Forensic Chemistry Handbook, edited by Lawrence Kobilinsky (John Wiley & Sons, 2012, 528 pages; List $125.00, $94.99 at Amazon, ebook version by Google, $99.99) is described as a concise, robust introduction to the various topics covered by the discipline of forensic chemistry. That may be. But one section in a chapter entitled, “Analysis of Paint Evidence,” by Scott G. Ryland and Edward M. Suzuki stands out as embarrassingly unscientific. Here is the passage from the book:
The Shroud of Turin There has probably never been an object analyzed by a forensic science laboratory that has generated more controversy than the Shroud of Turin. The shroud is a linen cloth that appears to bear the image of a man. It is believed by some to be the cloth that was placed on Jesus Christ prior to his burial, with the image formed by blood, secretions, or other means. The shroud is kept at the Cathedral or Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
In 1977, a team or scientists was selected to study the shroud, with this investigation given the designation Shroud or Turin Research Project (STURP). One of the STURP team members was Walter McCrone (1916—2002), a leading microscopist and founder of the McCrone Research Institute and McCrone Associates in Chicago. McCrone’s main tool for this investigation was polarized light microscopy, although he confirmed his findings using a variety of other analytical methods. In 1979, based on his analyses, McCrone concluded that there is no blood on the shroud and that the image is produced by a paint consisting of a collagen tempera binder pigmented with red ochre (mainly ferric oxide) and vermilion (mercuric sulfide) (McCrone and Skirius, 1980; McCrone, 1980. 1981). This was a common paint composition during the fourteenth century and McCrone stated that “the Shroud is a beautiful painting by an inspired medieval artist."
McCrone was the only STURP team member to reach this conclusion, and when other members learned that he disagreed with them, his samples were confiscated and he was removed from the team. when his conclusions became public. he received hate mail and death threats. In 1989, three independent radiocarbon studies of the shroud were conducted at the University of Arizona. Oxford University, and the Swiss Federal Institute or Technology. The data from all three laboratories were consistent and indicated that the shroud originated from the time Period 1260 to 1390 (Damon et al.. 1989), confirming McCrone’s earlier claim. More details of this case are described in Judgement (sic) Day for the Shroud of Turin (McCrone. 1999b). In 2000. the American Chemical Society acknowledged McCrone for his contributions to chemical microscopy—specifically citing his studies on the shroud—by honoring him with the American Chemical Society Award in Analytical Chemistry.
If the shroud generated so much controversy, as Ryland and Suzuki contend, you would think that these authors would have looked at and addressed material from the other side of the controversy and not merely relied on McCrone, as they seem to have done. They might have done some simple fact checking. The names of everyone who was part of STURP is a matter of public record. It would be easy enough to contact some of them, examine what they wrote and ask, in a scholarly fashion, why there was so much controversy. Let’s look at it, briefly.
Was McCrone a member of STURP? No! Despite the fact that McCrone claimed that he was a member, he never was. He wrote that he had been "drummed out" of the group because they did not like his conclusions. It is true that they did not like his conclusions. They were absurd in light of all the evidence gathered in Turin. But McCrone had refused to agree to STURP’s professional standards agreement including non-disclosure. He was thus not accepted as part of STURP. He never joined STURP. McCrone also claimed that STURP, upon learning of his findings, confiscated his samples and that STURP brought in other scientists to replace him. None of this is true. They were not his samples.
Raymond Rogers, who was a member of STURP, had collected 32 sample tapes that included thousands of particles of matter taken from the Shroud’s surface. On his way back to Los Alamos from Turin, he stopped in Chicago and loaned the samples to McCrone (even though McCrone was not a member of STURP). As protocol, two stipulations that were agreed to:
- The samples were to be studied by microscope in situ. Particles were not to be removed from the tapes.
- The samples were to be returned as soon as McCrone had examined them.
McCrone violated the protocol. He also damaged some of the sample tapes by pressing them into glass slides. He then he refused to return them. Finally, Rogers had to fly to Chicago to retrieve them, not confiscate them.
Why did every scientist in STURP disagree with McCrone? That is best answered in two brief articles written by Rogers as well as specific material from Rogers’ book, “A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin.” One would have thought that Ryland and Suzuki, would have considered other materials by real members of STURP. Here are two articles:
Here is a quote from Rogers’ book:
Raman spectrometry is much like IR spectrometry: however, it sees different motions of the chemical functional groups. It provides a good complement to IR Unfortunately. we could not make the observations in Turin, but fibers from the tape samples could be analyzed in the US.
