We learn over at the Holy Shroud Guild website that Giorgio Bracaglia has just uploaded an interesting research paper to Academia.edu: The Reader’s Cognitive Response toward Two Problematic Peer-Reviewed Manuscripts
From the abstract we learn:
This research explores two populations’ cognitive responses towards two peer reviewed manuscripts. In both manuscripts, experts in the field criticize the text, and conclude them unfit for publication. To examine participants’ feelings relative to the critic’s report, a survey was created that deliberately opposes the manuscript’s legitimacy, and accepts the critic’s assertion. Two populations were surveyed on two distinct subjects. The subjects ranged from the radiocarbon testing of the Shroud of Turin defying the results performed by three distinguished laboratories, to the dangers of Glyphosate (Roundup) for human consumption. The first group was specifically targeted based on their expertise on the Shroud of Turin. The second group was randomly selected, and has no known level of expertise on either of the two topics.
Jumping right away, as I often do, to the conclusion, I find this:
Rogers work is immeasurable in the Shroud s scientific community. The intent to use Rogers manuscript was not to discredit Rogers thesis, but to offer why division existed between two factions about its rank.
The one peer reviewed manuscript we care about:
Thermochimica Acta, by Raymond Rogers is a manuscript about the Shroud of Turin. Rogers was a chemist who was considered by his peers to be an expert in thermal analysis. In 2005, his writing challenged the radiocarbon dating result performed in 1988 stating the Shroud’s origin was between 1260-1390 AD. Rogers was no stranger to the Shroud of Turin. He was the co-founder of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), which was a group of American scientists that performed an investigation of the Shroud in 1978. In 1981, STURP’s official statement reported that the Shroud is not a product of an artist but is a form of a scourged crucified man. In the Christian community, this was wonderful news. However, the exhilaration did not last long when three laboratories, University of Arizona, ETH Zürich, Switzerland, and Oxford University in 1988 announced that the radiocarbon measurements dated the Shroud’s origin between 1260-1390 AD. These findings prompted strong reactions from Sindonologists who refuted the laboratories claim. Sindonologists are a group of specialized scientists or researchers that studies the Shroud of Turin.
In 2000, Rogers received reports from long time Sindonologist researchers, Joe Marino and Sue Bedford. They hypothesized that the radiocarbon dating was not from threads excised from the main body of the Shroud, but rather from a location contaminated with dye cotton used in the restoration of the Shroud.
Remember: this is not a study of Rogers’ manuscript (or the other paper) but The Reader’s Cognitive Response toward Two Problematic Peer-Reviewed Manuscripts. The paper should be read in its entirety.
Even though both manuscripts faced strong opposition from their contemporaries, both manuscripts had a broad support amongst their followers. The broad support might be attributed to confirmation bias. Nickerson (1998) explained that confirmation bias“gives undue weight to, evidence that supports one’s position while neglecting to gather or discounting, evidence that would tell against it” (p.175).
Giorgio has summarized the “strong opposition from … contemporaries” to Rogers’ paper for us. Here are some pieces of that.
Rogers’ manuscript successfully established ownership for the threads; however, what Rogers failed to offer was the chronological documentation pertaining to the threads. It is possible Rogers familiarity with the threads made him lax in procuring the proper protocol producing the chain of custody.
Gonella then said that he had reason to believe that some or all of Raes’ samples had been switched with materials not originally from the Shroud. (Personal archive collection of the Holy Shroud Guild, Nitowski, 1986)
Manuscript validity depends on the author and reviewer’s ability to ensure the accuracy of the final manuscript. People are all guilty of confirmation bias…. Social bias also threatens the peer review process. Reviewers can be influenced by the perceived status of the researcher’s reputation in their particular field, rather than the actual content of the manuscript. In the case of Rogers, he served on the editorial board of Thermochimica Acta from 1970 until his retirement, in 1988….
And so what did the conclusion say?
… These observations may have indicated that participant’s cognitive responses towards these two problematic peer reviewed manuscripts appear to be dependent on the participant’s predetermined experience and inferences on the subject….
Confirming what I thought! (I couldn’t resist).
After all, that was what the study was about. But the criticisms of Rogers and his paper remain, wanting to be examined more, refuted hopefully and dismissed. Yes, I seem to be biased. I know that.
The cited paper seems to ignore the fact that at the time Rogers published in Thermo Chimica Acta, he was in fact in possession of threads from the 1/2 have of the carbon data sample that was held-back and was in possession of Gonnella.
Also his description of the history of Benford-Marino and Ray Rogers totally elides the fact that Rogers’s first intent was to disprove Benford-Marino claim. (And he didn’t get the paper from Benford-Marino, he read it on Shroud.com.) For example, Joe Marino may have been a “long-time” Shroud reseracher. Sue Benford was a “newbie.”
Finally, at the St. Louis conference Pam Moon made a presentation based upon the papers of a textile expert that indeed the pictures of the Oxford sample showed evidence of reweaving and I was startled by how evident the reweaving was. An update on her preentation can be found at:
This “cognitive” expert has real cognitive problems. His history of Benford-Marino and Rogers is in large part fiction. When it comes to analyzing the Shroud, each expert approaches from his field of expertise and disregards contrary analysis that disputes his perspective or bias. Cf Charles Freeman for example. Thus they go down long circuitous paths that have little relationship to the reality of the Shroud.
Each expert that limits his or her analysis to his or her chosen field is like the parable of the blind men and the elephant. It’s a snake, no its’ a wall, no it’s a tree.
typo: Gonnella = Gonella
good points John…especially about possession of threads and original intent of Rogers….i
believe that he he refered to Benford-Marino as the “lunitic fringe”
So that familiarity and expertise with the topic equates to confirmation bias? Ignorance of the topic and of other related fields equates to objectivity? Is not the “Cognitive Response” paper itself an excellent example of “Confirmation Bias”?
“Finally, at the St. Louis conference Pam Moon made a presentation based upon the papers of a textile expert that indeed the pictures of the Oxford sample showed evidence of reweaving and I was startled by how evident the reweaving was.”
