cloth -so the initial visual impression may be misleading, and one should not trust it too much), as well as slightly different position of lips and opened mouth.
Yet this does not undermine the conclusion The hypothesis (whether realistic or not) is that those are two images taken at disitnct time moments, just before (the Shroud) and just after the Resurrection (Manoppello). The key is to determine whether those faces actually are meant to represent the same person, and it seems yes.
3. For me, the main things with overlays is what about control images, i.e. doing the same analysis on 3 unrelated bearded men-there has to be a certain amount of overlap between all of them-how much, I think, can be relatively subjective. The cloning enthusiasts show a pretty reasonable morphing/overlay of Prince William & the Shroud, including bearded & clean shaven PW versions.
The cloning enthusiast rarely (in fact never) work so methodically as I do. Their morphing presentations may be visually stunning, but they are most likely erronous – which can be shown, if studied carefully, point by point. As far as I remember, I cannot recall any morphing experiment that used marked features of the face (like I presented above) to show whether the positions of common details on both images actually correspond with each other, whether the proportions are actually the same etc. And absolutely no callibration.
When you look at one face at one moment, and on another next moment, you may be visually deceived, and suppose they are the same, even if they are entirely different. And in another way, even if the two faces are actually the same, if overlay is performed badly, you can be under impression that they are different. So the need for as much clarity as possible and objective criteria is evident.
http://i.imgur.com/lPOaKoX.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/KRG6e1z.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vIRtmo7.jpg
Here you have my callibration images. I based my measuremnts on both Shroud Scope and Sister Blandina atlas, which contains live-size images with callibration distances. Even then, the actual size of both these images remained uncertain and there is still a possibility of a few % margin of error.
http://i.imgur.com/ukuHMQW.jpg
Generally, the most important criterion, is not the perfect overlay of images (which may give false positive results sometimes), but the correspondence of wound marks. In my previosu presnetation I have shown a dozen or so congruence points, showing that those two faces are actually related to each other beyond coincidence:
http://i.imgur.com/fEfJo3s.jpg
With the knew, better and more detailed overlay their number will likely grow.
Do the front & back images of the veil superimpose/overlay precisely or is there some drift?
As I have only obverse side of the Manoppelo, I can’t directly answer that. Yet as the differences between obverse and reverse sides of Manoppello concern only minor details (and even that cannot be taken as proven, as much depends on light conditions when pictures were taken -it has been observed that different conditions led to different details perceived, more details in Treppa-Aszyk book), I suppose that yes.
Hello Mr. Kelly Kearse: There is very little drift in doing the overlay of the Manoppello Image over the positive Shroud Image. That is even a bit of understatement. Almost a dead on match. I flipped the Manoppello image horizontally and overlaid it both ways. There is one way where it matches better in my opinion for whatever that is worth. I took 15 second frames of each image and then slowly bleed them in together so the effect of the 2 images coming together can be seen slowly When the Manoppello cloth is seen from back side rights and lefts are reversed. I’ve seen it displayed both ways. A subtle difference, not major
When overlaying The Manoppello on the Shroud image that is on linen, that is where there is drift, because the image on linen gives a false impression that there are high set eyebrows. All the frescoes copy this style. The Manoppello image does not. There is what appears as drift in overlaying the 2 shroud images together because of the color reversal. I put those together as well, horizontally flipping the images so they match. Very interesting to see slow color reversal on Shroud images. I did a Prince Charles overlay and that was completely off. Major drift. It is not even worth talking about it was so bad.
Hello Mr. Kearse: Do the front & back images of the veil superimpose/overlay precisely or is there some drift?
Here is a way to see for yourself up close and personal. I did a overlay. I suggest putting it up on a big screen so you can see it in the best quality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlYLSxltDFQ
No one can accuse me of manipulating evidence in this, because I did a fair, honest, straightforward overlay. Aspect ratio of the image used were not altered in any way. I used what I believe are the top 3 images in the world that match to the face of Man in Shroud.
I have heard it said how any face can be put in here and it match just as well.
It is flat out not true. That is why I did a slow motion overlay so any drift can be seen and I went in and did close up shots. Some of things being replicated are forked beards, crooked noses, high eyebrows and owl eyes. Bizarre match points that go beyond coincidence.
What is really amazing that I did not notice before was my overlay with the Pantocrator, look at the circles around the eyes the artist adds. Real interesting. Note how they match the negative image. Whenever the Pantocrator is overlayed the same mistake is always made.
1. Using the positive image
The artist used the negative image as a role model to do the fresco, not the positive. There is a BIG difference between the 2.
Especially where the eyebrows are placed and how the eyes are placed.
The color reversal changes the look of the face.
I saw the Pantocrator image overlayed with the Shroud negative image for the 1st time. I was amazed how well it fell into place. I never really thought much of it until recently.
Look at the circles around the eyes that are illustrated. Look how they match to the negative image. The artist saw the version with the “falsely perceived” high eye brows and the big white spots for eyes. He replicates them in the fresco. Look at it closely. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the Shroud was the role model for this.
That takes out the carbon dating.
The Manoppello image as well is a incredible match.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlYLSxltDFQ
There is discussion about the #3 bloodstain after viewing the overlays. You will likely not want to discuss that. I think it is better left not discussed, this was a post in regards to carbon dating, not blood stain messages or lack there of on the Shroud.
I do not normally get into looking for messages in the Shroud type research.
Directed to Sampath Fernando:
Sampath, there is nothing to thank me for, I’m just doing some work.
As an environmental engineer perhaps you get into a time machine and try to find out what the environmental conditions were like in Jerusalem in AD 33.
O.K.,
Thanks very much for the answers/additional scans. I am certain your measurements are on an entirely different level than the cloning groups. Would still like to see control faces brought in at some point.
A few additional thoughts/comments:
1. Is it reasonable to anticipate that some effect of banding/weave might be observed on the veil image if the order is body/Shroud/veil?
2. If the bloodstains protected the image formation on the Shroud, wouldn’t they also protect the image formation in all corresponding locations on the veil?
3. Have you ever seen the veil in person? If so, would be interested in your impressions about it.
0. The controls:
One should be careful with controls and interpret them carefully. Of course it is entirely possible to find a face with similar proportions, but one should think about what it means. For example Roberto Falcinelli wrote a paper sceptical about Manoppello, arguing that it was painted by Durer, due to some ambiguos phrases in some old art history books and visual similarity with his famous Christ-like self-portrait. I responded to him and compared his self portait with Manoppello (see http://shroudstory.com/2014/09/02/manoppello-shroud-and-durer-a-short-presentation-by-o-k/ ). The match is perfect, but it does not mean that Manoppello was painted by Durer (which is as likely as the theory that Leonardo faked the Shroud) -rather the other way around, that Durer was influenced by Manoppello.
On the contrary, the similarity of wounds is very significant -showing that both images (Shroud and the Veil) are intended to represent the same person. The question is: why?
1. The banding issues on both the Shroud and the Veil are entirely different things, as image mechanisms on both cloths seems to be entirely different.
The Shroud is monochromatic image, in which the intensity of coloration depends on body-cloth distance (the 3D effect). There is also some influence of lighter/darker bands which modulate the intensity.
On the contrary, the Veil is polychromatic, and does not include the 3D effect similar to that of the Shroud. There are other issues like the transparency and the alleged presence of multiple images encoded in it, which are visible under different lighting conditions.
There are of course bandings on Manoppello, yet their relation with the images have not been explored yet, as far as i know:
http://manoppello.eu/eng/gfx_frames/a_rama.jpg
2. See above. The issues regarding the Veil are entirely differnt then that of the Shroud. On the Veil we don’t have the real bloodstains (probably) but rather images of bloodstains.
3. Unfortunately not yet. I talked with some people who saw it, and they claimed that one needs to see it live, because the photographs do not reflect the whole aspects of this image.
O.K.,
Thanks again for your answers & the link to the Falcinelli rebuttal, very helpful. Can you comment further on the alleged presence of multiple images encoded in the veil, visible under different lighting conditions?
Well, the best thing to discuss multiple images is to read Treppa & Aszyk publication:
http://kiw.ug.edu.pl/en/religion/659-ikona-z-manopello-prototypem-wizerunkow-chrystusa.html
“Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
So we have to wait for details to come…
Treppa performed extensive photographical documentation of the Veil under different lighting conditions. He took a series of photographs at different light angles and compared details (below are some scans from his publication):
http://i.imgur.com/YuTOpDf.jpg
The most impressive of details seem to be strand (which has been noted and discussed previously by Fanti & Jaworski, see http://manoppello.eu/eng/pdf/research.pdf and http://manoppello.eu/eng/index.php?go=kosmyk and ) and mouth:
http://i.imgur.com/4ck7rRk.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/SC3kNJX.jpg
I must say however, that I have some reservations about some of those claims. There is still possibility of visual illusions coming into place, and one should be careful in interpretation of such phenomena.
O.K.,
Thanks very much-look forward to taking a closer look at these-Thanks again
Hi OK, since this is a carbon dating discussion I will make a quick comment in that regard and then talk about what you are more interested in.
Would a team of researchers take 1 pollen sample of the corner of the Shroud and then post in headlines to the world the origin of the fabric based on that?
“That’s it, were done with that part of the research, case closed”
Or take one blood sample off the corner of The Shroud and based on that alone make a determination as to whether the blood on the Shroud was genuine or not?
“No, we don’t need to test any of the other 400 blood stains, one is good enough”
When you have time could you please take a second look at the 2 images.
1. Position of eyes on Shroud. One is lower, one is higher
2. Swelling of right cheek
3. Curve of nose (moves right to left when horizontally flipped)
Those aspects must match, there is less drift when the “M” image is flipped the other way.
I flipped the Manoppello Image horizontally and put the 2 together both ways and have examined them as closely as I can.
Only one way is correct. Rights & lefts are reversed when M image is seen from back side.
One is nearly a mirror image except for the hair at the top and one is the true image.
This is normally a very simple thing to do, to make sure right side is matching right side and left to left. With these images it not so simple. To the average person they would not see any difference at all, between the 2 regardless of which image is overlaid. They are close.
I believe the way they should be lined up is with the Manoppello image flipped horizontally. I used the photo I got from Barrie to do the overlay.
Take a second or possibly a 100th look, do you think it is possible that the correct overlay is with the “M” image flipped the other way?
I am certain your knowledge is superior to mine. But every time I examine it, I see it matching better the other way. I prefer to be in agreement with you, not the other way,
What is the prime focal match point?
Eyes, nose, swelling of right cheek?
Those are things I am looking at to determine the correct overlay.
Either way, they match up extremely well.
Hello Dave, you haven’t posted any images, so I cannot comment on that.
Hi OK, Your placement is correct. Overlay film is nearly done. Stunning match. When the Manoppello image is displayed and photos are taken, sometimes they are displaying the back side of cloth with rights and lefts reversed. Just like The Shroud, some photos are the mirror image and others the true image. I did not know Manoppello Image was a double sided image when I started this, Mirror image on one side and the true image on the other. That caused delays and confusion. I did the overlay both ways. Slow motion fades and zooms. Fined tune match. Margin of error 1 or 2 millimeters right or left, up or down at the most. If it is off at all. Near Perfect. I compared it with the Pantocrator and another. 3 overlays in total.
Hi OK, Your placement is correct. Overlay film is nearly done. Stunning match. When the Manoppello image is displayed and photos are taken, sometimes they are displaying the back side of cloth with rights and lefts reversed. Just like The Shroud, some photos are the mirror image and others the true image. I did not know Manoppello Image was a double sided image when I started this, Mirror image on one side and the true image on the other. That caused delays and confusion. I did the overlay both ways. Slow motion fades and zooms. Fined tune match. Margin of error 1 or 2 millimeters right or left, up or down at the most. If it is off at all. Near Perfect. I compared it with the Pantocrator and another. 3 overlays in total.
Nice,looking forward for a final result.
Hi OK,https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlYLSxltDFQ
This is by no means my last video on the subject of the Manoppello Image.
I could have gone even deeper into some of the detail match points, used slower zooms and fades in different areas. It is a “take or leave it type video” Some people will like it, others will not. God Bless em all.
Thanks Dave. Congratulations on your great movie.
I still have impression that you might have placed Manoppello a mm or two too high, but anyway good job. It is hard to place it 100 % accurate for the first time (to minimalize the possible shifts from ideal position), so many different approaches are necessary.
I leave aside your personal interpretation of number 3. I disagree with some of the “3” coincidences of yours, but you have right for your own opinion.
Very good job.
Hi OK, it would have been so much better had you been there with me putting it together on the video editing screen. To do the final adjustments. Where the forehead starts on the Shroud is a little vague. That posed a problem for me. I made my best estimate. I would have benefited by having a forensic pathologist to consult with, or a forensic scientist specializing in facial imprints to assist in the editing process. It is very close, but not likely a perfect overly. We’ll do better next time. I’ll take a look again and review all the work you have done and study where you have lines drawn. I’ll look at it again. A lot of Shroud research involves repetition, going over the same thing, again and again. Repetition is the mother of skill. It is all part of the fun and excitement of Shroud research.
One final note:
The report to Oxford in 1988 before the destruction of the sample for the carbon dating explicitly noted that the cotton fibers being examined were “yellow”
Rogers and his other colleagues who examined the fiber merely confirmed what Oxford was told before they removed the yellow cotton fibers and destroyed the sample in the carbon dating process.