Joan Rogers identified suitable fibers on the tape samples and prepared them for analysis. She took tapes, fibers from non-image areas, and fibers from image areas to Instruments SA, Inc., in Metuchen, N.J. in December 1979, The samples were analyzed by Dr. Fran Adar. Similar samples were analyzed by Mark Anderson, McCrone’s MOLE expert in January 1980.
Anderson observed that most of the red flecks on the Shroud “bubbled up and turned black" when he hit them with the laser beam. This was an entirely different response than he got from authentic hematite crystals. He said it “acted like an organic phase" (21 January 1980). Walter McCrone refused to accept those observations. If he wanted the image to be painted with hematite, no conflicting observations would be allowed. (emphasis mine)
It was easy for the microprobes to detect the Mylar backing on the sampling tapes. But no quantitatively significant Raman spectra could be obtained from any of the samples. There was no evidence for any chemical products from Saponaria officinalis or any other coating on image fibers.
UV and visible spectrometry would not see significant differences among the carbohydrates. The -Oil vibrational slates of all of the carbohydrates and water are very broad and intense, and neither JR nor Raman spectrometry could distinguish among them. we were not looking for trace carbohydrate impurities, we were looking for painting-type impurities on the cloth.
All of the observational methods agreed that no pigments. normal painting vehicles, or natural exudations (other than the blood) had been added to the cloth after its production. The image on the Shroud of Turin is not a painting. No foreign materials were added to the cloth in image areas.’
And then there was Ryland’s and Suzuki’s blind acceptance of the carbon dating results. Forget the facts that this has been challenged by numerous scientists. Forget the fact that Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. Forget the fact that chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth.
Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.”
If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. That is honest forensic chemistry. We cannot do as Ryland and Suzuki do: confirming bad science with bad science. That is just not scientific. It makes one wonder about the rest of the book.
Quote from Dan : “If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is.”
Totally true. But we must say that there is some powerful evidence for a very ancient origin for the Shroud and a Palestinian root. First, there was the estimation made by Roger with the Vanilin level and he came to an estimate age for the cloth between 1300 and 3000 years old. In other word, for Rogers, the cloth was much more older than the C14 result and it could well be old enough for a 1st century age.
And secondly, there was this interesting finding made by Mechtild Flury-Lemberg of a very particular kind of seam that link the main part of the Shroud with the side strip. As an ancient textile expert, Madam Flury-Lemberg state that she never saw this kind of seam before, except once in some remains of jewish cloths from the Massada Fortress. Those pieces of cloth were dated from the 1st century and since they were jewish cloths, we can see a great clue there with the kind of seam that was used. In the context of the Shroud, since there is also a seam like that and that this kind of seam is very unusual, we can use this clue to say that seam on the Shroud was probably made in Palestine around the 1st century. And since it was proven by the STURP team that the side strip and the main part of the Shroud came from the same manufactured cloth and the 2 pieces were probably sewing together shortly after they were cut (for an unknown reason), we can deduced that cloth manufactured period is roughly the same as the age of the seam. For me, it’s one important clue that link the Shroud with a 1st century Palestinian origin.
So, those 2 clues are well enough to at least guess that the Shroud is a cloth from the 1st century, probably made in Palestine. Of course, another C14 test properly done would be needed to confirm this possibility… Unfortunatelly, I don’t think we will have a definitive answer on that soon.
In this controversy, it can be clearly seen the reason why the issue of the Shroud still remains doubtful for the scientific community. In any other scientific field, it would be unbelievable that these results (true blood vs painting)depend on who we believe (McCrone vs Rogers) instead of the proofs themselves, which should be straightaway available to any scientist in the frame of a transparent system for evidence custody and management.
If we want a true scientific research (and not a permanent “murkier than ever” status) , the current “scientific” approach to the Shroud must be rebuilt from the scratch and the whole set of protocols commonly accepted for any scientific field, should be adopted once and for all.
Although I agree 100% with your statement, don’t hold your breath for a ‘rebuild’! I think there is alot of powerful people who don’t want this to happen or for the ‘truth’ to come out!. This is the only real causation I can conclude after weighing all the ‘murkiness’ over the years….and I am not a conspiracy theorist or whakco, but something is definitely going on here.
R
I am afraid I approach this issue as an attorney. We have an expression “res ipsa loquitur:” the facts speak for themselves. In this case the only fact that challenges the authenticity of the Shroud is the carbon dating which has been refuted by Ray Rogers among others. On the other hand when you add up all the other facts, the only logical conclusion is that the Shroud is authentic. There is no other person from the first century CE that has been identified that suffered and died like Christ. The Shroud and the common facts among the four Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion complement and reinforce each other.