How odd. I saw no evidence for reweaving at all. Donna Campbell, the textile expert, says tentatively: “There are signs in the Shroud sample that direct the notion of mending or reweaving of the actual woven fabric,” which is hardly conclusive. Donna Campbell also points out the irregularity of the thread spacing in the sample she examined, but rightly attributes this to “the collapse of the yarns at the cut edge.” She also notices a black ‘thread’ which is in fact scarcely thicker than one of the fibres of the linen, which could have been used in stitching. And so it could, and probably was. Pam Moon suggests who might have put it there; Bl Sebastian Valfrè.
Giorgio’s paper is not about the the Shroud. It is an interesting work about the cognitive response of the readers of Rogers’ paper (and another one).
Nevertheless, I would like to comment some sentences.
“They hypothesized that the radiocarbon dating was not from threads excised from the main body of the Shroud, but rather from a location contaminated with dye cotton used in the restoration of the Shroud.”
First, I repeat (!) that Rogers never said that the C14 corner was made of “old” linen fibers mixed with “new” dyed cotton fibers. This is nonsense. He said that the C14 corner is a mixture of “old” linen threads mixed with “new” linen+cotton threads, suggesting a repair.
” Due to the lack of documentation pertaining to the threads’ chain of custody, Rogers’ contemporaries questioned the threads authenticity and his research findings. The ethical responsibility by the authors and journals is paramount to the peer review process. Without any attempt at the author or journal to clarify the chain of custody or vigorously pursue questionable data, it might appear that both parties may have violated their ethical responsibility to their audience.”
It is true that Rogers did not ‘clarify’ the chain of custody of his samples.
The main reason comes from the fact that ‘ the Archbishop Emeritus of Turin, Giovanni Saldarini requested all unauthorized threads to be returned to Turin and any testing would be disowned on all unreturned threads’
But both Rogers’ Raes and C14 samples were authorized samples by Card Ballestrero.
Unfortunately, Rogers had to take into account these ‘political’ reasons.
It is obvious that Ray Rogers took it for granted that the samples sent to him were authentic because they came from the clerics in Turin. Some doubt was expressed about what came from another source. See response to question 3:
Thibault, That is a remarkable paper, and certainly seems to show a clear enough chain of custody of Rogers’ samples, along with corroborating his findings that the C14 samples were unrepresentative of the main cloth.
Bracaglia has learnt how to handle his tools and then
he tried to do something.
Unfortunately our Shroud-world seems to be too complex
to be reduced with statistical parameters …
For example: recently I was a bit puzzled about the lack of answer
on that controversial argument (the “little work” by Giorgio Bracaglia)
from an italian person who knows the Shroud very well …
Perhaps he had other problems to solve.
I have read the interesting intervention by John Klotz,
but he has forgotten that the interesting interim report
done by Donna Campbell (Thomas Ferguson Irish Linen)
using photographic images (found on Oxford University website)
was a superficial analysis and then cannot be accurate…
We have to do a more careful work using adequate advanced tools…
As (often) I am accustomed to do in my messages (on this blog)
I point the finger towards the “incontrovertible verdict”
I indicated that will be obtained from the future “magical AFM works”…
But, in my opinion, before these hi-tech controls
(on faultiness of cellulosic chains, in fact
the cellulose chains cannot remain unchanged
with a detectable radiation exposure, etc., etc.)
a more scientific “fault-finding work” can be done…
That work can be extended to the entire Shroud of Turin
(and then this idea follows [is consequential to] the ending
suggestion by Donna Campbell about the “hidden secrets”
that can be revealed…).
Bracaglia may have “learned to handle his tools,” but in his statement of FACTS that prefaced his work he totally misstated the relationship between Benford-Marino and Rogers. Also, the photographs provided Donna Campbell were of far higher resolution than that available to Benford-Marino. I stand by my statement that visual observation of those photographs shows anomalies.
The interesting point is that Oxford did not provide them willingly. Apparently they were produced because of an English law equivalent of the U,S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). My assumption is that they had to be made available because Oxford was using governmental grant money in its carbon dating process (or is Oxford a arm of the government?)
I am not a FOIA expert although I have used it for governmental records (FBI files)and air pollution reports in other lines of research.
The question I might pose is whether the U.S. FOIA might be an avenue to Arizona’s surviving sample of the Shroud or at least to the raw data that it has thus far refused to publish (that’s the claim). Perhaps STERA or the Shroud Science Group should look at this.
Did Donna Campbell find any cotton threads?
Read the paper before you ask the question. http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Three_threads_files/BL%20Sebastian%20for%20website%201.pdf
She did not find cotton because of the resolution of the sample she was provdied. What she did find was was consistent with what Rogers found: Cotton interwoven with new (medieval) linen and ancient linen. She also found previously not noted: black threads which were consistent with repairs done by Blessed Sebastian Valfrè.
From Pam Moon’s 2015 paper:
“The significance of unraveling is that it is impossible to know what contaminants were added to the fibres before it was rewoven. Donna Campbell wrote that the areas with a different weft and warp interlacement ‘could contain different fibres with different characteristics.’ Ray Rogers identified cotton fibres spiced into a linen yarn confirmed by Robert Villerreal. These cotton fibres were held in place with a crust of terpene. At
the conference Robert described to me how the laboratory spent a considerable time examining the crust to determine the presence of terpene. If the terpene solution was a pine oil disinfectant, its gluey nature will have stick fibres to the Shroud material. Once the new contaminants are rewoven they become tied into the new material by the weave process and the stitches. They would not be removed by pre-treatment cleaning. “
Interesting point. As I understand it the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit provides services for private as well as public bodies, and I would not expect a commission from, say, the Diocese of Turin to be automatically available under the Freedom of Information Act. A commission from the British Museum, which is a publicly funded body, would be another matter. “I have a right to see the the results because I paid for them,” being the operative explanation. I believe this to be the case here.