Go back to my first post. That was not the claim of some wild eyed “athenticist”. it is the claim of the lab which was designated by Oxford to test the sample fibers before the sample was destroyed.
One of the biggest mistakes committed in 1988: no examination was made of the chemical composition of the samples. So, we see the results till today…being discussed on this blog and elsewhere.
I’m not quite sure what John is driving at. The three laboratories examined their samples microscopically, and removed surface debris by ultrasound and micropipette. There were fibres of yellow cotton, fibres of black cotton, and fibres of red and blue silk, among other things. This contamination was readily visible under a microscope, and removed. Deeper contamination such as wax, dirt and smoke was removed by treatments involving one or more of acid-base-acid, ethanol or ether, and final cleaning was by rinsing in distilled water. It is doubtful if there was sufficient contamination to skew the age from 1st to 14th century even without any of this cleaning treatment, and verging on impossible afterwards, unless the sample really did consist mostly of modern threads of neither red, blue, black or yellow, for which there is currently insufficient evidence.
Hugh, you must have read John Tyrer’s papers. There is more in Ian Wilson’s “The Shroud. The 2000-year-old mystery solved.”
John Tyrer’s “Looking at the Shroud as a Textile” (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf) is a masterly account with which I largely agree, and raises some interesting questions. It does nothing to support the idea that the Shroud cannot be medieval except for one sentence with which I disagree. It does nothing to suggest that three-quarters of the radiocarbon corner was composed of different material.
The sentence I disagree with is: “Cotton does not appear to have been cultivated elsewhere in Europe, so it seems likely that the Shroud linen is a mid-eastern product.” Tyrer may not have been aware of it at the time, but a search for “medieval cotton europe” on Google will produce dozens of contradictory articles. I recommend “The North Italian Cotton Industry 1200-1800 ” at http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/Research/GEHN/HELSINKIMazzaoui.pdf.
I was specifically referring to the cleaning process, which he said was impossible in some cases. What about Ian Wilson’s views?
Louis, can’t you see that all these people are clutching at straws in a sad and worthless attempt to discredit the radiocarbon 14 dating ?
You should wake-up and smell the cofee, the carbon dating has been debunked and is history.
Patrick
The late John Tyrer, of Manchester, England, was an expert in textiles. Carbon dating on the whole is worthy of credit, however there are cases where it simply does not apply easily. Read what a scientist in the field of physics had to say: https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
Another big problem is that there are several hypotheses about how the 1988 results may have been skewed and this will have to be sorted before requesting Oxford or some other laboratory to try again. Professor Christopher Ramsey had something to say about this:
https://www.academia.edu/7893085/The_Quest_for_Jesus_in_Shroud_research.
Thank you, Louis. I’m now looking at “Textile Questions that Remain Following the Carbon Dating Test”, at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi2829part4.pdf.
Tyrer ponders two contaminants; firstly later organic remains such as “fungi, insect debris and pollens”, and “deposits of smoke from the fire, and hydrocarbons from the vapours of candles”, and “perspiration and greases.” As I described above, this kind of contamination was specifically looked for and removed, and, even if it wasn’t could not possibly have amounted to three-quarters of the mass of the sample. He also mentions that contaminants may have been washed in with the water used to put out a fire, without imagining the possibility that they may have been washed out again by the water used to clean the sample.
Secondly, he ponders the possibilities of superheated steam at temperatures of 900°C. “Any contaminants on, or embedded in, the fabric structure would be dissolved by this steam and forced into the weave and yarn construction, and would react chemically with the molecular structure of the fibres of the flax.” This is pure guesswork. My guess is that any flax in contact with steam at 900°C would immediately be reduced to ashes. The difference between my guess and Tyrer’s? Well, I’ve put linen into an oven at 350°C, and seen it char to ashes in a very short time. I have no doubt that at 900°C there would be nothing left. What experiments has Tyler carried out?
But above all, even if all this steam pressure had contaminated the Shroud – there still wouldn’t be three-quarters modern and one quarter old.
Over the last few days both OK (authenticist) and I (non-authenticist) have come to an agreement regarding the massive amount of contamination required to make a 1st century date appear 14th century. Anybody who thinks any form of contamination such as black or yellow threads of cotton, insect remains or superheated steam pressure has to explain this quantitively rather than qualitatively, or airy dismissals such as John’s above are nothing but head-in-the-sand ostrich-posing.
Authenticists who claim that the basic linen of the radiocarbon samples is different from that of the rest of the Shroud have at least got the proportion problem solved. However they still have to demonstrate how such massive interpolation is so wholly invisible, which, especially since we seem to have discredited the Quad Mosaics and the Morgan’s alleged UV-F manipulation as irrelevant surface contamination only, has become considerably more difficult.
Hugh,
perhaps I missed something but when you wrote: “Authenticists who claim that the basic linen of the radiocarbon samples is different from that of the rest of the Shroud have at least got the proportion problem solved. However they still have to demonstrate how such massive interpolation is so wholly invisible, which, especially since we seem to have discredited the Quad Mosaics and the Morgan’s alleged UV-F manipulation as irrelevant surface contamination only, has become considerably more difficult.”, I don’t understand.
Both Quad-mosaic and UV-F show the same thing: a surface contamination, yes.
But this surface contamination is very strange.
See for example Fig.13 in Morgan’paper.
The surface contamination is very narrow, has sharp borders along the seam and stops short near the border of the ‘missing corner’.
It can not be the result of ‘natural’ deposits (dust, grease..).
It is the result of a voluntary action. Very likely, the dye found by Rogers.
So this surface contamination is truly relevant to the problem.
Hugh,
No comment ?
Thank you,Hugh.
I really don’t know what experiments John Tyrer may have made and wonder why he had to say 900º. Now let us go to Ian Wilson and to his book “The Shroud. The 2000-year-old-mystery solved” which you must have read. What would you have to say about the cases of textile contamination he mentions?
The main problem with Wilson’s assessment is its qualitative insecurity. He mentions all he usual suspects, from wax to cigarette ash, without seriously wondering if it could amount to enough contamination to have any serious effect on the radiocarbon date.
Wilson says, of the radiocarbon scientists: “Where, in all the hype put out by the AMS scientists in 1988 about ‘astronomical’ odds was there even the slightest word of caution that contamination might have affected the dating result?” and “But surely the radiocarbon dating laboratories would have made some preliminary check of their samples to make sure that no contamination of any kind was present? The straight answer is no.” Is this fair. This is what the Nature paper says: “Because it was not known to what degree dirt, smoke or other contaminants might affect the linen samples, all three laboratories subdivided the samples, and subjected the pieces to several different mechanical and chemical cleaning procedures.
All laboratories examined the textile samples microscopically to identify and remove any foreign material.” And this before the paper goes on to list the various procedures carried out.
He also, remarkably, dismisses the interweaving theory, which I think is the only route now open to authenticists. However he does put some credence in the bioplastic coating hypothesis, saying that some sample pieces which had been reserved by Riggi could be seen to be contaminated by a microbiological coating in 1994, and that Prof. Mattingly had sent Harry Gove some samples of such contamination to show that even a 60% contamination was invisible. I find all this rather difficult to accept at face value. If the bioplastic coating was evident to the scientists in 1994, then why should it not have been spotted by the radiocarbon labs in 1988, and how could Mattingly could make it invisible when he sent a sample to Gove?
A fibre evenly coated with something twice its mass becomes twice as thick. How invisible is that?
There is also the theory mentioned by Fanti that IF the image formation involved radiation in some form, that this may have effected the C-14. Is there scientific foundation for this idea? If an object has been irradiated, does this effect its C-14?
There are various ways of enriching the C14 content of something by nuclear radiation, but as far as the Shroud is concerned these must so far be placed in the “physics of miracles” category, which I do not much entertain.
It seems that the discussions in this blog about the amount of contaminant do not take account of the epoch of the contamination. For example, in order to shift the date from 30 AD to 1300, for every 100 original carbon atoms of 30 AD there should be 500 new carbon atoms of 1532, or 175 of 1950, or about 20 for the years around 1965. Thus the differences are strong. In all cases, these numbers hold if one supposes that there is no amount of older contaminant. If there were substantial contaminant from the centuries before 1300, the numbers should be still much larger. My calculations do not take account of the calibration correction, but calibration is of little effect for the last 2000 years.
Sadly I have no idea what this means. New carbon atoms from 1532? Or fewer from 1965? See my or OK’s calculations on this blog at “Do the Blue Quad Mosaics tell a different story than we think?” for clarity.
Hugh: I have looked at the other thread and see that indeed you find that the amount of contaminant depends on the epoch of the contamination, and this is just what I intended to point out. As to the low value for the 1960s, in those years the concentration of C14 in the atmosphere reached a maximum after the experiments with nuclear weapons.
“He also, remarkably, dismisses the interweaving theory, which I think is the only route now open to authenticists. ”
A miracle-generated outcome is another possibility. If one believes the resurrection occurred – as I think you do Hugh as a self confessed practising Catholic – then it is fathomable, indeed almost certain, that that event would have had a physical impact on the shroud enveloping Christ. That is the physical properties of the cloth were changed.
I guess you would probably acknowledge this possibility Hugh, but note that there is no scientific way to contemplate or investigate this possibility?
Exactly.
This “physics of miracles” story was proposed by Eberhard Lindner around fifteen to twenty years ago. I am inclined to agree with I.Wilson that “radiocarbon dating has had far too stifling an influence on the subject for far too long already.”
I am therefore working on the bloodstains, another lead that may lead to something more concrete, and hope to have an article online in the next few days.
Posted on another thread (on March 25, 2015 at 2:22 pm):
Hugh, once again you’re misrepresenting the real issue:
– only about TWO-THIRD of the dated/incinerated PART of the C14 sample it to be taken into account as new material here since firstly the princess Clothilde of Savoy-Bonaparte and/or the Master of upholstery in the Royal court of Savoy in the 1860s CE is/are the best candidate(s) as far as microreconstructions are concerned and secondly and ABSENT THE RISERVA, ONLY PART and not the whole C14 sample to be dated was actually incinerated in 1988 (see the two pieces of Arizona radiocarbon sample that were not used).
– could you refer us/me to a paper in which it is an established FACT a textile expert (whether Viale, Testore or Fleury-Lembert) actually examined at microscopic magnifications THE VERY CORE of the dated part of the C14 sample from the reduced or even non-reduced sample? Viale and Testore just examined the very ‘upper edge’ of the gross (non-trimmed/non-reduced) sample until proven otherwise and, shall I endlessly repeat (see my March 6, 2015 comment at 5:37 am): in 2002 Flury-Lemberg had neither direct access to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva neither to the parent sample used for the official C14 dating (since most of it was destroyed in 1988) nor to the two pieces of the Arizona sample that were not used. Consequently F-L has NEVER examined the actual C14 sample that was used in 1988. Her opinion shall be dismissed here as non-authoritative. What now if the invisible reweaving or interweaving was circumscribed at the very core of the C14 sample (i.e. in the very area the Shroud corner used to be firmly clutched in right bare hand)? What if there had been invisible microrecontructions done in the precise area that is no longer observable in situ textilis (= 2002 TS)?
– Have you ever examined microphotographs of the radiodated C14 official sample (of which most of it was incinerated in 1988) seen under microscope at X40 magnification yourself and/or can you provide us/me with such microphotographs?
– Reminder for Hugh: bioplastic coating can be only PART of the whole equation (not to mention myrrhic aloetic fumigation smokes and melting silver vapours of the molten reliquary)
I think Max raises quite valid objections, and include reasons in my mind why the sample cannot be considered as representative of the whole. We cannot now know.if the new linen content of the sample was 100%, 75%, 66% or 33%, but there is sufficient indications that it was almost certainly not 0%.
“but there is sufficient indications that it was almost certainly not 0%.” This may be correct. However It would have minimal effect of the C14 date.
… but likely to be of some significant import, if it just happened to be 100%!!!
Reminder for Hugh re possible UNREMOVABLE contamination besides 1860s CE microreconstructions, 1532 CE melting silver vapour and 1st C. CE (myrrhic?) aloetic smokes:
In the hypothesis the TS is Yeshua’s inner winding burial sheet, most likely, in the burial antechamber, his stiff rigid body was first tightly wrapped-up in its water solution in-soaked winding inner burial sheet with a set of dry outer shrouds, then placed in extra heights on two piles of granulized myrrh bags or stones and subjected to (myrrhic?) aloetic fumigation prior to be carried down to the burial chamber.
The warm water solution used to soak it in (in order to purify the bloodied corpse without disturbing the blood and wasting time), most likely was an aqueous alkaline solution i.e. either the Red Heifer waters (in order to purify his shed innocent blood along with his corpse), waters mixed with Jerusalem limestone/Malky stone dust (just to purify the bloodied corpse) or just remoistened urea residues (presence of ammonia). A combination of waters with ashes, limestone dust and ammonia cannot either be totally ruled out as far as aqueous alkaline solution is concerned).