I won’t bother to refute McCone, Shroud.com and shroudstory.com contain ample rebuttal. To evaluate McCone with Rogers is preposterous and it is the kind of logic the underlies some of the insanity of our times. Take for example the creationists who belivee the Universe is 6,000 years old. There are times when we have to choose and any one who is intellectually honestly open to the facts will I believe choose Rogers.
The real mystery about the Shroud is how the imagine was created. Clearly not by human hand but by some yet unidentified process. There are theories but none thus far have proved out.
I believe that what we have seen in the Shroud thus far offers support for the Resurrection but not yet proof. As far its authenticity is concerned, the case is sufficient and I believe we should move-on to the real mystery of image creation. Solving that mystery may truly unlock the mysteries of own existence and destiny.
johnklotz.blogspot.com
I say AMEN to the last comment. But I would add something about this part of the comment : “I believe we should move-on to the real mystery of image creation.” I would just said that, from my perspective, it is also time to focus on what those images can tell us ! Of course, it is true only from a faithful perspective but, nevertheless, I think we should try to capture the very essence of the message that the Shroud have to tell. And this message, to me, is simply this : God is love. Since the Shroud confirm the gospel accounts for the Passion and death of Christ, I don’t see why it cannot confirm, at least to a certain point, the heart of the message of Christ which is that God is love and God loves everyone of his children. When you look at the images on the Shroud, it’s hard to accuse God of being insensible to the suffering of his children or to see him like a big judge of the universe who just wait to throw every infidels in hell ! I think the message of the Shroud is far more important for mankind than to know what really was the image formation process. But, of course, I don’t deny that this question should be explore more and more… But, I think we, the christians, have more to gain by searching the profound message of love hidden in those bloody and body images than just to focus on the image formation process. That’s my profound belief and that was exactly why I get interested in the Shroud first. It was not because of the “mystery” of the images but because of the message those images contains ! :-)
Yannick have you ever considered that the ‘image formation’ or cause of, may be part of the message? The Shroud may have several messages all bound into one simple cloth! Only something God could pull off! …For Catholics, Christians, believers, it is sign of love and to stay the course in all the turmoil of our present ‘world thinking’. The image formation alone, may be a sign to all the non-believers, skeptics, ‘science only brains’ out there, saying; Here you want proof? Wrack your brains over this for awhile….this is my interpretation ofcourse of it’s possible meaning.
R
You know what I think Ron, I think the Shroud is a SIGN. And, as I know, a SIGN always point to something else that is the goal ! And, in the case of the Shroud, the SIGN point directly to a person, Jesus-Christ. So, it’s not the Shroud and his image formation mechanism (whatever it can be) that is important, it is the person depicted on the Shroud and the message he bring to all mankind. That’s what is important. If the Shroud would disappeared or been destroyed, that wouldn’t be a disaster because we know it was there and real. We know it was a SIGN that point into one direction : Jesus-Christ and his message of Love. That’s what really matter to me. The Shroud is a material object, like the empty tomb was. It’s not important in itself. What matters is the man and the message he point to. And I would also say this : genuine or not, it’s not even so important because I’m sure that the Holy Spirit use this cloth for a good purpose which is this : bring many people closer to the real God reveal by Jesus-Christ and especially by his death on the cross. As St-Paul said : We believe in a Christ, and in a crucified Christ. That was the heart of St-Paul message. A crucified Christ = Love for all mankind. That’s what is really important.
Amen back to you Yannick. There is only one commandment, love. I had an epiphany of sorts about a year ago when for the first time I really examined the Shroud material on both Shroud.com and Shroudstory.com. For maybe the first time, when viewing the scourge wounds I empathized with the tortured Christ and felt His sacrifice.
Four years ago I wrote about my mourning of my adult son Michael. Some of the scientific metaphors (event horizon and black hole) have passed from metaphor to reality in the past year. Recently I read a piece by Ed Gordon, Depak Chopra and others describing the interaction of the quantum mechanics and human consciousness. I believe that love is infact a quantum entanglement and that the study of the Shroud will lead us to grater understanding and just ow entangled we can become with God through love. It’s all coming together.
If you are interested check: http://johnklotz.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html
Hello John. I sympatize with you about your Son’s death. The Shroud has a GREAT message of hope for someone like you. The message is that God so love the world that he gave his own son so that all humanity could find eternal life (and I would add : eternal love). Isn’t that great ? God is not a big bearded man who sit on his throne in the sky and doesn’t matter too much about our life. No. He took our human condition and live a life like everyone of us and died just like everyone of us. And we can see that this theological thinking that came from the Gospel is true when we look at the Shroud ! God is love as St-John said and we can see that he wasn’t lying by looking at Shroud and meditate on those bloody and body images… And it doesn’t matter wheter the body images were done by the resurrection or by a natural process. What really matter is the message told by those images. That’s what I believe… And that’s why the Church use the term “icon” to talk officially about the Shroud. It’s true ! The Shroud is the greatest icon of the love of God for all manking that ever exist because it wasn’t made by a human being.