I don’t think the Oxford labs were being particularly secretive, however. I just think it is a bore and a waste of research time to hunt down old research results on the whim of a casual inquirer. Making a FOI request suggests a certain sincerity and an intention to do something worthwhile with what is provided, and is therefore treated with more respect, so somebody went off to find the old records, scan them (as I do not think they would be electronically stored), and provide them for us all to see.
“Ray Rogers identified cotton fibres spiced into a linen yarn confirmed by Robert Villerreal. These cotton fibres were held in place with a crust of terpene.” This is plain wrong. Robert Villarreal found two pieces of cotton thread, not just fibres, butt-joined together by the crust of terpene. There was no splicing, and no linen, in the tiny sample Villarreal examined. See his lecture on Youtube in which he explains all this in painstaking detail.
‘ Robert Villarreal found two pieces of cotton thread, not just fibres, butt-joined together by the crust of terpene. There was no splicing, and no linen, in the tiny sample Villarreal examined. ‘
Not at all.
In 2008, on the basis of FTIR spectra, Villareal found that threads coming from the Raes samples were cotton threads, not linen. The spectra of the threads as well as the spectra of individual fibers were similar to the spectra of cotton and very different from the spectra of flax. He concluded that the C14/Raes corner was not representative of the Shroud.
However, as you know, I received one of those threads (Raes 7) and I found that the majority of the fibers were flax fibers. Nevertheless, I also found many cotton fibers mixed with flax fibers. I agreement with Rogers, I concluded that the ratio of cotton vs flax is strongly anomalous with regard to the main part of the Shroud.
No more, no less. (See my paper on Shroud.com).
But there was a problem with Villareal experiments.
How is it possible that he found that the threads (including ‘my’ Raes 7) were entirely made of cotton?
The answer is found in his paper shown in Saint-Louis:
Briefly: ‘ For modern samples, there are spectral features that differentiate unprocessed linen from cotton. However, processing/aging of linen can dramatically change its spectral
characteristics. This make it very difficult to conclusively identify an unknown sample’.
It means that his previous 2008 FTIR experiments, comparing modern linen and modern cotton, were not reliable.
It means that his 2008 ‘cotton-like’ spectra could be the spectra of aged and/or processed linen.
However, this has nothing to do with the splice found in Raes 1.
Raes 1 is truly a splice with a terpene-like crust.
This fact found by Rogers and confirmed by Villareal in 2008 is NOT refuted by Villareal’s 2014 paper.
““Ray Rogers identified cotton fibres spiced into a linen yarn confirmed by Robert Villerreal. These cotton fibres were held in place with a crust of terpene.” This is plain wrong. Robert Villarreal found two pieces of cotton thread, not just fibres, butt-joined together by the crust of terpene. There was no splicing, and no linen, in the tiny sample Villarreal examined. See his lecture on Youtube in which he explains all this in painstaking detail.”
I thought the main conclusion of RV’s findings presented at STL were that they were inconclusive due to variability; possibly due to splicing, but no definitive conclusion could be reached
Did you get the message?
Robert Villarreal’s most detailed analysis was in Ohio, and can be found at “Shroud of Turin Ohio State University Villarreal Lecture.” It is in four parts, and hesitant and technically clumsy, but he knows exactly what he is talking about. He has been consistently misquoted and occasionally misrepresented, ever since.
And thanks, Thibault for your comment, but there is a bit of post hoc propter hoc at work here. Raes 1 fell apart under preparation. The photo of it showed clearly that it is not a splice (i.e. the fibres of each thread had not been unravelled and reconnected by retwisting the fibres together, which is what a splice is), and his FTIR analysis showed that it was all cotton. Raes 7 and Raes 14 did not fall apart, were not splices, and were also cotton. Only now, 6 years later, do we have a presentation attempting to show that old linen spectra look like cotton spectra anyway, so the FTIR analysis is worthless. However, they do not show that Villarreal’s findings were wrong, only that “it is possible that the thread composition varied from one end to the other, consistent with the slicing hypothesis.”
I am of course aware that other researchers, including yourself, have made different estimates of the amount of cotton in the various threads of the Shroud, but to claim that Villarreal himself confirmed Rogers’s findings is, as I said before, just plain wrong.
Thanks to you Hugh.
According to the late (and wonderful) Sue Benford, there are 3 kinds of splice (“All general splicing information was obtained from:YARN CLEARING, KNOTTING AND SPLICING, M. Anbarasan, Premier PolytronicsLtd., Coimbatore, India”).
“Wrapping: The tail end of each yarn strand is tapered and terminates with few fibers. The tail end makes a good wrapping of several turns and thus prevents fraying of the splice. The
fibers of the twisting yarn embrace the body of the yarn and thus acts as a belt. This in
turn gives appearance to the splice.
The two yarn ends comprising the splice are twisted around the body of the yarn, each
yarn strand twists on the body of the yarn on either side of the middle of the splice. The
cross-section of this region distinctly shows the fibers of the two yarn strands separately
without any intermingling of the fibers.
The middle portion of the splice is a region (2-5 mm) with no distinct order. The fibers
from each yarn end intermingle in this splice zone just by tucking.”
I have the Powerpoint 2008 Villareal presentation. I have been able to measure accurately the 2 pieces of Raes 1 because one of the slides shows them clearly with a scale bar.
Piece 1 (with the frayed ends): 6.9 mm
Piece 2: 3.5 mm.
Total: 10.4 mm=1.4 cm which is exactly the length of the whole piece of thread as written by Benford and Marino (probably from Rogers).
The crust is about 3.75 mm. in length.
We must conclude that Raes 1 is not a “twisting”.
Unfortunately, my English is not good enough and I am unable to understand clearly the definitions of “Wrapping” and “Tucking”.
You wrote previously: ” Robert Villarreal found two pieces of cotton thread, not just fibres, butt-joined together by the crust of terpene.”
At least you agree that Raes 1 is comprised of two pieces joined together, but I do not understand “butt-joined together”.
Can you explain what you have in mind and the possible relationship between your claim and the wrapping and/or tucking splicing techniques ?