The TS fine Linen is a very smooth surface and most likely the remoistened blood and heavy sweat residue that built up on the body transferred from the ventral and dorsal surfaces of the body and onto the linen surface. After a 15-30 minutes’ subjection to fumigation to purify and dry out the bloodied body (in the fumigated antechamber), the linen held the bloodied body image through a providentially ‘built-in’ pre- or light mordanting process, which resulted in ventral and dorsal HD prints born on the inner side of the winding inner burial sheet (here linen with a starch coating/carbohydrate layer on it)
Typo: Reminder for Hugh re possible UNREMOVABLE contamination besides TIME BIOPLASTIC COATING, 1860s CE microreconstructions, 1532 CE melting silver vapour and 1st C. CE (myrrhic?) aloetic smokes :,
In other words, it seems most likely (given the real Khi 2 and the TS possible and actual sources of contamination) that melting silver vapour AND/OR smokes AND/OR bio-plastic coating AND/OR alkali waters AND invisible re-weaving (by means of skillled splicing done in the 1860s CE at the corner where the samples were taken), have skewed the TS C14 age. The current bias would be to apply the ‘Either/Or’ logic where the ‘Both/And’ or even ‘In Turn/And’ logic should be used to account for the skewing of the TS radiocarbon dating.
Reminder for Max. None of his suggestions, even all of them added together, could amount to more than two thirds of the original mass. It’s no use going on about the chemical make up of the supposed contamination without making a realistic attempt to quantify it.
Reminder for Hugh who wrote “None of his suggestions, even all of them added together, could amount to more than two thirds”.
In my hypothesis the contamination does not amount to more than two thirds (1860s CE re-weaving contaminant included). Cannot you correctly read me or are you mistaking me for someone else claiming a medieval or 16th c. CE re-weaving?
Hugh, re a realistic approach to the issue, I’m still waiting for your answer to my questions:
– could you refer us/me to a paper in which it is an established FACT a textile expert (whether Viale, Testore or Flury-Lemberg) actually examined at microscopic magnifications THE VERY CORE of the dated part of the C14 sample from the reduced or even non-reduced sample? Viale and Testore just examined the very ‘upper edge’ of the gross (non-trimmed/non-reduced) sample until proven otherwise and, shall I endlessly repeat (see my March 6, 2015 comment at 5:37 am): in 2002 Flury-Lemberg had neither direct access to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva neither to the parent sample used for the official C14 dating (since most of it was destroyed in 1988) nor to the two pieces of the Arizona sample that were not used. Consequently F-L has NEVER examined the actual C14 sample that was used in 1988. Her opinion shall be dismissed here as non-authoritative.
(What now if the invisible reweaving or interweaving was circumscribed at the very core of the C14 sample (i.e. in the very area the Shroud corner used to be firmly clutched in right bare hand)? What if there had been invisible microrecontructions done in the precise area that is no longer observable in situ textilis (= 2002 TS)?)
– Have you ever examined microphotographs of the radiodated C14 official sample (of which most of it was incinerated in 1988) seen under microscope at X40 magnification yourself and/or can you provide us/me with such microphotographs?
“In my hypothesis the contamination does not amount to more than two thirds.”
Well, that’s splendid, Max. I could almost agree with you. In that case the medieval date for the Shroud is assured. Minimal contamination = evidence for the minimal inaccuracy of the medieval date.
As for your questions, they are either meaningless or trivial. If interweaving existed but did not extend outside the sample area it would be impossible for it to attach to the rest of the Shroud at all and would have fallen to pieces shortly after being made unless there was such a tiny amount that it could have made no difference to the radiocarbon date. The only people who examined the weave of the radiocarbon corner at all were Gilbert Raes, those who cut the samples, those who dated the samples, and Mme Flury-Lemberg who, as you say, could not examine the sample itself as it had gone by the time she came to do the repairs. They were all specifically looking for evidence that the material was not representative, and none observed any irregularity in the weaving pattern, although various other minor irregularities such as cotton fibres were noticed and recorded.
See how much could have been avoided if an examination was made of the chemical composition of the Shroud? The sample was cut from the dirtiest site of the relic.
Sorry, Thibault, I missed your comment above (all this interweaving of comments often amounts to at least 60% of the main thread!).
Figure 13 of Morgan’s paper does not represent discrete bands of contamination. It is a piece of imaging software which self-organises areas of similar data into areas of the same colour. In this case gradually increasing density of colour has been organised into stripes, rather like coloured contours on relief maps. Wikipedia explains k-means clustering quite well.
Furthermore, I dispute that the density of colour is directly related to contamination density. It is at least partly, and perhaps mainly, related to the intensity of the light shining on that area, and probably also to the angle at which the light is reflecting.
Finally, if these photos do in fact indicate contamination, then the more the contamination, the older the Shroud appears. This could perhaps be due to a mineral oil being an important part of it: mineral oil has a C14 content of zero, and I understand is particularly difficult to remove from radiocarbon samples. If Rogers’s dye, which I think was actually smeared onto the Holland cloth and only incidentally spread over onto the Shroud, contained a mineral oil component, that might explain the anomaly. Although it might explain the chronological gradient across the samples, it can have had no significant effect on measurement of the date of the Shroud.
Hugh wrote: “In my hypothesis the contamination does not amount to more than two thirds.”
Well, that’s splendid, Max. I could almost agree with you. In that case the medieval date for the Shroud is assured. Minimal contamination = evidence for the minimal inaccuracy of the medieval date.”
Oh, really?
Hugh, I just love your English way to totally indulge in wishful realities.
It is clear that Hugh has now come to a decision that the Shroud is not authentic, to the point that he seems to be aggressively promoting non-authenticity. I suggest that it may be time for him to take a step back for some prudent reflection and consider the possibility that despite all of his objections that nevertheless the Shroud may in fact just possibly happen to be the authentic burial cloth of Christ. He then might like to consider in what way aggressively promoting non-authenticity advances the message that the Shroud might be attempting to communicate, and what the consequences might be. Doubtless he feels compelled to follow what his science is telling him, but there just might be higher priorities to consider and even a higher truth.
What a terrible mistake. I am no more nor less committed to non-authenticity than before, and anyway for me, the question of authenticity or not is not very important. The Church is littered with relics which may or not be authentic, such as the nails, the thorns or the robes, and it makes no difference to her whether or not they are genuine, or whether they are as the Pope so eloquently put it ‘icons’ which encourage deeper involvement with the life of Christ.
So why have I suddenly come across all aggressive? It is because although I have a great respect for real evidence for authenticity, it does the authenticist case no good when they promote evidence which is clearly wrong, or says the opposite of that intended. Ray says the observed contamination in Morgan’s paper affects the age of the Shroud. Well, if that’s true then the contamination makes the Shroud older, not younger. Max says all his contamination does not amount to twice the mass of the substrate. Well if that’s true then the medieval date is correct. Fortunately, Ray has now rephrased his remark ideas, and Max will come up with some explanation soon, I’ve no doubt.
If you read my comment above you will find that I am not rejecting the possibility of the radiocarbon date being wrong, but trying to find a way in which it might be so. I have even tried to explain how the surface contamination might have been responsible for the age/contamination gradient being the “wrong way round.” Nobody else has. The Quad Mosaics, UV-F photos and surface contamination all being rejected, what are you left with? Substantial replacement of material. Now I must try to find evidence for that, since it is clear that few actual authenticists (Thibault perhaps being a notable exception) will. If it exists, no one will be happier than I.
Hi Hugh: You may find this hard to believe but there is the type of person that will base their belief on whether Jesus existed or not, or actually rose from the dead, based on the Shroud of Turin. There is the type of person who must see something before they will believe. I get over 500 views a day on this subject from 208 different countries. I have received letters from many of those people who were losing faith and had that faith strengthened or restored because of The Shroud of Turin. It ends up making them interested in scripture again, a return and stronger faith in the word of God and a more personal relationship with Jesus. That is one of the after effects The Shroud has. I am one of those. I was also raised in the Catholic Church like you. I did not even know The Shroud existed all during that time. It was never mentioned in any mass I ever went to.
Shroud is a witnessing tool, not a salvation issue. But it could be what brings a person to salvation. It did encourage a deeper involvement with the life of Christ for me (to say the least) and many others who I receive letters from almost every day. People from every country in the world are interested in The Shroud of Turin. If there are 2 words I would use to describe The Shroud of Turin it would be
1. Subtle
2. Powerful
It has the signature character quality of the Spirit of God written all over it.
Seriously, if we tested a blood sample from the corner of the Shroud, but not any of the other 400 blood stains. Would you be convinced that blood stain represented and was the same blood as the other 399 stains? At the very least they should have taken samples from 2 other areas, that way they would have at least 3 witnesses, instead of 1 witness cut in 3 pieces. The 1988 Radio Carbon Dating is only 1 witness. Not 3. Not complete.
Hi Dave, would you care to share your website with us?
Hi Dan, I did promise you I would work on a overlay of the Pantocrator. Sorry about the delay on that. I aspire to do better work in the future. My channel is in the process of being upgraded and some corrections being made. When they are complete I would be glad to share it with everyone.
Examining and reviewing comments from both sides of the debate on the Shroud on this site is very educating. We all benefit from this Shroud Blog Site that you have put together, Increasing our knowledge, wisdom and insight. It is really fascinating. All the different characters that post on a regular basis. The most powerful thing is the truth, both skeptic and non skeptic searching for it relentlessly. And The Holy Spirit is Truth. IN a way we are all searching for the Spirit of God whether we know it or not. Man In The Shroud brings people of very different backgrounds together. Some not always in agreement.
A search for the truth that someday soon everyone will know.
Keep up the good work Dan!
Hi Dan. This is a video in which you may need a strong a cup of coffee and a tin foil hat while watching.
Note the numbers that coincidentally came up for this video. 033. That is also the year The Shroud of Turin made contact with the body of Jesus. But don’t take my word for it, see what Jesus of Nazareth has to say about the authenticity of The Shroud in the video. He is the person we want to hear from on the witness stand.
A better witness than Mr. Radio Carbon Dating who can not seem to keep his story straight, 3 different times he gave 3 different dates. We want the exact date, not a rough estimate based on stone knife and bearskin technology methods. In this video we will get that exact date using a more advanced technology. ELF Communication.
Daveb of Wellington nz made mention of a Higher Truth. We are going to hear from that “Higher Truth”
An answer to his prayer. The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Keep up the good work on The Shroud Blog Site! Happy Easter To Everyone Posting On This Blog Site!
Yes, that includes ALL the skeptics!
The Radio Carbon Dating is not unlike having only 1 eye witness to a crime and then when that “witness” is questioned by 3 different detectives the story of what happened and the time line of events changes slightly each time it is told. (That is why the samples failed the X squared test) It is a huge red flag to a forensic crime investigator. Especially when the eye witness testimony does not match the rest of the forensic evidence time line of events!
Yes there were 3 different labs but only 1 Sample! 1 witness, not 3 witnesses, The Radio Carbon Dating was 1 witness questioned by 3 different authorities and the story changed each time it was told.
Word of God On The Subject:
“One witness cannot establish any wrongdoing or sin against a person, whatever that person has done. A fact must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”
Mr. Radio Carbon Dating is one witness that can’t get his story straight. “Not Convinced”
David Hines, Thank you. You have expressed my own concerns much more coherently and explicitly. I am amazed at the size of your In-tray with over 500 views expressed a day! .
The Man In The Shroud is famous all over the world. Huge. They love his music or they hate it. Some in the middle. I have some footage I want you to see. I got a huge breakthrough in my ELF research/communication experiments with a “Higher Power Intelligence/God” It involves the subject matter of the recent video I made. It is basically a “ask and you shall receive” type approach method which involves measuring the response of the person contacted by monitoring changes in the AC Voltage and also measuring the HZ frequency of that AC voltage source on a ELF Sensor. A numerical response. (Hz Frequency is the number of times an electrical signal oscillates in one second) A numerical response in a specific code and sequence of numbers that clearly would demonstrate the sender of the info has superior ability and intelligence and is directly responding to the person “asking for the info” (Beyond a reasonable doubt)
I have this new evidence on film that supports authenticity. I will not use the word “proves”
I have been doing this type of research on and off for 5 years. I knew someday it would get connected into Shroud Research.
In the same way someone who is blind cannot see someone or be able to read by sight, they can read by touch. Receive info using a different method. This type of communication is reliant upon the Sender controlling the number of times an electrical signal oscillates in one second into specific number sequences that “spell a word” Because we cannot see something does not mean it is not there. But we can measure it on a scientific instrument and prove that the “unseen thing” does indeed exist and is a genuine demonstrated reality. Presence of the Spirit of God can take form of electricity and that electric presence will have a AC voltage and Hz Frequency that can be detected and measured on a scientific instrument, only if The Spirit of God allows that to happen. The Spirit of God allowed this to happen 2 nights ago. Rare gift meant to be shared with others. That is why I am sharing this to you. Some of your posts have gotten the attention of the higher authorities in the Kingdom of Heaven. A different kind of payment for some of the work you have done. A sensation of genuine Joy granted to another. All part of the fun of Shroud research. Ask and you shall receive does work, sometimes the answer that comes back is “No” but that is still an answer. In the case of this footage, We got a “Yes”
The Resurrection is Real. Shroud is evidence of it.
Sorry, people like Mr. Farey don’t know how the image got printed, yet they openly state that Shroud is not authentic.