As for this blog topic; After reading the passages Dan has posted above from the book, I personally would not be able to trust anything else written in this book! If the author(s) could be that one-sighted and dare I say ‘purposely ignorant’ of the true facts on just that one topic, what else would one expect from the rest of the book? …Hense I will never purchase it.
R
Yannick I think you misinterpreted my statement and I was literally asking you a question of whether you think the image formation can be a sign on its’ own! …In My last statement, I was trying to say that non-believers (most anyways) will not listen to most reasoning so maybe since they will listen to logic or science, God gave them a sign also in the shroud to prove what we believers already know. Just as Jesus had to literally show Thomas his wounds. Unlike you I think the Shroud is important and also the first Gospel, directly from God.
R
I respect what you believe Ron but I disagree completely with you on that point. Many person used the story of Thomas to make believe the Shroud is acting in the same way for unbelievers. I don’t agree with this thinking and I even see a danger of idolatry there. And that’s why you’ll never see the Church using the Shroud as a banner to convert people ! Faith, by definition, doesn’t rely on any proof. If it could, it wouldn’t be faith no more. The Shroud will never be a proof of anything except in the eyes of the person who already is a believer ! That’s what I think. If you read again the gospel of the doubting Thomas, the profound message of this story is not to congratulate Thomas for is lack of faith ! It was writen to congratulate and encourage those who believe without seeing Jesus. Jesus said that to Thomas (blessed are those who believe without seeing) because he knew that he wouldn’t stay on earth no more to be seen by people and that we, the faithful, would need to believe without really seeing him. That’s what we call faith. The Shroud, as a sign of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is a sign that point to him and his message of salvation and nothing else. But I repeat, we need faith to see the sign… For someone who doesn’t believe in Christ, the Shroud is a fake, or maybe the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth and nothing else. They’re not able to see the sign that we can see as believers.
And I’ll finish with this : If God wanted to help the unbelievers with physical proofs, don’t you think that Jesus would still be here on earth right now to show that he’s still alive and he is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God ???
God doesn’t want his children to be forced to believe in him because of some kind of proofs. God want his children to be FREE, even if that meant many of them will reject him (on earth). I really believe this. And what I really believe also is that those people who reject him right now will open their eyes when they’ll die. That’s my hope for them. I believe in the universal salvation of all humanity. For me, the Shroud is a very great sign of this…
To summarize what I meant, I could say that I really believe the Shroud is there for those who already believe in God to strenghten their faith and I believe he’s also there for those who are not sure yet about God existence but are open to the question. I don’t believe the Shroud is there to convert people who don’t believe in God one bit (the atheists).
You say “Faith by definition , doesn’t rely on any proof”…In a perfect world maybe! and a perfect soul. Even the disciples whom followed Jesus for years, in the end, needed proof. And God knew this (and also that man in general is just that cynical). Why did Jesus have to return and show himself to the disciples? Because he knew they didn’t have the ‘faith’ to ‘believe’, go forward, and spread his church…Why is Jesus not here? God cannot dwell on this earth, but he gave man free will, and he’s given man signs over and over again in so many ways. By leaving a sign to me does not seem like ‘forcing’ anyone. It’s basically; here’s a sign, a proof that I am here, now think about it. He wants everyone to have the chance to witness his love. I also do not see it as anything close to idolatry. You assume this my friend, if one can view the shroud, hopefully grasp it’s message, you see this as idolatry? …nonsense. This thinking stems from Church thinking, which personally I do not agree with (In this case). Read the 4th commandment again closely, please. Finally if what you say is true, why is the Shroud here at all? If believers don’t need it because they have faith and non-believers will not see it for what it is, then again why the Shroud?
R
If you need proof to believe my dear Ron, you must be the saddest of man… You seem to be a little confuse about “sign” and “proof”. Read again the Gospels of the apparition of Jesus resurrected. Everytime, they had difficulties to recongnize him ! He wasn’t the same no more ! He didn’t impose is presence to them and they were still free to believe in him or not ! If he would have appeared to them exactly in the same human body form that he had before is death, that would have been a forced belief and he wouldn’t have respected the free will of his beloved disciples. God don’t force anybody to believe in him. If there was a proof of Jesus resurrection, it wouldn’t be respectfull of our free will… THE FACT IS : THERE’S NO PROOF. FAITH IS NEEDED. But you’re free to see proof where there’s just a sign…
To summarize what I meant : God is Love and Love doesn’t impose himself. Love is respectful of our freedom as human beings. That’s why there’s no proof (in a scientific sense) of Jesus resurrection.
