Alas, I could not find that Bob Rucker or his work was mentioned
anywhere in the Critical Summary.
Bob Rucker (pictured) posted what follows as a comment last evening. I have added a link to a previous comment by Bob and some links to more information.
It is my opinion that enough evidence has accumulated that we should now realize that there was no invisible repair/reweave in the C14 sample area, and that the solution to the C14 dating problem is what I presented at the St. Louis conference in 2014. I showed that MCNP nuclear analysis calculations indicate that if 3.0 x 10^18 neutrons are emitted uniformly in the body while it was in the shroud in the tomb, then three mysteries related to C14 dating are solved:
1) Neutron absorption in N14 in the shroud creates new C14 in the shroud that is identical to the original C14 in the shroud so that the C14 date is shifted from 30 AD to 1260 AD. The dating laboratories, not realizing that the shroud had been through a neutron absorption event, would have misinterpreted their result by assuming the wrong C14 decay curve.
2) The results reported by the three dating laboratories were not in good agreement with each other. Statistical analysis indicates only a 5% chance that their results were within their measurement uncertainty, so that the differences were probably (95% probability?) caused by something. Plotting their results as a function of the distance from the end of the shroud indicates that there is a slope or gradient of 42 to 57 years per cm across their data depending on the sampling done in Tucson. This slope in the C14 dates from the three laboratories agrees with the MCNP nuclear analysis calculations, which calculate that a uniform neutron emission in the body causes a neutron distribution in the tomb which produces just this range in the C14 dates across the sample region, so that the disagreement between the laboratory values is the result of the slope of the neutron distribution at the sample location resulting from homogeneous emission of neutrons in the body.
3) These same MCNP calculations predict that a piece of cloth placed on the side bench about a foot in front of the back bench where the body in the shroud was located would date to about 700 AD. This location in the tomb is a natural location for the person working on the body in the tomb to lay the face/head cloth. According to tradition, the Sudarium of Oviedo is the face/head cloth of Jesus. It was C14 dated to 700 AD, in excellent agreement with the MCNP results.
We should realize the importance of not making the common a priori presupposition of naturalism, so that we not automatically rule out anything that is beyond the laws of science as we currently understand them, so that we can follow the scientific evidence where it leads. When this is done, I believe that the scientific evidence indicates that the solution to the enigma of the shroud is that a burst of radiation occurred within the body that did three things: 1) It caused the image, perhaps either by protons or ultraviolet based on experiments. 2) It thrust the blood off of the body, heated it turning it into a liquid, and thrust it against and into the fibers of the shroud, and 3) It caused the shift in the C14 date from 30 to 1260 AD and the slope in the C14 dates as discussed above. Bob Rucker
I’ve noticed that as you age, you learn that when the morning coffee isn’t yet ready, the mind wanders somewhere between wakefulness and wackiness. Hey, I thought in this state, what does the Critical Summary have to say about this. Alas, I could not find that Bob Rucker or his work was mentioned anywhere in the Critical Summary. Maybe it was just me. Maybe it was too early in the morning to find such stuff. But then I did find this interesting paragraph on page 82:
Neutron Flux: In the same issue of Nature that reported the 1988 radiocarbon testing results there was an important letter to the editor. This letter rings out today with possibly more force than when It was first written. It causes one again to ponder and adopt a position of caution. The correspondence was with Thomas J. Phillips of the High Energy Physics Laboratory at Harvard University. Phillips suggested that the Shroud might be a fundamentally altered fabric with respect to its C-14 content due its possible witness to some unexplained event, possibly in the tomb of Jesus. He hypothesized that such an unexplained event, which itself cannot be the subject of scientific inquiry, may have had an effect on the Shroud that can be studied scientifically. The unknown event may have generated a flux of neutrons that could have skewed the C-14 / C-12 ratio of the linen doth…..
I met Bob in St. Louis. Nice guy. Undeniably brilliant. Maybe he is on to something. But I’m just not there yet in being able to accept this or any other hypothesis, at least when it comes to how the image was formed. To restate with a bit of on-the-fly-rewrting of what I’ve said before, I say …
With regard to the image I’m stuck in the “it is inexplicable” camp.