Not at all, Fernando. What I openly state is that on the whole I am persuaded that the balance of the evidence on both sides tips in favour of the Shroud not being authentic, which is rather less authoritarian than you claim. Furthermore, your argument can equally well be restated as “People like Mr. Sampath don’t know how the image got printed, yet they openly state that Shroud is authentic.” The argument is identical, and equally worthless.
I strongly believe in Resurrection and Science can’t prove the process of Resurrection. Same with the image as it got printed during the Resurrection process and it is beyond the sciencetific knowledge.
A fallacy: XXX “People like Mr. Sampath don’t know how the image got printed, yet they openly state that Shroud is authentic.” The argument is identical, and equally worthless.XXX
The anti-authenticist, placing all his trust in science, yet asserting that the Shroud is inauthentic without knowing how the image was formed, despite all his efforts to date at discovery, is in a precarious position.
However the authenticist, still not knowing how the image was formed can claim that it was an act of Providence, regardless of whether it was miraculous or naturalistic. The non-authenticist cannot make such a claim. In fact, no explanation is available to him at all, only fruitless speculation!
A good try, daveb, and worth consideration, because I think that many non-authenticists believe most sincerely that providence (even, unless they are atheists, Providence) played an important part in the formation of the image and the preservation of the cloth. I myself do not think that whoever made the image knew what his work would look like 700 years later, and surely, the fact that this cloth is the sole example of its genre when so little medieval linen remains is remarkably providential. God works in mysterious ways…
“… surely, the fact that this cloth is the sole example of its genre when so little medieval linen remains is remarkably providential.”
Providential, perhaps. But then I thought it was reasonably well-known that ancient linen seems to be more durable than medieval linen. Something to do with the difference in manufacturing methods, despite the time lapse, and despite the Shroud being in known adverse environments, all that touring around northern Europe and criss-crossing of the Alps by Margaret de Charnay. Doubtless Charles would claim that ancient linens survive because they were kept in desert environments. I wonder if whoever made the image knew what his work would look like 1900 years later?
Lonely Planet Best in Travel 2011 named Wellington as fourth in its Top 10 Cities to Visit in 2011, referring to it as the “coolest little capital in the world” Wow, must be nice out there on your own big private island. Actually the views on the channel are increasing all the time, it is more like 900 views a day now, 25,000 in the last 28 days. I am in the process of updating videos and deleting others.
“there are higher priorities to consider and even a higher truth” Exactly right. I aspire to be in closer contact with that “Higher Truth” That is the purpose of my ELF Research. To establish a clear communication and receive info from that source with zero distortion so I can know exactly what those priorities are and what that Higher Truth is. I know what that is in regards to the Shroud, but to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt is challenging to say the least. I got the Devil on the other side casting one seed of doubt after another. Never underestimate the power of the dark side of the force. Cunning, baffling and powerful.
Reminder for Hugh (again and again) so that he can stop misrepresented my opinion (as usual):
In the miroreconstruction hypothesis ALONE:
On January 6, 2012 at 4:31 pm, I wrote:
“It is most likely the repair have occurred in the XIXth century (in 1863/1868) whatever the two respective estimates of contamination rates are (Jackson, 66%-33% vs Evin 50%-50%).
If we rely on Jackson’s estimate (66,66%), the C14 sample (weight 158.5 mg ± 0,3mg) would only need 106mg (that is 0.106g) of the 1st c. CE linen to be replaced in 1863/1868 for the date to appear 1260-1390. And if we rely on Evin’s estimate (50%), it would only need 79mg (that is 0.079g) to reach the same biased medieval dating.
Actually when put in perspective, no matter how huge the proportion (66,66% or 50%), this 1858-1988 CE carbon replacement amounts to a very tiny quantity (0.106g or 0.079g) in terms of very circumscribed microreconstructions (in one or two very small areas) for a 1st c CE old linen to appear to be 13th-14th century CE by contamination.”
In my 2007-2008 research paper entitled:
LINCEUL DE TURIN :
FAUSSE RELIQUE OU FAUSSE DATATION Carbone 14 ?
and subtitled: (Contre-enquête sur un fiasco scientifique)
I wrote:
“[..]toute la valeur réelle de la datation C14 de 1988, ne repose que sur trois sous-échantillons ne s’avérant, en moyenne, pas plus grands qu’un timbre-poste de 1,69 x 1,32 cm et pesant chacun, toujours en moyenne, 52,83 mg. Le poids unitaire du Linceul étant estimé à 0,023 g/cm2 ± 10%, au sein de l’échantillon parent C14 pesant 158,5 mg ± 0,3mg, il suffirait au pire d’un remplacement soit d’à peine 106 millièmes de gramme ± 10% de fibres textiles originelles du Ier siècle par une quantité égale de fibres beaucoup plus récentes issues de réparations invisibles effectuées entre 1858 et 1988 (estimation haute selon Jackson), soit de seulement 79 millièmes de gramme ± 10% (estimation basse selon Évin) pour que la relique présumée de « 1260-1390 » soit définitivement enlevée au Moyen Age et se retrouve placée à l’époque coloniale romaine. Autant dire qu’à l’échelle de la réalité matérielle de l’objet archéologique analysé, il suffirait de presque rien[..]“.
– Note (In the ‘66,66%’ contaminant hypothesis) only about TWO-THIRD of the actually dated/incinerated PART of the C14 sample it to be taken into account as new material here since firstly the princess Clothilde of Savoy-Bonaparte and/or the Master of upholstery in the Royal court of Savoy in the 1860s CE is/are the best candidate(s) as far as microreconstructions are concerned and secondly and ABSENT THE RISERVA, ONLY PART and not the whole C14 parent sample to be dated was actually incinerated in 1988 (see the two pieces of Arizona radiocarbon sample that were not used).
The actual amount of contamination is wholly irrelevant, Max. Proportion is all.
Hugh, you’re just stating the obvious. And what about a combination of several contaminants, beyond your ‘either/or’ logic?
As long as the several contaminants add up to twice the mass of the original linen, or two thirds the mass of the total sample, then that’s fine. Perhaps you’d like to quantify them.
Wouldn’t you?
Yes, indeed. I begin with a breakfast waffle, and fill all the holes to the brim with butter. Then I add a layer of thick honey equal to the half the thickness of the waffle. Then I calculate.
Volume of waffle (including holes): 10 x 10 x 1.5 = 150cm3
Volume of 16 holes: 16 x 1.8 x 1.8 x 1.2 = 62.2cm3
Volume of waffle (not including holes) 150 – 62.2 = 87.8cm3
Total volume of butter and honey: 62.2 (butter) + 75 (honey) = 137.2cm3
Total volume of whole assembly: 87.8 (waffle) + 137.2 (butter and jam) = 225cm3
Percentage of “contamination” to “whole sample” 137.2/225*100 = 61%
If 61% of a radiocarbon sample was from 1865AD, and 59% was from 30AD, the radiocarbon date would come out at: 1045 AD.
Oh, dear, still 1000 years too late. Must add some more honey.
So Max, if half the radiocarbon sample was interweaving, and a layer of grime equal to half the thickness of the cloth was smeared on top, it still wouldn’t be anything like enough to make a 14th century date out of a 1st century one. I look forward to your comments.
Hugh, you wrote: “If 61% of a radiocarbon sample was from 1865AD, and 59% was from 30AD, the radiocarbon date would come out at: 1045 AD.
Reminder for Hugh and his intellectual chimera: 61% + 59% = 120%!
BTW Hugh, have you ever heard of contaminants present at atomic level?
Or else could you tell me, for instance, to what extent molting silver vapour could have skewed the TS date?
Sorry, Max, my mistake, you’re quite right, of course. 61% contamination and 49% original produce the 1045 date.
I don’t know what you mean by contamination at atomic level. It doesn’t matter what level it’s at as long as it makes up two thirds of the sample.
And yes, I can tell you exactly what effect “molting silver vapour” would have upon the C14 date, namely none whatsoever, as silver contains no carbon.
Re the effect of melting silver vapour: According to Van Haelst the melting silver vapour and the water used to douse the flames may have catalysed the airborne carbon INTO the cloth.
BTW your “61% contamination and 49%” = 110%. Hope next time you’ll finally agree with yourself!
Oh my goodness! Time for a cup of tea, I think!
Don’t despair Hugh. A mathematician once assured me that 2 +2 = 5 (for large values of 2).
Incidentally I’ve just this minute posted, and finally been able to firm up on a hunch that’s been forming for over 2 years – to wit, that TS image fibres are compromised far more than superficial coloration would suggest, due to the substantial presence in linen of core hemicelluloses that are susceptible to a variety of insults, without necessarily showing an obvious colour change. A model system with H2SO4 has helped nail it. Might the image-making process have been much less subtle and ‘out-of-this-world’ than we’ve been led to believe, notably by the laser beam enthusiasts?
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/what-happens-if-you-spill-battery-acid.html
Your opinion would be much appreciated (no urgency).
It speaks volumes on how reliable your ‘calculation’ is!
Could you tell me to what extent evaporated concentrated waters of the Red heifer or waters mixed with Meleche stone dust or integrated fumes of (myrrhic?) aloetic fumigation could have skewed the TS date? Etc.
Interestingly, I believe that any Meleche stone dust, being made of calcium carbonate and with a C14 content of zero, if it was not dissolved away by the acid cleaning treatment, would have made the Shroud appear considerably older that it really was. So a 1st century cloth, contaminated with limestone. may date to hundreds of years BC, depending on the amount of contamination.
Reminder for Hugh: Neither the TS conservation history prior to 1532 CE nor the image formation process possible impact on the relic’s C14 dating are documented. Whether some specific types of contamination could have made it appear younger just cannot be totally ruled out. Possible invisible/hidden microreconstructions circumscribed to very tiny areas (in congruence with right hand finger clutching the right corner just beneath the seam; each area being half the size of a small poststamps) and, besides thin bioplastic coating (developped till 1988 CE), additional contaminations (e.g. atomic-level catalyzed airborn carbon due to the melting silver vapour and the water used to douse the flames in 1532 CE) just could not have been removed in 1988.
BTW the Shroud showed calcium carbonate and iron scattered evenly all over. How can you be sure all the calcium present in the C14 sample was dissolved away by the acid cleaning treatment in 1988 CE?
This is all grasping at straws, Max. There is no evidence that liquid silver catalyses the replacement of carbon atoms in cellulose with carbon atoms from the air. There is no carbon in silver or iron and no C14 in calcium carbonate. If there were any calcium carbonate on the Shroud after its acid treatment there would have to be even more modern contamination to make a 1st century cloth appear 14th century. But as I said before, attempting to describe the various chemicals which might affect the age is futile without some quantification as to the amount. I think it has been made clear that the “waffle filled with butter and covered in honey” plan simply won’t work, and those who still think that modern material was responsible for the 14th century date are now working almost entirely on the idea that the majority of the fibres themselves are modern. As there is no evidence that they were interwoven, as occurs in the “invisible weaving” technique, they are forced back to the idea that individual threads were teased apart, blended with new threads, twisted back together and glued in place. Now all you need is to show that that occurred, which so far has not been achieved.
Hugh, the true fact is neither me nor YOU can scientifically or archaeologically TOTALLY ruled out a 66,66% contamination that made the TS appear younger (or could you account for the anomalous presence of madder dye, cotton fibers and lignin compared to the rest of the TS and the failure of the Chi square value test and what about possible UNREMOVABLE contaminations such as TIME BIOPLASTIC COATING, 1860s CE microreconstructions, 1532 CE catalysed airborn carbon?). Can you really demonstrate the melting silver vapour and the water used to douse the flames in 1532 CE cannot have catalysed the airborne carbon INTO the cloth? Can you really demonstrate there was no bioplatic coating at all on part of the sample that was incinerated? Can you really demonstrate no hidden microreconstructions were done on the Turin Shroud C14 corner in the 1860s? There are too many unknowns to retain the 1988 radiocarbon dating as the scientific last word. Are you a real scientist? I thought scientists worth their salt were more openminded.
Re a realistic approach to the issue, twice I asked you already:
– could you refer us/me to a paper in which it is an established FACT a textile expert (whether Viale, Testore or Flury-Lemberg) actually examined at microscopic magnifications THE VERY CORE of the dated part of the C14 sample from the reduced or even non-reduced sample? Viale and Testore just examined the very ‘upper edge’ of the gross (non-trimmed/non-reduced) sample until proven otherwise and, shall I endlessly repeat (see my March 6, 2015 comment at 5:37 am): in 2002 Flury-Lemberg had neither direct access to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva neither to the parent sample used for the official C14 dating (since most of it was destroyed in 1988) nor to the two pieces of the Arizona sample that were not used. Consequently F-L has NEVER examined the actual C14 sample that was used in 1988. Her opinion shall be dismissed here as non-authoritative.
(What now if the invisible reweaving or interweaving was circumscribed at the very core of the C14 sample (i.e. in the very area the Shroud corner used to be firmly clutched in right bare hand)? What if there had been hidden microrecontructions done in the precise area that is no longer observable in situ textilis (= 2002 TS)?)
– Have you ever examined microphotographs of the radiodated C14 official sample (of which most of it was incinerated in 1988) seen under microscope at X40 magnification yourself and/or can you provide us/me with such microphotographs?
Looking forward for you (long awaited) replies.