Last comment about the risk of idolatry with the Shroud. What is idolatry in your mind ? Here’s my own definition : Idolatry is when you focus far more your attention on the physical sign than on the person this sign point to (Jesus-Christ). You don’t see a risk of this with the Shroud ? I see it everyday here on this blog !!! That’s why the Church to “use” the Shroud to convert people or to promote his teaching… And it’s a VERY good thing that the Church act like that. The Shroud is nothing important. Jesus-Christ is the center of our belief. Nobody should need the Shroud to believe in Jesus.
Count me among the guilty.
If you consider yourself among those Dan, sorry for you. ;-)
I am definitely not the confused one here my dear Yannick, I do not need any ‘signs’ or ‘proof’ to have faith, I have known Jesus since I was a wee little lad ;-). I was speaking of others who lack faith or others whose faith has waned. Seriously, I really think you should read the Gospels again (CAREFULLY) as Jesus did SHOW himself to all 11 apostles and many others, CLEARLY. Also ONLY FEW DID NOT RECOGNISE HIM AT FIRST. When he showed himself to the disciples including Thomas and had them insert their fingers into his wounds; How is that not “imposing” my friend?. He spent 40 more days and nights with them and others, all knew who he was. There was no question at all! …That is how they recieved his spirit and the faith to go out and preach the word without fear. To think otherwise is preposterous.
R
Whatever you want to believe, this is the freedom God gave you my dear Ron. But I recommand you to read again the gospel part when Mary Magdalene encounter the resurrected Jesus for the first time. She don’t recongnize him at first sight. And the gospel of the 2 disciples who goes to Emaus. They don’t recongnize him at first sight. And the gospel of the last chapter of John. They were many disciples and they only recongnize Jesus after the SIGN he gave them (the miraculous fishing)… If you still think that the resurrected Jesus looked exactly like the image depicted on the Shroud, this is your freedom. But I don’t believe this in the light of the gospel accounts. The appearence of the resurrected Jesus was a bit different than the appearence he had during his lifetime on earth, this is quite clear when you read the gospels. Why it was like that ? To respect the freedom of the disciples to believe in him or not. They were still free… That’s my belief.
Geez sometimes Yannick you can be pretty daft, sorry but it’s true. Not once did I say one must idolize the Shroud. But the Shroud is here and if you believe it is here because God created it, and wanted us to see it, then how can it be idolatry to accept it’s message, it’s ‘sign’. Not placing it ahead of God but seeing it as a sign of what he did for us and a proof of his love for us….Is that clear enough? If by the wonderment of this Shroud, meaning, it’s inability to be understood ‘scientifically’, it brings some to question thier worldviews and thus to try to find God, what possibly can be wrong with that? The Shroud does not force anyone to do anything, it is an inanimate object…For someone who claims to have faith in Jesus you seem to have a hard time believing this may be a direct gift from God….atleast it seems that way from your comments.
R
I see the Shroud as a sign and nothing else. It’s not a miraculous object in the sense that it didn’t possess special powers or things like that. What I’m desperately trying to say is that there’s a danger for some people (surely not you) to focus more on the Shroud and his “mystery” than to focus on Jesus and his message of Love ! That’s all I say. If someone focus more on the Shroud than on Jesus, that’s where it became idolatry and I’m sure some people are like that.
OMG Yannick seriously please read my posts carefully!. Once you do I would suggest YOU re-visit the Gospels and particularly any mentions of Jesus’s appearances after the tomb. Then you will clearly understand that all the disciples knew and recognized Jesus, undoubtably!. Secondly no one has said the Shroud is a “miraculous object with special powers”, only a sign! Also if one believes that this Shroud has been left here by God, as I do, then in that sense it is a ‘Sign from God’…It possesses maybe special knowledge, that is quite obvious since it cannot be explained by our finest minds. So in that context, again; If that special knowledge can be noticed or can attract non-believers minds to question his or hers ‘worldview’ and possibly have them think “hey maybe there is something to this Jesus thing”, it may cause them to start their own personal search for Jesus. Think of the Shroud same as the tablets of the Ten commandments, they were inanimate objects but created by God and for us to follow and learn from…same principle, same difference. No one would idolize the tablets themselfs, but the one who made them.
R