Incidentally, it is very amazing that, looking at the photographs of Raes 1, it is impossible to see the boundary between Piece 1 and Piece 2. However Rogers found it and described Raes 1 as an END TO END unique splice.
You wrote: “Only now, 6 years later, do we have a presentation attempting to show that old linen spectra look like cotton spectra anyway, so the FTIR analysis is worthless. However, they do not show that Villarreal’s findings were wrong, only that “it is possible that the thread composition varied from one end to the other, consistent with the slicing hypothesis.”
And: “Raes 7 and Raes 14 did not fall apart, were not splices, and were also cotton.”
Yes, unfortunately, the previous 2008 FTIR analysis is worthless.
The best way to analyse a fiber is polarized microscopy.
I can tell you with certainty that Raes 7 is comprised of a majority of flax fibers mixed with many cotton fibers, in agreement with Rogers.
Oxford found some cotton fibers at the surface of his sample.
I have to repeat that, following my own knowledge of Raes 7, it is truly impossible to know the true composition of a thread without unraveling it.
To my knowledge, Oxford never performed this kind of experiment (and it is understandable).
A correspondence between Fr. Kim and Prof. Raes.
John I don’t understand why our so upset. As Thibault states, this paper has nothing to do with the Shroud.
Here is my understanding how the invisible weave got started. I’m sure Joe, can certainly add any details or revision if needed to my version.
“I had the pleasure speaking with Dr. Kohlbeck on August 26th 2011. I contacted him so I could ask him if he had any knowledge of the Raes thread. He explained to me that he had no knowledge of Dr. Nitowski’s claim that the thread was switched. We then began to discuss the red particles. Dr. Kohlbeck explained to me that Sue Benford contacted him and requested if he could send her his microscopic photographs of the lance wound area where Dr. Kohlbeck made his observation. (6-BF). She explained to him that she believes what Dr. Heller thought was blood is actually the gum,dye,mordant coating which Dr. Kohlbeck simply referred in his findings as Starch. Sue Bedford continued to explain the invisible weave theory to which Dr. Kohlbeck found to be very fascinating. He further explained that Sue Bedford’s thesis was very plausible, and would easily concede that the blood was in fact dye madder supporting the invisible mending theory”. (GB Conversation in 2011)
All this does is demonstrate that Benford wasn’t always right. Dye wouldn’t reveal serum rings. But my initial point is that I find the description of the Benford-Marino-Rodgers relationship to be simplistic and essentially inaccurate.
However, it’s time to move on.
That’s funny, Dr.Heller did not find blood on the edges of the Shroud.
Hello Louis. It’s at this point I too am lost. I think the major problem is the nomenclature used to explain blood,myrrh,iron oxide, blood and etc.
Heres an excerpt from the HSG archive page.
In Dr. Nitowski’s “Conservation report” she writes, “If two different fibers are woven together
into a material, linen and cotton as in the Shroud, one may actually contribute to the destruction of the other – the cotton contains starch (as observed by Kohlbeck) that could interact with the dye of a cloth like red silk covering the Shroud during storage”.
In another report, Dr. Kohlbeck asked Ray Rogers permission to remount the sticky tape slides in cargille oil. The oil is used for better resolution to increases the resolving power of the objective when photographing the sample slides. Dr. Kohlbeck set aside these slides for over three months and re-examine them. To his astonishment he noticed that the once red particles have now turned black and exude a yellow color. “This certainly could not be iron oxide”, he tells Harold Nelson in a letter. He continues and writes, “Dr. Heller is no doubt right,”? ” I’m no blood expert but I know the particles are not iron oxide”.
Dr. McCrone writes in “Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud” page 82 on Dec 26 1978, starting with 3-CB a heavy image area, blood from the lance wound using low magnification (10% +10% oli) I could see a heavy crustacean (of blood?) – too red”! Page 84 on Feb 2 1979 he writes, “I have spent a lot of time looking at the tapes especially the red particles. There are a lot of them and they are definitely inorganic. hundreds of fiber are well-coated with these deep red particles. They are the same particles Pellicori and Evans show in their low power photomicrographs they say this is blood- I say it is an inorganic compound. In our archives I have more notes written by Dr. McCrone which was not published. ” Dr. McCrone writes on June 13th 1979, “Sample 3AF (finger image) shows the largest percentage of colored fibre examined it closely the fibers are un-uniform colored over lengths exceeding weave units hence the color is not a surface effect-possible mechanism includes heat or liquid treatment. There are in this sample and others a number of yellow amorphous tubular flaked like a material resin. ( I thought in the part they could be aloes or etc).”
The yellow amorphous tubular flaked like material resin was possibly also the same thing Dr. Nitowski saw and was convinced it was Myrrh and aloes just as Dr. McCrone first thought. Steven Schafersman is also correct when he states the madder root was first announced by Dr. McCrone. This is also confirmed by Paul Maloney, President of ASSIST at a Talk given at the “The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multi-Faceted Enigma” conference in Columbus, Ohio on August 14-17th 2008, when he states, “Walter McCrone had sent him in 1981 several Kodak transparencies of photos he took of Shroud linen fibers. “On those slides, (Guild also has them) McCrone had written the following note: madder rose, linen fiber, medium (blue) sample 3 CB” 4 and sample 3-AB. McCrone was referring to photomicrographs made on STURP sticky tape samples 3-CB and 3-AB which came from the blood flow across the back nearest the side-strip side of the Shroud and directly adjacent to that flow on linen, itself. It was on that side where someone would have been working their repairs if the re-weave theory is held to be correct. McCrone, of course, due to his belief that the Shroud was painted by an artist, was trying to prove that the Shroud had been in an artist’s studio.” Source: Maloney, Paul C. “What Went Wrong With the Shroud’s Radiocarbon Date? Setting itall in Context.” Talk given at the “Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multi-Faceted Enigma”conference in Columbus, Ohio on August 14-17th 2008.