Tout ça c’est bien joli but the C14 dating result tallied PERFECTLY with the date that skeptics had predicted prior to the test. They were NOT wise after the result. Just to name a few clear-cut examples :
” In 1986, reviewing Ian Wilson’s Evidence of the Shroud for the Christchurch Press, I predicted that if the cloth ever were to be carbon-dated it would come in at A.D. 1335, plus or minus 30 years. When the Shroud was finally dated and the results came back from the participating laboratories, the collated result was A.D. 1325, plus or minus 65 years. I was ten years off ” (Dennis Dutton)
” I believe the ‘Shroud’ was painted by an artist shortly before it first appeared in history in 1356, say 1355 to allow a year ‘for the paint to dry.’ There is NO blood on the ‘Shroud.’ That was my position by January 1, 1980 and I have maintained that position at every opportunity since.” (Walter Mc Crone)
” …the shroud was created by an artist near the time it was first publicly introduced around 1353 ” (Joe Nickell – 1983)
What doesn’t tallied at all with the 1260-1390 CE dating is (for instance):
– the 1163-1195 CE Hungarian Pray Ms bifolium illustrations. I personally deciphered a series of still unnoticed crucial pieces of evidence proving beyond the shadow of a rational doubt an eyewitness (the Benedictine monk illustrator) indeed depicted from memory the Constantinople Sindon aka the Turin Shroud (I’m trying to get a HD photograph of the HP Ms bifolium in order to make my point even clearer.
– the real presence of very partial tiny (blood) decals of two 29-30 CE Pilate coin reverse types on the TS man’s eye areas, which I succeeded to convincingly detect and identify –there again beyond the shadow of a rational doubt (I still just need to triply and even quadruply checked the latter result).
– A thorough comparative study of the 2D & 3D TS face with the bust of Christ Pantocrator with a skewed nose on about ten of Justinian II solidi minted in Constantinople (692-695 CE).
Oops typo:
– the real presence –there again beyond the shadow of a rational doubt– of very partial tiny MIRRORED (blood) decals of two 29-30 CE Pilate coin OBVERSE types on the TS man’s eye areas, which I succeeded to convincingly detect and identify (though I still just need to triply and even quadruply check the latter result).
Max, I’ve never ruled out the possibility that the radiocarbon sample might be more than two-thirds modern. I can’t think how you acquired that idea. And how right you are that there are too many unknowns for the radiocarbon dating to be the last word. And yes, I am a scientist.
Does that make you feel better? Because, being a scientist, I have tried but failed to find evidence that there is sufficient contamination to reject the medieval date. I have examined the Quad Mosaic photographs, the alleged UV-F photographs, the Morris manipulations of the alleged UV-F photographs, Barrie Schwortz’s transmitted light photographs and his close-ups of the retained Arizona sample, the Oxford Accelerator Unit’s photographs of their sample before it was destroyed, Morris’s X-Ray photographs, Shroud Scope, Shroud 2.0, and the black-and-white enlargement of the Raes sample. I have read everything Sue Benford, Joe Marino, Ray Rogers, Robert Villarreal, Remi van Haelst, Thibault Heinburger, Riani et al. and Uncle Tim Cobbley have written on the subject. And I have found no evidence that there is sufficient admixture of material from more modern times to account for the 1300 year discrepancy observed in the radiocarbon date. Nor, as far as I know, has anybody else.
Now for the (long-awaited) answers to your questions, which, if you’ll allow me, I shall rephrase to make them more sensible,
1) Did anybody examine the radiocarbon sample at high magnification, before or after it was cut? As far as I know, only the scientists at the radiocarbon laboratories themselves, although the photos of the reserved Arizona sample taken by Barrie and the photos of the tested sample taken by the Oxford laboratories are now available to anybody.
2) Did Mechthild Flury-Lemberg examine the radiocarbon sample at all? Not as far as I know.
3) Have I examined the radiocarbon sample at all? Only from the published photos referred to above.
3) Is there any evidence of substantial interweaving outside the radiocarbon sample? No.
4) Is there any evidence of substantial interweaving within the radiocarbon sample? Not on the photographs described above.
5) Could substantial interweaving be present but invisible on the photographs described above? No. Every thread is easily followed from one side to the other.
6) Could truly invisible interpolation have occurred on the Shroud? Yes. If the original threads were individually separated from each other, individually unravelled, and each individually twisted together with a new thread, also with its end unravelled, and these threads then rewoven to match the original weave, then the interpolation could be truly invisible.
Hugh, why do you think Professor Giovanni Riggi, who cut the 1988 sample, state that “fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric”?
See “Shroud Studies bring Good News” in the following link:
newvistas.homestead.com/MediaRePatch.htmlhttp://newvistas.homestead.com/MediaRePatch.html
I can’t get the link to work, but never mind. Not only was the outside edge of the radiocarbon sample part of the rolled seam, which may have been resewn while the corner was being snipped at by the Royal House of Savoy to give away as fragments of the relic, but the whole area was also stitched on to the backing cloth, and the whole thing seems to have been laid on, under or between layers of red or blue silk – I don’t know the exact configuration. Various other junk was identified on the sticky tape slides across the whole Shroud by both Walter McCrone, and Heller & Adler respectively. However, neither Riggi, nor Tessiore, who also commented to the same effect, needed even a magnifying glass to see these aberrant threads, and they were easily removed.
You can try again:
http://newvistas.homestead.com/MediaRePatch.html
The problem is that many people were handling this site of the relic — for centuries. I keep an open mind about the hypothesis of why the 1988 radiocarbon dating results may have been skewed. In my view it is either contamination or reweaving, or both.
There has clearly been some kind of unknown interference with the particular sampling area. Raes, Rogers, and now Heimburger, have been able to identify or verify it. It demonstrates that the sample was not representative of the whole, but we do not know the extent of this interference. It is significant that Rogers found vanillin in the area, whereas none was apparent in other threads examined. The whole exercise is an object lesson in the need for representative sampling. The choice of site was unhappily influenced by the understandable concerns to conserve the integrity of the relic.
It is interesting that Fanti’s mechanical dating tests indicated a much earlier age, even though with a much greater range of error. However I note from Colin’s recent tests, that sulphuric acid has the effect of weakening linen but not cotton. It would seem a remote but real possibility therefore that if the image was produced by an acid process that Fanti’s results may have been skewed by this factor.
I have been doing a little reading up on aragonite. It has exactly the same chemical formula as calcite, CaCO3. However common calcite occurs in a rhombohedral form with Ca surrounded by six closest oxygen atoms, and generally seems to be produced by sea calcium combining with dissolved CO2. Aragonite is orthorhombic in structure with Ca surrounded by nine closest O atoms. Another associate mineral is dolomite, nominally CaMg(CO3)2, similar to the calcite structure but with Mg and Ca occupying the metal cation sites in alternative layers. Other dolomite associates occur with manganese and iron substituting for the magnesium.
Aragonite is the form that occurs in mollusc shells and in pearls. It can degenerate to calcite over the course of geological time, but is stable in cool environments, and so occurs in the limestones of caves and other cool locations. Aragonite is much less common than calcite, but is certainly common enough, and hardly as rare as suggested by some writers.
What is significant is that a few of the Ca atoms in aragonite can be substituted by barium, strontium and lead, but occur in various proportions at different locations. Kohlbeck’s Shroud and Jerusalem tomb samples of aragonite included traces of iron and strontium but no lead. Clearly there ought to be the potential of quantifying the iron and strontium as markers in these samples to determine a match. If there were a match, then it would seem fairly conclusive, that despite the general prevalence of aragonite, that the Shroud aragonite could then be definitely associated with the Jerusalem aragonite. The tests could be corroborated by control samples of aragonite from other locations.
Unfortunately the aragonite dust on the Shroud was removed along with other debris by the notorious 2002 restoration. It is rumoured that such debris is stored and catalogued somewhere in Turin. If it were made available, it might just be possible to test the strontium iron and any other markers to see if they do indeed match the content of Jerusalem aragonite.
The history of Shroud research seems to be fraught with the well-meaning incompetence of those in ill-advised authority.
Excellent post. Wise words, Mr B, wise words.
Perhaps something to add in CNN and “Finding Jesus”:
“Foxes have dens and birds have their nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Matthew, 8: 20
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/13/302019921/statue-of-a-homeless-jesus-startles-a-wealthy-community
Hugh:
“1) Did anybody examine the radiocarbon sample at high magnification, before or after it was cut? As far as I know, only the scientists at the radiocarbon laboratories themselves (…)
2) Did Mechthild Flury-Lemberg examine the radiocarbon sample at all? Not as far as I know”.
You are wrong in both cases, Hugh.
Testore and Vial inspected the Shroud many hours with a microscope before the cutting. See Heimburger: “COTTON IN RAES/RADIOCARBON THREADS: THE EXAMPLE OF RAES #7”, p. 5, http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibaultr7part3.pdf.
“6) Could truly invisible interpolation have occurred on the Shroud? Yes. If the original threads were individually separated from each other, individually unravelled, and each individually twisted together with a new thread, also with its end unravelled, and these threads then rewoven to match the original weave, then the interpolation could be truly invisible”.
NO. All the experts consulted say that the “invisible mending” is visible with microscope at least. Some of them say it is visible by an expert even a simple view.
The team Flury-Lemberg and Irene Tomedi made a whole microscopic scanner and the images were registered in digital tapes. Cf. Mons. Giuseppe Ghiberti: http://www.shroud.it/GHIBER-1.PDF. It is a miraculous possibility that the “invisible mending” was limited into the sample. Marino, Benford and Rogers’ theory doesn’t suppose this.
There are more impossibilities of the AIM (Absolute Invisible Mending) that I have accounted in other comments.
I’m sorry but your usual prudence has abandoned you in this occasion.
I remember you that Jull and Freer-Waters also inspected the sample of Arizona and didn’t saw any patch.
Modern or medieval the absolute invisible mending has any chance, Hugh. If you are not a UFO believer, of course.
“You are wrong in both cases, Hugh.”
Well, yes and no. I agree I am being generous, However, I’m not clear that anybody studied the radiocarbon area with a microscope while it was still part of the cloth. Perhaps Thibault can tell us more about “In 1988, the textile experts looked at this area with binocular microscopes.” When did they do that? Was it during the hours of argument between Gonella and Riggi leading up to the actual cutting? And Flury-Lemberg, as far as I know, did not have microscopic access to the Shroud until 2002, long after the sample itself had gone.
As for invisible mending, I agree that to my knowledge nobody has ever carried out the procedure I described, namely the unravelling of individual threads, merging them by bringing the unravelled threads together, and then twisting them back up together again to produce a true spliced extended thread. I also think that this would need an unravelling of at least 1-2cm of each thread, which is why it would be impossible to produce such a splice wholly within the radiocarbon sample area. However, I believe that if anybody actually did that, then it could be invisible even under a microscope. In fact, of course, all the “invisible mending” techniques currently used actually rely simply on lying new threads alongside old ones, which is clearly visible under a microscope, or by simply twisting two threads together (illustrated in one of Sue Benford’s papers), without unravelling them, which is also visible under a microscope.
What I am doing here is bending over backwards to help those who think the radiocarbon dating is wrong to find an area of investigation which might help them justify their case, all other possibilities having been found wanting, either by consisting of insufficient contamination or by not having evidence of their existence at all.
“I’m sorry but your usual prudence has abandoned you in this occasion.” Not at all; my prudence has excelled itself!
Hugh,
What you either don’t understand, or ignore, is that Rogers found that the linen in the samples was at least in part “new linen” with different attributes than the linen in the main body of the Shroud. No one claims that old threads were unwound and cotton added, The cotton was added because the new linen had to be colored to match the original linen which had yellowed with age.
Did someone unravel old linen and then add cotton to it? Of course not. The cotton was part of new fibers used to reweave and repair damaged parts of the Shroud.
You are creating a straw man and then rebutting it.
Was it you that once hypothesized at one point that a crucifix fell to he floor of a church and it was wrapped in linen and the surprise an image of the crucifix appeared? Somebody did. That was ridiculous whoever wrote that.
Please don’t manufacture hypotheses for what Rogers found. His findings were published and nowhere does he or anybody hypothesize that that cotton was spliced into old fibers. The cotton was spliced with new fibers and dyed because the linen needed color.
It’s easy to win a debate when you mis-characterize your opponents position – and get away with it.
Have you read Rogers’ book? On what page does he state what you just wrote? (Or where in any article?) Page numbers please!
Good morning,Hugh
You have not exactly responded to my query asking you to read the newvistas.homestead. com link above and comment. There is a problem there with the fibres. Why didn’t Professor Riggi just remove the fibres? Why did he cut another piece from the sample he had already taken?
As I have pointed out more than once, the sample was taken from the dirtiest site on the relic and no examination was made of its chemical composition.
I don’t think anyone really examined the site carefully before 1988.
Hi Louis; I’ve been able to access your link now. It’s not much more than a series of newspaper cuttings and I don’t think changes what I suggested about Riggi before. I think it would be easier to trim off the seam after the sample was cut, and the labs themselves, with their microscopes, tweezers and micropipettes, were the best people to remove surface debris. As for the corner being generally dirty, we seem to have established a couple of days ago that any surface contamination (visible as a darker colour towards the corner of the cloth) would have had the effect of making theShroud appear older, not younger, than it really is.
Thanks, Hugh. You know something? That site from where the sample was cut can say so many things. You have only mentioned surface, but what about the rest? What if the reweaving was invisible?
Professor C. Ramsey has stated that any fresh radiocarbon dating would be preceded by cleaning to remove contamination but that is something even Ian Wilson will doubt. I, at least, am one to agree with what he wrote in his last Shroud book.
Yes, Hugh, you are being far too generous but I am not criticising you as I know that if you, as a scientist which I am not, ever finds a single piece of scientific evidence that dates the Shroud to before AD1000 you will report it. Until then, those of us whose interest lies in the wider world of medieval relic cults will concentrate on finding the medieval contexts in which the Shroud originated.
Charles,
You post betrays the basis for your skepticism. You must maintain that it is a medieval relic because that is the only way you see your expertise being relevant. You may have missed it, but my critique of the first episode of “Finding Jesus” which was viewed on CNN by more than a million viewers on this side of the Pond has been posted on Shroud.com:
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/klotzcnn.pdf
The first two paragraphs are relevant to the ‘parochial’ [narrowly restricted in scope or outlook] claims of experts who seek to comment on the Shroud and fail to adopt a more “catholic” [universal] view.
“…There is a trio of intellectual disciplines that must be included in any analysis: Science, History and Theology. Any one who attempts to address the issue of the Shroud’s authenticity who doesn’t understand this trio is akin to one of the blind men describing an elephant: It’s a snake, no it’s a tree, no it’s a wall.
“Anyone seeking to comment on the Shroud must not just nod to the trio, he or she must develop some understanding of each as it relates to the Shroud. Unfortunately, the first episode of CNN’s “Finding Jesus” broadcast Sunday, March 1, that addressed the issue of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, was a concoction of largely blind men (and women) defining an elephant.”
PS
Charles check out page 11 of my Finding Jesus critique. It discusses you and Mme. Flury Lemberg.
“Perhaps Thibault can tell us more about “In 1988, the textile experts looked at this area with binocular microscopes.” When did they do that? Was it during the hours of argument between Gonella and Riggi leading up to the actual cutting?”
My assertion is based on a photograph (from the 1988 video) showing Testore looking at the shroud with a microscope (and perhaps from some documents, but I can’t remember). I don’t know exactly where and when. Obviously,they looked at the sampling area with a microscope before giving their agreement.
” As for invisible mending, I agree that to my knowledge nobody has ever carried out the procedure I described, namely the unravelling of individual threads, merging them by bringing the unravelled threads together, and then twisting them back up together again to produce a true spliced extended thread. I also think that this would need an unravelling of at least 1-2cm of each thread, which is why it would be impossible to produce such a splice wholly within the radiocarbon sample area. However, I believe that if anybody actually did that, then it could be invisible even under a microscope”
I agree that such a method should be truly invisible under a microscope.
I don’t understand why ” it would be impossible to produce such a splice wholly within the radiocarbon sample area”.
. “In fact, of course, all the “invisible mending” techniques currently used actually rely simply on lying new threads alongside old ones, which is clearly visible under a microscope.
I agree.
“or by simply twisting two threads together (illustrated in one of Sue Benford’s paper without unravelling them, which is also visible under a microscope.”
I disagree. Such a method would not be visible under the microscope.
“As far as I know – and Thibault will probably be able to verify or amend this – only one single piece of thread, and that a weft thread of about 10mm long, has been observed to be made of two separate pieces. The two pieces were not spliced but simply glued together, and could not have had any structural integrity. Furthermore, the two pieces were both found to have been made of cotton, not linen.”
Yes and no.
” only one single piece of thread, and that a weft thread of about 10mm long, has been observed to be made of two separate pieces”:
Yes: Raes #1
“The two pieces were not spliced but simply glued together”
Yes
“and could not have had any structural integrity.”
I don’t understand.
“Furthermore, the two pieces were both found to have been made of cotton, not linen.”
No. You know why I say “no”.
There are several “splicing” techniques truly invisible with a microscope (as used by Testore and Vial).
Reminder of a few facts for David Mo:
– Splicing, glueing and dying are part and parcel of invisible/hidden microrecontructions. Now just guess what was observed in the Raes-C14 corner sample?
– Swiss textile expert Metchild Flury-Lemberg NEVER examined in situ textilis the very core of the C14 sample of which about 90% was used for C14 dating the TS. Besides she NEVER had direct access niether to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva nor the two pieces of the Arizona sample that were not used.
– Thrice already I posted the following excerpt from my 2007 paper entitled “LINCEUL DE TURIN : FAUSSE RELIQUE OU FAUSSE DATATION Carbone 14 ?” and subtitled: “(Contre-enquête sur un fiasco scientifique)”. Here is the relevant excerpt re Mme Metchild Flury-Lemberg’s opinion, I commented in a note (10):
” 10. – Lorsque l’on sait que de petites reconstructions invisibles à l’œil nu et à la lumière naturelle du jour pouvaient se trouver très circonscrites au cœur même du site de l’échantillon carbone 14 daté, on est pour le moins étonné qu’une experte textile de la valeur de Mme Metchild Flury-Lemberg, sans même avoir JAMAIS examiné de visu ledit cœur de l’échantillon in situ textilis ni avoir pris connaissance de la photographie précise et contrastée d’Enrié ni des radiophotographies de la relique de Miller, puisse affirmer sans ambages que la texture dudit échantillon était uniforme et intacte. Partant du principe qu’un expert textile se devait d’être très attentif à l’origine (et à la représentativité) des fils qu’il observe, de toute évidence, il semblerait qu’il demeure difficile pour Mme Metchild Flury-Lemberg d’accepter un seul instant l’idée que des confrères (Prs Testore et Vial) aient pu, juste avant la découpe de l’échantillon brut, ne pas procéder, à l’aide de loupes, compte-fils et binoculaires, à l’examen des fils de chaîne et de trame au cœur même du site de prélèvement. Pourtant, et à preuve du contraire, ceux-ci n’examinèrent que la bord externe de l’échantillon qui venait d’être découpé par Riggi”
– Re the TWO different types of microreconstructions that could mainly account for the linen to appear medieval, I wrote (my 2007 paper on the TS 1988 C14 dating fiasco):
“(…) NON-DETECTION D’UNE ZONE (SION DEUX) AYANT SUBI DES REPARATIONS INVISIBLES A L’OEIL NU
Tout cet ensemble d’éléments directs et indirects constitue un faisceau d’indices concordants : il tend à témoigner, dans ladite zone plus raide et plus sombre, d’une intervention selon une technique bien particulière inspirée de la technique du « retissage à la française » (bien connue des maîtres-tapissiers ainsi que des experts en histoire de la tapisserie) ; technique qu’il ne faut cependant pas confondre avec celle d’un simple « entissage » d’un patch médiéval, repérable, quant à lui, à l’œil nu et à la lumière naturelle du jour par un spécialiste.
La technique dont il s’agit ici s’avère plus précisément celle d’un « retissage par épissures », sans coutures ni nœuds, effectuée, semble-t-il, sous un éclairage rasant et sous une loupe à fort grossissement. Elle demande beaucoup de patience et une grande dextérité des doigts. Elle consiste à mettre, tout d’abord, en place les fondations de base et la chaîne. Pour ce faire, soit le tisserand commence par identifier la matière des fibres constituant les fils de chaîne puis se les procure soit il utilise systématiquement des fibres de coton. Ensuite ces fibres sont filées afin d’obtenir l’épaisseur des fils originels puis entortillées avec précaution sur elles-mêmes et sur place aux fibres des fils de chaîne extraites de la partie cachée du tissu à réparer. Des fils de remplacement de la trame sont alors placés par-dessus et par-dessous les fils de chaîne reconstitués puis les fibres sont entortillées sur elles-mêmes, là encore avec précaution, aux fibres des fils de trame originels de façon à reproduire très exactement la texture ou le motif du tissu et refermer ainsi, sans faire de nœuds, le trou ou la zone sévèrement cisaillée. Pour finir de rendre cette restauration fil à fil tout à fait invisible et consolider les épissures, une teinture à base de gomme résineuse est appliquée localement sur la trame ainsi reconstruite pour que celle-ci, d’où provient l’effet de texture ou de motif, se fonde dans l’original (en l’occurrence la toile jaunie par la patine ivoire des siècles). Cette intervention sous un éclairage rasant et sous une loupe, si elle est bien réalisée et bien dissimulée, peut réellement être invisible sur les deux faces d’une pièce d’étoffe au point d’échapper parfois même à la main et à l’œil exercés d’une personne du métier qui, à l’œil nu et sous une lumière inadéquate, a tendance à confondre ces reconstructions avec des irrégularités apparues au cours du tissage. De fait, la structure artisanale du lin originel du Linceul, son calibre assez fort ainsi que son tissage serré en chevron sont de nature à parfaitement intégrer ce type d’intervention.
Quant à l’échantillon de Zurich (et partant « l’échantillon 1 d’Arizona ») tiré de la partie claire de la bande C14 officielle du Linceul, celui-ci bien que ne présentant apparemment pas ou très peu de trace de contamination par une quelconque teinture14, n’en devait pas moins être recouvert d’une patine de microorganismes. De par l’aspect anormale de la zone où il fut prélevé, il suggère fortement, en tout cas, un second type d’intervention indétectable à l’œil nu car effectuée, elle aussi semble-t-il, sous un éclairage rasant et sous une loupe à fort grossissement : « un raccommodage à perte ». Cette technique consiste très précisément à insérer, entre les fils de trame et de chaîne, des fils (ici de coton) qui, à chaque fois, sont coupés à leurs deux extrémités sans faire de nœuds, les laissant ainsi littéralement se perdre dans le tissu de lin existant.
Ces deux types spécifiques d’intervention (l’une dans le sens d’un remplacement de matière carbonée, l’autre dans celui à la fois d’un remplacement et d’un léger apport) permettraient de rendre compte de la grande dispersion des résultats observée (1238-1407) sur une si petite distance (à peine quatre centimètres de tissu).
L’enduit de gomme arabique étant soluble dans l’eau et présent dans cette zone du coin supérieur gauche, il ne pouvait avoir été appliqué sur les fils superficiels des échantillons Raës et C14 qu’après l’incendie de la Sainte Chapelle de Chambéry de 1532. La teinture l’eût-elle été avant, celle-ci n’aurait pas dissimulé l’extrémité du bord supérieur de la grande auréole dentelée car l’eau de l’incendie eût entraîné les produits de la pyrolyse locale au cœur des fils. Ce revêtement coloré ajouté tardivement explique l’absence de fluorescence aux UV observée dans cette aire particulière du drap. L’histoire de la conservation du Linceul après 1532 permet donc de dater, d’une manière très précise, au moins une sinon les deux interventions. Seules, en effet, les quatre sœurs clarisses, en 1534, et la princesse Clothilde de Savoie-Bonaparte, en 1863, qui intervinrent de façon étendue sur la relique, auraient pu effectuer ce type de réparations invisibles de mains aussi expertes. Les sœurs clarisses s’étant vues confiée la tache bien spécifique de réparer et de consolider la pièce d’étoffe endommagée lors de l’incendie de 1532, la princesse de Savoie-Bonaparte s’avère donc être, pour ces travaux délicats de restauration, la candidate la plus hautement probable (aidée ou non en cela du maître tapissier de la cour royale d’alors). Ce d’autant qu’en 1863, cela faisait déjà plus de cinq siècles qu’à chaque ostension à mains nues, la relique se retrouvait être tendue à l’horizontale.” (to be continued)
– Vial and Testore just examined the ‘outside edge’ of the untrimmed sample. They didn’t examine the very core of it i.e. the parent sample that was to be incinerated, UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
(Continuation) “Tout ceci explique (ou expliquerait) pourquoi, lors de la découpe de l’échantillon et faute d’un éclairage adéquat (en lumière UV ou rasante), ces deux variantes locales passèrent totalement inaperçues aux yeux des experts textiles chargés de superviser le prélèvement pour la datation officielle de 1988. Toute leur attention était alors absorbée soit par l’étude technique du drap (qu’ils voyaient pour la toute première fois) soit par la présence gênante des fils de la couture épaisse qui liaient un résidu de la partie supérieure du Linceul au tissu à découper. Ainsi en oublièrent-ils de procéder à un examen minutieux du cœur même du site textile à prélever. L’eurent-ils examiné, ils n’auraient pu manquer, en effet, d’y repérer la petite reconstruction de forme serpentine, la teinture dissimulant l’extrémité du bord supérieur de la grande auréole d’eau dentelée ainsi que le caractère plus raide et plus sombre de la zone. En principe, une restauration « invisible » ne saurait échapper au compte-fil et a fortiori à la binoculaire lorsque l’œil derrière est compétent. Les photos qui montrent les Prs Francesco Testoré et Gabriel Vial († 2005) s’affairant avec divers instruments sont, cependant, on ne peu plus trompeuses en ce qu’elles laissent croire que lesdits experts étaient occupés à des vérifications préliminaires de l’intégrité de ladite zone quand, de fait, leurs vérifications ne furent pas étendues au cœur de l’échantillon mais se bornèrent à la seule lisière du drap.