Comments: Regarding the presence of madder rose on the cloth, Maloney says, “There is now a
new way of looking at the presence of that madder rose. Although this is some distance from the
“Raes Corner” such trace amounts can now be conjectured to explain the dye that was used,
along with the aluminum mordant and the gum Arabic as a binder to create the wash to finish the
re-weave. Thus, it may now be seen not as a contaminant from an artist’s studio, but rather a
contaminant from the weaver’s workshop.”
if a proper scientific protocol of disciplined sampling, such as that originally promoted by Chagas, had been followed, there would be no need whatsoever even to discuss this matter; irrespective of whether the samples showed a 14th c. or a 1st century date. Conceivably it may have identified suspect areas which might have been investigated as possible repair sites!
John Klotz wrote:
>Bracaglia may have “learned to handle his tools”, but in his
statement of FACTS that prefaced his work he totally misstated
the relationship between Benford&Marino and Rogers.
That’s debatable …
For example, reading at p 5 (= document by Bracaglia dated 1/24/2015),
this seems not to be true.
Am I wrong?
Please… Can you add some detail (in order to be more clear)?
Instead at p 8 of the same document we can read the name Gonella
The second time is the following:
On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads
that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample
before it was distributed for dating. …
Klotz wrote that :
>The cited paper seems to ignore the fact that …
… Rogers was in possession of threads from the …
… carbon data sample…
that was held-back and was in possession of Gonella.
(If I am right I see some error in the phrase by Klotz.)
As Thibault wrote the paper by Giorgio is not on the Shroud…
It was an attempt to work about the cognitive response using
Likert scale …
Here a key question.
Has passed the exam Bracaglia ?
The sample size seemed small…
and then statistical works (and I have not seen
the presence for these works in that paper)
turned to be problematic.
Although I can (partly) agree with daveb of wellington nz
about the “Confirmation Bias” by Bracaglia,
I have to remember that the argument is complex.
Perhaps Giorgio Bracaglia didn’t passed the “School exam”…
and in any case Giorgio Bracaglia didn’t passed the
“Sindonology & Shroudology exam” on this blog
because there are unproved claims in that work by Bracaglia …
= unproved claims about Rogers ???
For sure this verdict is not completely true.
Not because …there is a similar interference problem
(= peer review independence or …the failure of the Peer Review !)
in both the cases considered in the paper (by Bracaglia).
In my idea we have to be more clear in our discussion.
What is the exact meaning for “proper protocol producing the chain of custody”?
Which kind of standard protocol is required?
I believe this is connected to the estimation about
the exact limits of “ethical responsibility”.
Another curious thing:
Were the samples (by Rogers) kept in a strongbox or not?
I suggest a polling about
the evaluation by Bracaglia on the presumed fact that :
“what Rogers failed to offer was the chronological documentation pertaining to the threads”
Do you agree on that curious idea?
At the end what make me near happy is the strange question
(indicated by Bracaglia)
about the protocols employed to avoid contamination…
… and what happened in Turin during some past operations?
Where are the protocols about the works done by naked hands?
I have written in a hurry these lines.
So I apologize if I have been superficial…
Piero, I would like to inform you, yes I passed and received my degree. Thank you for asking.
By the way the paper clearly states, and I quote,
“The research observed two distinct populations. Both groups were asked to read two abridged versions of two manuscripts, and answer five questions on each of the subjects. The readings are factual, but not impartial. They were designed to lead participants to a controlled response. If the readers deviate from the expected controlled answers, an analysis would be performed to evaluate if confirmation bias was the cause”.
The Serelini’s manuscript clearly showed that something triggered the participants to respond against the readings. Could the trigger be Monsanto?
Rogers claimed he had “samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.”
I wonder when he did that? In front of Riggi, Testore and the three representatives of the lab, under the close scrutiny of the cameras? Or in the secret room, with Tite and Ballastero in close attendance. Or did he use the riserva section and pull his threads out later? Any ideas?
I do not believe there is any serious contention that Turin did not have a reserve section. Gonella was the scientific adviser to the Turin Archbishop. I do not understand the basis of your speculation. Do you have evidence that Gonella was NOT the scientific adviser to Archbishop?
Incidentally, “Unwrapping the Shroud” is available for viewing on You Tube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyiZtagxX8 It covers the cutting of the carbon and the reserve samples.
If you haven’t watched, maybe you should. In fact anybody who is involved in this blog should watch it. At least we could all start with the a common knowledge base.
That is exactly the reason that prompted me to say more than once that the entire 1988 carbon dating procedure was wrong from beginning to end. Professor Giovanni Riggi was also confused. Read the paragraph about the taking of the samples by Professors Riggi and Gonella in the seventh article, “Shroud Studies bring Good News”:
I did not speculate. I pondered a question. When did Gonella take “samples of warp and weft threads” from the radiocarbon sample? Rogers says it was “before it was distributed for dating.” Does that mean before the main sample was cut into two? Or before the radiocarbon sample itself was cut into three? Did anyone see him do it? I have never seen it reported anywhere but in Rogers’s paper. At least one of the samples was a warp (longitudinal thread). This would mean that in at least one place the 3/1 twill would become 7/1, showing a series of very long warp ‘stitches’ across all three radiocarbon samples. Are any of the photos of these samples clear enough to observe this?
There is no point messing about with threads and fibres whose origins cannot be checked. The only way to see if there is cotton woven into the Shroud is to examine a woven piece, either a piece left over from the carbon dating or the Shroud itself as Flury-Lemberg and other experts did in 2002 making clear that no reweaving could possibly have been concealed and there was none to be seen.
And there is the important article from the CIETA bulletin of 1989 in which Vial explains how the major differences in the thickness of the threads used in the original weave make a regular pattern unlikely.
These are all experts working from the Shroud itself or a woven sample of it so they must be given credence over those who have had no specific experience of dealing with ancient or medieval textiles or have never examined a woven piece of the Shroud close- up. I am open to correction but am not aware of any of these experts who has found any cotton woven into the Shroud. Oxford spotted ( not that difficult) and removed for independent testing the one fibre of cotton they found so one can assume that there was no cotton left in the sample they actually tested.
Flury- Lemberg knew of Rogers’ article as she refers to it in her own article on the reweaving hypothesis and, following her actual examination of that corner of the Shroud, she roundly refuted it. It was not that difficult to test out on the actual Shroud, of course.
I mean long weft stitches, of course. Only clearly visible from behind.
The big problem is that the taking of samples by Professor Luigi Gonella was not documented. Being the scientific advisor to the archdiocese of Turin during the period he could probably get away with it.
Louis that’s the underlying message pertaining to my paper. Life’s inference, culture, religion, shapes your believes and you will only extract from life lessons what supports your existing believes. For me it’s a “DIS” not to return the threads back upon Giovanni Saldarini request. and besides, any testing of these threads would be disowned and not recognized by the authority
Personally, regardless of scientific demands, If the Turin authority decided to use three labs instead of seven, it’s their choose. To Italians, the Shroud belongs to them as well as Catholics and preservation was their top priority.
Many well intended scientists wrote to Cardinal Ballestrero, advising him against the change of the protocol. This too was considered a “DIS” amongst the the Turin authority and to the Guild who was the instrument to access to these studies. To put it bluntly, they felt, it was none of their business once the final decision was made.
Regardless of the “new world enmeshment process”, I’m not so sure it’s intrinsic to man’s ability.
We have disagreed about some things, but agree on many more. I agree 100 percent with your second sentence, the sad part is that it is seen every day, everywhere, all the time. As someone deeply involved in existential issues it is easy to detect. It contributed to making Freud a pessimist, but thank God Jesus dropped a hint about the way out. One must read between the lines.
Stay tuned, I am half way through with another Shroud article, this time on the image formation process. More stuff for ‘miraculists’ and ‘naturalists’ to discuss.
Now, I’m going to speculate!
There are two reasonably good photos of the pieces of the radiocarbon sample I have managed to find. One is from Joe Marino and Sue Benford’s “Evidence for the Skewing of the C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin due to Repairs” (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf), which shows the Zurich sample, and Pam Moon’s “Oxford University Photographs and Data from the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating of the shroud of Turin” (http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Oxford_Uni_photos_files/Samples%20of%20Carbon%20dating%20June%206th.pdf). Interestingly the original posting by the ORAU seems to have disappeared.
I chose these two because they both show the warp face of the Shroud (the one with the image on it), they both cover the whole width of the cut sample, with the exception of the ‘trimming’ of the seam edge, and they both show all the warp threads. All of them. There is not one missing. Not one. And, as these two pieces were adjacent, and flanked by the two Arizona pieces, they can surely be said to be in the ‘center of the radiocarbon sample.’
“Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.”
This cannot be true, can it?
Maybe the first sentence will be helpful for you. But again, this is my opinion formed by the much correspondence material I have in my possession from the Guild; resulting to confirmation bias. (LOL)
(from the HSG archives) It was during the Albuquerque meeting in 1989, Alan Adler received the cuttings from Prof.Gonella. Based on Thiebault’s evidence, I believe his presentation accurately demonstrates where the threads were extracted. Adler, observed that not only part of this area was from the re-weaving but the samples also contained “starch” that the three labs failed to notice. However, Adler failed to produce a desire C14 result in an unauthorized testing (verbally communicated).
(from the HSG archives) According to documents from the Guild, the McCrone’s Germany C14 testing was from the Oviedo cloth. However, it was eventually agreed upon that in fact it was from the Raes sampling.
(from the HSG archives)
According to one individual, he insisted that only half of Raes samples were returned to the Centro.
(from the HSG archives) A previous post I uploaded on this thread shows a letter from Prof Raes to Fr. Kim. Prof. Raes’ goal was to correct any misinterpretation of his 1974 report.
I believe he did publish an article in the Spectrum in 1991 to do just that.
“Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.”
This cannot be true, can it?
The threads came from the border of the ‘Reserve’
See my papers:
One must remember that Gonella was vigorously defending the r-c date as late as in his paper printed in the proceedings of the Turin Conference of 2000. As he died only in 2007, one wonders what he made of Roger’s paper of 2005 which would appear to challenge his own hands-on (literally it seems) view on the matter.
Here is a transcription of the letter from Prof. Raes to Fr. Dreisbach in the link posted by Giorgio on 27 Feb at 10:22 p.m.:
Dear Fr. Dreisbach,
Conc. The Turin Shroud
A few days ago Mr. Remi Van Haelst transmitted to me a copy of your letter of October 30 containing a copy of your letter to Mr. Riggi. Mr Van Haelst asked me to answer directly to you.
I will try to clarify as good as possible the situation after (?) the Symposium of Paris. It is true that in my report of the 1973 I mentioned that I found traces of cotton fibres only in the main body of the Shroud. I must however add that even for the main body I did not find traces of cotton in all microscopical preparations. On the other hand, I had only a very small part of the strip added to the main body and I could only make a few microscopical preparations of the fibres of the strip. We must therefore be very careful with our conclusions.
In his contribution of Paris, Prof. Vial suggested that the cotton fibres mentioned in my report could be superficial fibres present on the surface of the Shroud and not belonging to the yarns of the Shroud. After the Paris meeting I was writing to Prof. Vial telling him that I could not agree with him and that in my opinion the cotton fibres were not superficial fibres. I proposed to Prof Vial a test allowing to be absolutely sure about the location of the cotton fibres. I wonder however if it should be possible in practice to perform such a test. Till [sic] now I did not have any reply of Prof. Vial. The presence of traces of cotton were confirmed by the sample tested by Oxford for the C-14 datation test. Prof. Hall found some foreign fibres in his sample identified by a laboratory of Darbyshire as being cotton fibres. As told in my contribution in Paris we may regret that this laboratory was not able to identify the variety of the cotton fibres by testing the number of reversals as told in my research of 1973.