Ainsi croyant avoir libéré l’échantillon aux bords effilochés de tout fil étranger, laissèrent-ils à l’opérateur, Giovanni Riggi di Numana († 2008), « le soin » de réduire à une bande rectangulaire un peu plus régulière le rectangle grossier que celui-ci, à l’aide de ciseaux de chirurgien, venait d’extraire sans gants protecteurs et plus ou moins malhabilement à la pièce principale.
De toute évidence, ce technicien (à qui échut la responsabilité et du choix de l’emplacement et de la prise d’échantillon !) n’était pas expert textile pas plus qu’il n’était carbonologue ou bien archéologue15. Il semblait en effet ignorer à quel point, en matière de radiodatation, la haute technologie de l’Accélérateur Spectromètre de Masse (adaptée pour les mesures sur des microéchantillons) s’avère être sensible aux contaminations y compris à celle du sébum humain. Ce choix d’une zone qui avait fait l’objet, au cours des siècles, de nombreuses manipulations à mains nues lors des ostensions, était donc déjà, de ce seul point de vue, tout sauf judicieux.”
Typo: SINON (SION) 1863/1868 (1863)
From the top…
“What [I] don’t understand, or ignore..” You’re missing the point, John. So Rogers found ‘new linen.’ Leaving aside how much new linen he found, I would like to know how the new linen was attached to the old linen. There is no evidence for any attachment, and there should be. I said nothing about cotton in my comments above – if the cotton is a straw man, then it is one of your making, not mine. You didn’t really read my comment, did you?
“The cotton was part of new fibers used to reweave and repair damaged parts of the Shroud.” I dare say. But how were these ‘new fibres’ attached to the old fibres? That’s what I was discussing above. I’m sorry if it wasn’t clear.
The rest of your post is incomprehensible. A crucifix fell on the floor? The cotton was spliced with new fibres? Where does Rogers say this or that? Stop! Take some deep breaths; type “Rogers” into the ‘find’ function and read whatever I have said about Rogers on this page. Then reply, if you need, to what I wrote, not to what you think I meant.
Now, Max. “Splicing, glueing and dying are part and parcel of invisible/hidden microrecontructions.” Well, no, they’re not. At least not generally, and nor is there any evidence that any reconstruction technique of the “French invisible reweaving” kind has involved any kind of splicing. Interweaving, certainly, and possibly the twisting together of threads, but not splicing of the kind I described above. As far as I know – and Thibault will probably be able to verify or amend this – only one single piece of thread, and that a weft thread of about 10mm long, has been observed to be made of two separate pieces. The two pieces were not spliced but simply glued together, and could not have had any structural integrity. Furthermore, the two pieces were both found to have been made of cotton, not linen.
Now for all I know, as I said before, you may be correct, but so far there is insufficient evidence to assume that. Merely re-posting something does not make it any more convincing than it was the first time. Would you like to say something new?
John. I have accessed your article but please tell me where I cited, eight times, the quotation from Flury-Lemberg that you say I quoted.I amy well have done at some point but i think not. if you cannot, please remove your comment.
It is the 2007 paper of Flury-Lemberg that i have cited which shows clearly that unless the radio-carbon sample was taken from exactly the same piece of cloth as an apparent reweave, there is/was no reweave. John Jackson confirmed with photographs of the bandings made in 1978 that there was no reweave as if there was it would have disrupted the bandings.
Have you cited the 2007 article? If not you are providing a misleading picture of the whole controversy as you are depriving your readers of evidence from a textile expert who has examined the Shroud close up. This puts her streets ahead of non-experts who have not been able to check out the actual weave.This is the way we historians work. Lawyers may have different criteria.
I have no problem with the existence of Jesus, or his crucifixion and burial in a shroud of some kind. So there was originally a mass of objects associated with the Passion. The question is whether any of these have happened to survive. It is not impossible but we must have clear scientific evidence of a pre- AD 35 dating before we take any of the many hundreds of Passion relics as authentic. In my recent research in Italy, i was shown a fragment of the True Cross- it had only been in the church since 1500- true or false?
In a room in a former monastery I was asked to keep silent because it contained relics of the Virgin Mary- true or false? In Lucca they have the Volto Santo, a wooden cross carved by no less than Nicodemus. He fell asleep and the face of Christ appeared miraculously on it- it is honoured by a vast candle-lit procession every year in September, true or false? In Prato they have the girdle that the Virgin Mary threw down to Thomas as she was assumed into heaven -true or false? We await scientific evidence to support the authenticity of any of these or the many hundreds of other Passion relics.
Hugh, it does seem you you are not REALLY able to PERFECTLY understand my written French. Had you, you would not have made the following comment:
“Now, Max. “Splicing, glueing and dying are part and parcel of invisible/hidden microrecontructions.” Well, no, they’re not. At least not generally, and nor is there any evidence that any reconstruction technique of the “French invisible reweaving” kind has involved any kind of splicing.”
I wrote: “il (faisant ici réference à un ensemble d’éléments suspects et d’indices) tend à témoigner, dans ladite zone plus raide et plus sombre, d’une intervention selon une TECHNIQUE bien particulière INSPIREE DE LA TECHNIQUE DU « retissage à la française » (FRENCH INVISIBLE REWEAVING) (bien connue des maîtres-tapissiers ainsi que des experts en histoire de la tapisserie) ; TECHNIQUE QU’IL NE FAUT PAS NON PLUS CONFONDRE AVEC CELLE D’UN SIMPLE “ENTISSAGE” d’un patch médiéval, repérable, quant à lui, à l’œil nu et à la lumière naturelle du jour par un spécialiste.”
In sum I just said (in light of the pieces of evidence (Rogers found) and observations (made from Enrie photographs and Miller Xray photographs) most likely the microreconstructive technique (spliced reweaving) used here WAS INSPIRED BY FRENCH INVISIBLE REWEAVING. You got it all wrong whence your needless comment.
Hugh, could you stop misrepresenting your French speaking opponent’s position – and get away with it — just because you are not really able to perfectly understand his written French, please?
Charles wrote: “you are depriving your readers of evidence from a textile expert who has examined the Shroud close up. This puts her streets ahead of non-experts who have not been able to check out the actual weave.This is the way we historians work.”
This speaks volumes on how Charles work since Swiss textile expert Metchild Flury-Lemberg NEVER examined in situ textilis the very core of the C14 parent sample of which about 90% was used for C14 dating the TS AND NEVER had direct access niether to the 1988 official C14 sample riserva nor the two pieces of the Arizona sample that were not used (shall I endlesly repeat it?). Her opinion shall be dismissed as non conclusive at all as far as the presence or absence of hidden microreconstruction of the dated official C14 sample is concerned. Besides it does seem she only focuses on patch interweaving and totally looks out French invisible reweaving and hidden spliced reweaving.
Max. You ignore John Jackson’s clear rejection of the reweave theory from his photographic banding evidence of 1978. He was left with proposing a contamination theory, the presence of carbon monoxide, that was then checked out by Oxford and found wanting. I have no idea what his present position is but his rejection of the reweave is on the record.
Flury-Lemberg made the sensible point that if there is a reweave then where is it? She made clear that it would have been impossible to conceal even a so-called invisible reweave, especially at the back of the cloth being rewoven. It is just possible that the experts who chose the sample just happened to cut neatly through the exact patch that had been rewoven and removed it, leaving no trace either side of the cut that there was any discrepancy.
If the rewoven path had been wholly WITHIN the sample then it would have been noticed by the various microscopic investigations of the the labs.
Methinks you should reread Flury-Lemberg’s article more carefully or perhaps simply ignore it and hope no one notices.
Charles, you ignore Alan & Mary Whanger asserting there was a reweave from Miller UV and Xray photographs of the area..
“I wrote…” Yes. You did. Several times. And I replied appropriately. Interweaving – yes; intertwisting – yes; splicing – no, never. Not without rather more evidence than just your overconfident assertion. Your position is clear and not misrepresented – I just don’t agree with it.
There can be no doubt that Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, a member of the Lutheran Church, is a very serious professional. However there is also no record demonstrating that the Hamburg-born expert, residing in Switzerland, ever used Swiss-made Carl Zeiss equipment to examine the site from where the sample was cut in 1988.
Louis:
Cf. “La storia dil restauro 2002”, §17, http://www.shroud.it/GHIBER-1.PDF
“Fuori programma particolarmente prezioso fu la ricognizione di particolari del telo sindonico eseguita con il microscopio della signora Tomedi”.
Personal translation:
Out of the program [options], the recognition of the details of the Shroud that performed with the microscope Mrs. Tomedi was particularly valuable.
Irene Tomedi is an expert of the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro (ISCR) (Rome).
When we are speaking of the report of Flury-Lemberg we are usually speaking of the restoration team. Except for the personal statements or writings, of course. Flury-Lemberg was the director and supervisor of the restoration.
Thanks, Thibault; I think that’s pretty authoritative.
About the structural integrity of a join. Provide yourself with a single linen thread about 250 um thick. Cut it in two and rejoin it. Twist the ends together, splice it, glue it, even knot it, whatever you like. Then try to pull it apart again. How strong is it? It depends on the overlap of the two ends, which I claim must be longer than the width of the radiocarbon sample. Therefore, any kind of join cannot have occurred wholly within the width of the sample.
Sorry Hugh, I disagree.
Raes 1 is truly an END TO END splice as described by Rogers.
I have some photographs of Raes #1 by Rogers and also Villareal’s Powerpoint.
Comparing them, it is clear that Raes #1 is comprised of two threads glued together.
As Villareal wrote: “the yarn separated into two DISTINCT threads”.
There is also a microphotograph from Rogers showing clearly two different thread ends.
Do you have it ?
Part 1 (Fuzzy end) is about 7-8 mm. in length while part 2 is about 3-4 mm. in length.
From Rogers’ photographs the full length of Raes#1 is about 12-13 mm.
It means that two distinct threads were joined together. The joint is very small (1-2 mm) but it is there.
The “terpene-like crust” is about 4 mm. in length.
If you look at Raes#1(from Rogers) you can not see the crust or the two different threads.
What does it mean ?
It means that in this Raes/C14 corner there is at least one thread which is not a thread but two threads glued together in such a way that you can not see the anomaly.
Because such a ‘splice’ has nothing to do with the Shroud, the question is: why ?
It’s conclusive that the sample area is anomalous. If I want to know anything about my old socks, I don’t go looking at any darns in them for the information. Flury-Lemburg doesn’t call it a darn, but name it what you will, it’s still anomalous. And that’s where the sample was taken from! Anything else is mere hair-splitting, and it doesn’t matter if it’s 30%, 60% or 100%!
Re splicing: Hugh what do you make of the ‘splice’ found in Raes 1 glued with a terpene-like material? What is the probability to find by chance several threads with a high amount of cotton (to dye the microreconstruction) in a very small area of the Turin Shroud (the C14 parent sample) if many samples coming from many different parts of the relic do not show any kind of cotton or only a very small amount of cotton? What do you make of Hall’s, Testore’s, and Roger’s explicitly or implicitly reporting the presence of splicing threads (coton intermixed with linen) in the TS corner?
Typo: What do you make of Hall, Testore, and Roger explicitly or implicitly AND independantly reporting the presence of splicing threads (coton intermixed with linen) in the TS corner?
Hugh and Thibault, a dialogue:
“HUGH: In fact, of course, all the “invisible mending” techniques currently used actually rely simply on lying new threads alongside old ones, which is clearly visible under a microscope.
THIBAULT: I agree.
HUGH: …or by simply twisting two threads together (illustrated in one of Sue Benford’s paper without unravelling them, which is also visible under a microscope.
THIBAULT: I disagree. Such a method would not be visible under the microscope”.
Do you know a specialist who says that an Absolute Invisible Mending (AIM) exists, that is to say, a patch or interwoven threads that can go unnoticed to an expert with a microscope?
Do you know an example of an AIM?
Do you know a specialized book that analyse the AIM?
You are contradicting the statements of all the experts because they say the “invisible mending” is visible under microscope at least. And I’m speaking of the experts quoted in sindonist literature! On what bases you refute these experts?
Are you aware that the AIM is a product of your fancy and/or wishful thinking?
“Are you aware that the AIM is a product of your fancy and/or wishful thinking ?”
Shroudstory.com or fancystory.com ?
Hugh:
“As for invisible mending, I agree that to my knowledge nobody has ever carried out the procedure I described, namely the unravelling of individual threads, merging them by bringing the unravelled threads together, and then twisting them back up together again to produce a true spliced extended thread”.
This is a fancy novel. What the hell (excuse my expression) a medieval weaver would need to implement such so sophisticated and so expensive manipulation?? A crazy weaver? Please, please, lets free imagination to John Lennon and phantasy to Walt Disney.
Medieval weavers made patches, only patches.
Yes, David, that is my entire point. I know of no example or technique that has used the method I have described. I do not believe that the Shroud was mended in any such way, and I do not think that, given the general tattiness of the Shroud elsewhere and the difficulty of obtaining sufficient strength, the technique was likely to used for the radiocarbon corner. It is, however, what will have to be found and demonstrated if the advocates of the interpolation hypothesis want to substantiate their case.