I have tried to answer as good as possible the different questions put to Mr. Van Haelst and Riggi. If there are any other points that you should like to clarify don’t hesitate to call upon me.
Joe, I’m impressed. Did you use an OCR software? LOL
Thank you for taking the time to simplify the read.
I find this letter very hesitant and scarcely conclusive. (As the whole issue of cotton).
Raes doesn’t explain here some crucial points:
-The reasons of his change of opinion about the presence of cotton in the sample of the main body of the Shroud.
-The nature of the doubtful experiment proposed by him to Vial.
Furthermore, the conclusions are presented in a hesitant form: “We must therefore be very careful”, “in my opinion”, “if it should be possible in practice”…
PS: Is there any way to consult Raes’ writings directly?
The inconclusive conclusions –you will forgive the oxymoron-, about the presence of cotton are due in good part to the fact that the studies had been carried by not experts on textile and its history. Marino, Benford, Rogers, Heimburger and Villarreal are not experts on this subject. (I hope you will not take offence of it, but you will have to agree with me on this point). So, the conclusions are disparate and often contradictory. And big errors are sometimes done (Rogers, for example).
“Amateurism” is one of the big problems of sindonism.
I don’t take offence of your statements.
It’s true that I am not an expert on textile.
The aim of my paper about Raes 7 was only to have a better knowledge of the number and the location of the flax fibers in Raes 7.
For that, you don’t need to be an expert on textile. You ‘only’ need to have a good pol-light microscope, to practice differentiating flax and cotton fibers and to laboriously separate each fiber from the others.
I did it.
I also sent my photographs and even the slides to true experts.
“And big errors are sometimes done (Rogers, for example).”
“On the other hand, I had only a very small part of the strip added to the main body and I could only make a few microscopical preparations of the fibres of the strip. We must therefore be very careful with our conclusions”.
My interpretation to this statement is he’s being cautious about the summation of his sample size.
“The cotton is important. Cotton was almost unknown in Europe until about AD 1350”.
(“SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN. A REVIEW” by
Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, p. 13).
As Thibault notes, you do not have to be an expert to spot the difference between cotton and linen which makes it easy to check out Rogers’s hypothesis on the Shroud itself or any other woven pieces from it. Also it meant that the labs could spot it as well before they did the dating. So unless you are accusing Oxford, Tucson and Zurich of deliberately concealing the cotton they must have been able to see…….
Raes only mentions ‘ traces of cotton fibres’ and leaves it open how far these spread. With the massive increase in imports of raw cotton to Europe after 1200 and the custom of spinning and weaving both in the same room (and sometimes as in fustians alternating cotton and linen threads) it is hardly surprising to find ‘traces of cotton fibres’ in the Shroud established within the cloth during the spinning and weaving process. But this is just what Raes suggested.
As different skeins of yarn were used in the weaving of the Shroud as the banding shows, some may have been in environments where cotton fibres were drifting around and others not. I think without having any of my sources at hand that Raes thought the fibres may have been left in the loom from an earlier cotton weave. All speculation, of course.
The fundamental problem is that there is no evidence of sufficient amounts of cotton to sway a carbon-14 date.
Charles: ‘ As Thibault notes, you do not have to be an expert to spot the difference between cotton and linen which makes it easy to check out Rogers’s hypothesis on the Shroud itself or any other woven pieces from it. Also it meant that the labs could spot it as well before they did the dating. So unless you are accusing Oxford, Tucson and Zurich of deliberately concealing the cotton they must have been able to see…….’
This is not the problem Charles.
When I looked for the first time at Raes 7 as it was through the microscope, I was unable to see even a single cotton fiber. The thread seemed to be entirely linen.
It was only when I decided to “dissect” meticulously the thread and to separate the fibers that I could see many cotton fibers (10-20% of the fibers).
You can’t imagine how difficult it was! I spent several hours (repeat: hours !) to do that, with two ultra-thin needles.
Do you think that the laboratories did perform this kind of laborious work? Not at all. They had no reason to do that.
Oxford provided some pictures showing that they studied at least one TS thread using an electron microscope.
The thread was “as received” (no attempt to study individual fibers) and electron microscopy can not show the characteristic features of cotton fibers.
Nevertheless, Oxford found a ‘rogue fiber’ which has been described later as an ‘old’ cotton fiber by another specialized laboratory.
I bet that many cotton fibers could have been discovered in this thread.
“It was only when I decided to “dissect” meticulously the thread and to separate the fibers that I could see many cotton fibers (10-20% of the fibers).
You can’t imagine how difficult it was! I spent several hours (repeat: hours !) to do that, with two ultra-thin needles”.
Very interesting. Did you, Rogers or Raes the same meticulous work on the other samples? Including the fibres from the main body of the Shroud, of course. How many samples were worked with your meticulous system of work?
No one disputes the presences of cotton fibres when one realises just how often flax and linen were spun and woven in the same workshops especially after the massive influx of imported raw cotton into Europe after 1200. The question is whether there was enough to sway the carbon dating samples. Judging from your looking for needles in a haystack work, it seems clearly that there would not be. Time to move on on this one.
Sorry-flax and cotton.
Charles: “Did you, Rogers or Raes the same meticulous work on the other samples? Including the fibres from the main body of the Shroud, of course. How many samples were worked with your meticulous system of work?”
I did not because Raes 7 is the only sample of the Raes/C14 corner I got.
Rogers studied in depth some of the other Raes samples he had as well as his C14 samples.
He did not perform the exactly the same work ( i.e a complete dissection if his threads) but from his writings and photographs, we have to conclude that he made this work at least partially.
He wrote: ” Cotton fibers are easy to find mixed INTIMATELY with the linen fibers of Part1 Raes threads… I did not attempt to make a quantitative cotton comparison between Raes and radiocarbon threads and Shroud tapes, because there was too little cotton of any kind on Shroud samples …The cloth appeared to be pure linen”.
About Raes, his photographs show some separated fibers. He made some microscopical preparations. I don’t know how many. From his writings, probably too little. He found “traces of cotton” in Part 1 (an none in Part 2) and this cotton was intimately mixed with the linen fibers. Raes did not try no quantify the ratio cotton/flax fibers in the sample. It was not his job.
Raes: “traces of cotton” mixed with linen fibers in some threads of Part 1 (but not in all of them).
Rogers found many cotton fibers mixed with linen fibers in some of the Raes and C14 threads but almost no cotton in Shroud tapes.
I found about 10-20% of cotton fibers in Raes 7 intimately mixed with flax fibers.
Sorry my previous post was an answer to David, not Charles.
Charles: “The question is whether there was enough to sway the carbon dating samples. Judging from your looking for needles in a haystack work, it seems clearly that there would not be. Time to move on on this one.”
It seems to me that you don’t understand clearly the question.
The high content of cotton fibers in the Raes/C14 corner is only a ‘marker’ that there is something anomalous.
The hypothesis is that this corner includes a mixture of:
1) ‘Ancient’ pure linen threads
2) ‘Modern’ linen+cotton threads
while the main part of the Shroud seems to be comprised of (almost) pure linen.
1. We have not any precise description of the method and the conclusions of the findings of Rogers on threads of cotton. “Easy to find”, “too little”, etc. are not conclusive and are scarcely scientific concepts.
2. Rogers and you are in contradiction. Rogers: “Cotton fibers are easy to find”. You: nothing in a first view, only after a meticulous exam.
3. We cannot conclude anything definite, except that you found some cotton mixed with the linen in your sample in a proportion (“perhaps”) of 15%. And Rogers “too little” cotton. With different methods, “perhaps”. (This is what I called “amateurism”).
PS: How do you know you were working with a sample for Raes1 and not Raes2? You wrote: “It is likely that all of them were from Piece 1 of the Raes sample”. Why “likely”? Are you not sure? Excuse me, but I am very interested in this point and I would appreciate a precise answer.
PS: Who were the experts that tested your work? Were they experts in ancient textile? I have read that to differentiate ancient cotton from linen is not so easy. The appearance of the fibers can change a lot depending of age and place. You have not presented a bibliography on this subject in your works or I don’t be aware of it. I will be glad if you can orient me on this point.
Obviously, you did not read my paper
and part 2 and 3 carefully.
You can find the precise answers to your two Post-scriptum (Raes 1 and the name of the experts) in those papers. Just read them!
And NO, Rogers and myself are not in contradiction. Exactly the contrary.
You misunderstand Rogers when he wrote that cotton fibers were “easy to find”. Yes, they are easy to find (= there are plenty of cotton fibers) but not just by looking at the thread with the microscope. Rogers, too, had to separate some fibers. I just finished this work in order to confirm and quantify what Rogers found.
“3. We cannot conclude anything definite, except that you found some cotton mixed with the linen in your sample in a proportion (“perhaps”) of 15%. And Rogers “too little” cotton. With different methods, “perhaps”. (This is what I called “amateurism”).
What are you speaking about ?
This is this kind of “charabia” I personally call “amateurism”.
And please, purchase a microscope and try to count the exact number of fibers in a small piece of thread. You then will understand why I used the terms “perhaps” or “about” or “roughly”.
I never denied that I am an amateur. The Shroud is not my job and I am careful: I don’t write anything out of my speciality. Anyway, my “charabia” was almost a literal copy of your own words.
I had done a question that you didn’t answer: How do you know you were working with a sample of Raes1 and not Raes 2? You wrote: “It is likely that all of them were from Piece 1 of the Raes sample”. Why “likely”? Are you not sure?
Another point: The curriculum of Jana Jones in Egyptian textiles is long. But the precision remains not clear on a point: “Old World” is an ambiguous word both historical and geographical. It includes the Euro-Asian area in the Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Did you ask her for more precision?
PS: Don’t be angry, please. I had read your article some time ago but I don’t remember all I read. I remembered the expression “Old Word” but I had forgotten that it were in your article.
Essay? Four points in my score.
Seriously, I regret your withdrawal. I was interested in your answers.
“Essay” was only an… essay (the common noun, not the verb).
Below that word, I tried to copy and paste an image..And failed.
Thus my following posts (how to put an image in a comment ?).
I’ll try tomorrow.
Interpretations are sometimes very funny :-)
Brilliant, Thibault; I should have read your papers earlier. “From the edges of the riserva section of the radiocarbon sample” would have been more accurate than “From the centre of the radiocarbon sample”, but at least it clears up my query.
Oh, and I’ve just seen your earlier post about splicing, which confirms my original statement. In any kind of splice, the two pieces overlap each other in one way or another. Therefore the length of the two pieces separately is longer than the length of the spliced piece. This is not the case with Raes 1, where the length of the two pieces was exactly the same as the so-called ‘spliced’ piece. The ends of the two threads were simply placed in contact, and glued together with terpene. A butt-joint is just such a join (it’s a term more usually used in carpentry, and is presumably similar to the French ’bout’).
Did you get the message?”
No, not sure where to look
at the em
“…the Archbishop Emeritus of Turin, Giovanni Saldarini requested all unauthorized threads to be returned to Turin and any testing would be disowned on all unreturned threads (Biema, Dorfman, Burke, & Penner, 1998).”
Rogers had to publish his observations, where? I don’t care.
Future testings will settle the issue, officially.
Have you received the sketch of my paper via Dan?
Thank you very much. It seems very interesting. I’ll loot at it carefully and give you my thoughts asap.
Can you explain (again ?) how to show a picture in a comment ?
I tried but I failed.
Simply put a direct link to it, Thibault.
Are you sure?
That didn’t work.
(In the latter link I put a space after http: )
Maybe try again. Sometimes it works, sometimes not:
(In the latter link I put a space after http: )
Thank you I really enjoyed this discussion. Many thanks to Thibault for his papers.
Below that word, I tried to copy and paste an image..And failed.
Thus my following posts (how to put an image in a comment ?).
I’ll try tomorrow.
Please send an image you want to post to me. I’ll make a try.
Comments are closed.