Max, what do I make of Villarreal’s ‘splice’, Rogers’s (and others) cotton, and, for that matter, Rogers’s vanillin? Sadly, there is insufficient information or consistency about these findings to make anything of them. Some cotton fibres seem to be present as surface contamination, which could have floated on anytime, and others as integral parts of the thread, which must have been present when the Shroud, or the interpolation, was made. It is not clear that similar contamination cannot be found elsewhere on the shroud.
A new thought that has just occurred to me. It is not clear from Rogers’s papers how many of his 14 Raes threads he thought were modern. It is a pity that he did not attempt to quantify his findings. The Raes sample consisted of about 100 threads of which, if the interpolation hypothesis is correct, about 30-40 should be original. A random selection of 14 threads should have a few originals.
Hugh, you start your reply with: “Max, what do I make of Villarreal’s ‘splice’ (…)”
Had you really read my question I don’t even mention Villareal!? Could you read my question before answering it, please?
Or shall I rephrase my question re the TS corner? What do you make of the evidence of a ‘splice’ in Raes #1, the evidence of a madder dye, the evidence of the anomalous presence of cotton, the evidence of the presence of lignin, the evidencee of the anomalous UV fluorescence, the evidence of the anomalous Khi 2 test value? The fact is you make NOTHING of all these pieces od evidence! How scientific!
BTW a long thread crossing both the Raes section and what was to be the future C14 sample riserva was taken. In 1982 Heller delivered it to Dr Rossman, a minerealogist of the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), to be dated although it had not been approved by the Turin authorities. Wheteher Dr Rossman’s role was primary or secondary is of no importance here (CalTech denied by letter that Dr. Rossman ever performed the test though unofficially he did or facilitated it). Now the result was 12th AND 2nd c. CE for the same thread, which tends to confirm the presence of BOTH younger and older material in the TS corner.
No, Max, don’t rephrase your question. Read my answer more carefully. You want to know about the ‘splice’ in Raes #1. As it was being investigated by Robert Villarreal when it fell apart into its three pieces, I have referred to it as Villarreal’s splice for convenience. It was he who identified both ends as being cotton (now discredited) and more tentatively, the adhesive as being terpene. As it stands, little can be adduced from Villarreal’s observations. I do not believe anybody has tried to extend any thread simply by gluing another bit onto the end, and suspect the terpene simply made the fibres brittle so that they snapped at that place, although this is only a suggestion.
“The fact is you make NOTHING of all these pieces of evidence! How scientific!” Of course, Max. Whatever can be concluded from this evidence I have already stated in some detail. There is insufficient for anything more. That’s scientific. To derive anything else is fantasy. That’s not scientific.
The Rossman thread is another piece of inconclusive evidence from which no scientist can conclude anything. You can read all about it at http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/the-1982-carbon-dating-of-shroud-of.html.
In other words, all the anomalies observed in the Raes-C14 corner are just allegedly ‘anecdotal’. ‘Anecdotal’ the anomalous presence of thread-by-thread glueing with Arabic gum; ‘anecdotal’ the anomalous presence of madder root dye, ‘anecdotal’ the absence of vanillin in the lignin on shroud fibers; anecdotal the anomalous presence of cotton; andecdotal the failure of the Chi 2 test value etc. Methinks your conclusion all these anomalies are allegedly ‘just anecdotal’ IS not scientific AT ALL as long as you just cannot account for them in a rational way once you totally rule out the possibility of any hidden microreconstructions.
Not at all. Its no use putting your words into my mouth. I’ve said what I mean, and I meant what I said.
4/4/15
Reply to Charles Freeman
Charles,
Let me make this clear.
On March 5, 2015 you posted the following to this blog thread:
“Yes, confronted by John Klotz, Goodacre will presumably very easily find a number of experts in radio carbon dating who will tell him that there is no reason to doubt the dating (as I have- they are around).
“He will no doubt ask which of the critics of the dating who have confronted him have similar expertise. I can’t imagine that no one will refer him to the paper of Flury-Lemberg which refutes Rogers after her close- up examination of this corner of the Shroud, something never achieved by Marino or Benford.
“Anyway no harm in John in trying.”
To the very best of my knowledge your statement was factually incorrect. Flury-Lemberg never examined the close-up “this corner of the Shroud and her statement about that all the Shroud having the same content predated the carbon dating by two years.
I would have no knowledge about your basis for that false statement. But others in this thread have pointed out the simple truth that she never had an opportunity to examine personally the pieces cut for carbon sampling.
I would ask that you CITE AND QUOTE in this thread the specific authority upon which you rely in making your factual assertion. If she examined the photographs of the cut samples she is no better position than Benford-Marino and the experts they consulted or Pam Moon and the expert she consulted who is cited in my Finding Jesus critique. There are pictures of the Oxford carbon sample taken before it was destroyed during the carbon dating process. A source for viewing that sample is cited in my Finding Jesus review. Also cited is Pam Moon’s article on the history of mending of the Shroud by Valtre. In the photograph that black threads. Pam explains their cognizance.
Your first reference to Flury-Lemberg is sufficient to justify my critique. But you did repeatedly refer to her in the thread. I have recounted the number of times you referred to Flury-Lemberg in this context. The recount shows six times. Given the factual claim you made which was false, I do not believe that is a significant fact. It is, as they say, “de minimus.”
My book has over 500 footnotes. The review of “Finding Jesus” published on Shroud.com is 14 pages with 31 footnotes. Included as to point in question is a reference to harry Gove’s memoir and an E-Mail from Prof. William Meacham responding to an inquiry whether he recalled Fleury-Lemberg making her statement in 1986 at the conference referenced by Gove. He confirmed that and then added his interchange with Al Adler.
Now its time for me to compliment Professor Goodacre and I sent him a copy of it. I believed, that in fairness, I should inform him of my critique. His response – given my turgid review – was very professional and in good humor. He suggested that I comment on another blog which advocates the Shroud’s medieval fabrication. I checked the site and it appears that the author relied upon the claims of Walter McCrone. The blogger is ludicrous. If you would like, E-Mail me and I would be send you a copy of my Chapter 9 (free of charge) which demonstrates that. The offer is open to anyone.
I begin the Chapter 9 with a quotation from Revelations:
“These are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have
washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
Buried in the chapter is a description drawn from Heller’s memoir of his actions upon returning from first post-Turin STURP conference:
“Saturday, he returned to work, put on his white lab coat and went down the hall to the microscope lab and repeated the examinations, this time using his favorite Leitz microscope.”
I didn’t emphasize the relationship of that comment to the initial quote from Revelations hoping that readers would discover it for themselves. As far as I am concerned, the entire STURP team “washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.”
John. In her article that you continue to ignore, Flury-Lemberg sensibly asks where the reweave was. It clearly was not in the section that she examined that was left after the radiocarbon sample was removed or she and the other experts who examined the Shroud at this point would have spotted it.(And John Jackson specifically asserts that there was no reweaving from his own photographs of the banding.)
So, leaving aside Jackson’s pre-1988 evidence for a moment, it must have been WITHIN the radiocarbon sample but no one has spotted it there.The only other alternative is that the sample team cut out the reweave section so cleverly that no one could see the original joins of old and new on either side of the cut.
The basic point is that from Jackson onwards, no one has actually been able to spot and show with any kind of photographic evidence that there was a reweave.
Even if there was one, which clearly there was not, there would be no reason why a fourteenth century weave might not have needed to be patched up in the sixteenth century. It is a logical absurdity to suggest that if there was a sixteenth century reweave it would necessarily have been of a first century cloth.
Charles,
Have you bothered to examine the sources I have cited to you which included an in depth examination of the photograph of Oxford sample BEFORE it was destroyed in the carbon dating process and an explanation of the history of Shroud repairs.
Here they are again:
27http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Thomas_Ferguson_files/Updated_report_on
_the_Consideration_to_the_Uniformity_and_Effects_of_the_Fabric_in_the_Shroud_of_Turin-5-1.pdf
28http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Three_threads_files/BL%20Sebastian%20for%2
0website%201.pdf
I have also cited two sources for the fact that in 1986, Flury-Lemberg stated that the Shroud was “all the same in composition.” One was Harry Gove’s memoir on the Shroud and the other was E-Mail correspondence with Prof. William Meacham who suffers from a disability that both you and I lack: He was actually at the protocol 1986 protocol conference when she made the statement. He also added an additional bon mot: that Adler at the same conference remarked to him that Flury-Lemberg “obviously knew nothing about chemistry of the cloth.”
Adler, incidentally, unlike you or I, actually had the opportunity to inspect an analyze fiber from the carbon sample area that had been held back by Turin when the carbon sample was cut and were supplied to him through the good graces of Prof. Gonella, the scientific advisor of the Turin Archbishop. That were later supplied to Ray Rogers. See http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerpaper.pdf
I have challenged you or anybody else to tell me when Flury-Lemberg had an opportunity to physically examine the Shroud BEFORE the carbon samples were removed and destroyed and you haven’t done that. The evidence is she would have had no such opportunity. Also, I sincerely doubt she, unlike Pam Moon and linen expert Donna Campbell of the Thomas Ferguson firm, does not appear to have ever examined Oxford photograph. In fact, I am informed, and could be corrected, that Ms. Moon had to pry the photograph away from Oxford by the British equivalent of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
I will concede one point right now: the Campbell analysis does not state that repairs were made before 1355. For the existence of the Shroud before than we have to look for other sources. One of them is Flury-Lemberg because I assume that you did not in any of your effusive praise for her intentionally overlook the fact that she asserts the authenticity of the Shroud. In fact she has identified stitching of the side seam of the Shroud as reflective of stitching seen in remnants from the Masada which would perforce be evidence of its existence circa 74 CE.
In my CNN review, I also cite the evidence of the Shroud’s existence circa 500 CE; in exposition in Constantinople circa 1200 CE and its “fingerprints” seen in the Pray Manuscript circa 1200 CE.
Is the evidence circumstantial, of course. However, Richard Dawkins, himself a Shroud skeptic, argues that circumstantial evidence is often more reliable than eyewitness accounts. Dawkins, Richard , pp. 15-16, 106, “Greatest Show on Earth,” Free Press. Kindle Edition. In fact. in my discussion in Chapter 1 of “Quantum Christ” (Rules of the Road) I demonstrated that from just two facts in the third verse of the Ira Gershwin lyrics to “I Can’t Get Started,” Gershwin was twitting i.e. “jerking the chain” of Joseph Kennedy, whose son John was later elected President of the United States.
Finally, there is the excellent presentation in de Wesselow’s “The Sign.” As an agnostic he refuses to concede the realty of the Resurrection but as to authenticity of the Shroud, he has no doubt.
I understand that you have differences with de Wesselow who had the temerity to write his book without consulting you. Or did he?
Hugh, you wrote: “Chemist Robert Villarreal who headed a team of nine scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory, examined material from the carbon 14 sampling region and stated:
“The age-dating process in 1988 failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry, that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.”
When yourself have never examined any TS thread that I know of, do you think Villareal’s opinion is not scientific compared to your self-claimed ‘absolutetly scientific opinion’ ?
Correction: Hugh, you wrote re Villarreal’s opinion on splicing: “(his opnion is) now discredited”.
John. I am not interested in what Flury-Lemberg did or did not say way back in 1986. I am interested in what she did say in 2007, after her close-up examination of the Shroud, when she confirmed that there was no reweave in the area where the sample was taken from and she then asked the question: where was the reweave, how far did it extend,etc? No answer to her question has,so far as I know,ever come.
Flury-Lemberg does not need effusive praise from me- she has got it from her colleagues in the world of ancient textiles (see Wikipedia biography).
It is hard to imagine,how those who have read/seen the evidence of John Jackson from his own photographs of 1978, could argue that there was a reweave, so the onus is on you to show where it was. Perhaps you can start with Jackson’s 1978 photos of the banding and mark in where you can see the signs of the reweave.
I cannot find any reference in Donna Campbell’s very careful examination that she saw any reweaving in the Oxford sample- please quote where she did say that there was.
Fibres are not enough- reweaving is, by definition, about woven cloth, not fibres.
The stitch issue was sorted out on this very blog where it was shown that the stitch in question is a common one used throughout history and to this day.
I see absolutely no reason to believe that there ever was a reweave- not a single expert who has dealt directly with the Shroud or woven samples from it has ever seen it. If they had we would have had a photograph of it by now.
What are you talking about? I did not write any of what I am supposed to have said in your first post above. I did say that Villarreal’s opinion has been discredited. This was not originally by me, but by authenticists, who now think that spectroscopic analyses of ancient linen and cotton are too similar for any conclusion to be made regarding one or the other. See http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlschoonoverppt.pdf.
Oops! Charles’s reply to John slipped in before my reply to Max. I hope it’s clear enough anyway!
What is clear is Villarreal’s (and Roger’s) opinion still stand (“The age-dating process in 1988 failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry, that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.”) and you just cannot account for the anomalies observed in the Raes/C14 sampling corner.
Well, fair enough. I disagree completely, of course. Whether anything can be made of an alleged unrepresentative sample depends very much on how unrepresentative it is. That has been the whole tenor of recent discussion. But simply to announce: “It isn’t pure, therefore nothing can be made of it,” provides a convenient escape for those who would rather not pursue the question.
Escapism from C14 sampling corner anomalies is all yours. What about those anti-authenticists like youself who cannot account for the anomalies but still pursue their answer as if there were none?