You don’t like that? Well then you can consider Bob Rucker’s radiation, John Jackson’s cloth falling through a mechanically transparent body whatever that means, Tipler’s sphaleron quantum tunneling, Giulio Fanti’s corona discharge, Paolo Di Lazzaro’s ultraviolet (with or without the cloth falling through the body, Rogers’ Maillard reactions (quite natural if it could work but requiring every bit as much of a miraculous manipulation to produce such an image as any of the other byproduct of a miracle hypotheses would), Charles Freeman’s it’s-not-a-fraud painting (if STURP and Colin Berry are wrong) and Colin Berry’s fraud-by-Maillard if everyone else is wrong (which is not unreasonable to suppose). Or think of something else.
As for the C14 question, I’m also stuck in the “so far inexplicable” camp.
Here are some resources for understanding and thinking about Bob’s ideas.
Another Comment by Bob Rucker: Reaction to Ray Rogers’ Paper on Radiation
Abstract for the Following Paper
MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Resurrection (54 Slides)
I believe that Jesus Christ arose from the dead. The Shroud is a proof of that.
Good on you. No one has come forward with a better explanation.
I should be grateful for elucidation of one or two things, if I may.
1) Is there sufficient Nitrogen in flax for its conversion into Carbon 14 to make any difference to the Carbon 14 percentage?
2) What would happen to the integrity of a nitrogenous compound if it were suddenly converted into a carbonacious one?
I just did an internet search and found that linen in 92% cellulose, 4% lignin, and 2% hemi-cellulose. These are also the values that I used to determine the atom densities for linen that I had to input into the MCNP nuclear analysis computer code. These three compounds are composed of only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, with no nitrogen at all. In my search, the remaining 2% was listed as “other”, and was ignored in my MCNP calculations except for very small amounts of nitrogen and chlorine, which are down at the impurity level. Based on an email from Art Lind on 3-3-14, modern linen has 500 to 900 ppm (parts per million by weight) with an average of 650 ppm for nitrogen and 35 to 150 ppm (70 ppm average) for chlorine. Art had to know these values for his previous work (“Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation on Linen” by Lind, Antonacci, Fanti, Elmore, and Guthrie). I used a weight percent of 0.0650 for nitrogen in linen in my MCNP calculations, which is equivalent to Art’s average value of 650 ppm for nitrogen in linen. The point is that there is only a very small amount of nitrogen in linen so that even if all of the N14 were converted to C14, you would see no difference in the linen. If a different value is assumed for the nitrogen content in linen, then the results can be adjusted. For example, if only half as much N14 were present in the linen, i.e. 0.0325 wt.%, then the number of neutrons that would be required to be emitted in the body to cause a shift in the C14 date from 30 to 1260 AD at the sample location would be doubled to 6.0 x 10E18.
At the assumed nitrogen content of 0.0650 wt.% for linen, the N14 atom density input into MCNP was 2.57E-05 atoms/b-cm (atoms per barn-centimeter), where a barn is 10E-24 cm2, and is a typical unit used in the nuclear industry. The total atom density for all elements in the linen was input to MCNP as 7.05E-02 atoms/b-cm. According to Wikipedia, the atom fraction of C14 in carbon in the air is between 1.0 and 1.5 x 10E-12, with the higher value being assumed in my calculations. This results in only 3.07E-14 atoms/b-cm of C14 in the linen. With a half-life of 5730 years for the C14, the C14 atom density must be increased by only 4.93E-15 atoms/b-cm to cause a shift in the C14 date from 30 AD to 1260 AD. This is only a 16.0% increase. So only 4.93E-15 atoms/b-cm of the N14 in the linen must be converted into C14 by neutron absorption (N14 + neutron –> C14 + proton) out of the 2.57E-05 atoms/b-cm of the N14 that is in the linen. 4.93E-15 divided by 2.57E-05 is an atom fraction of only 1.92E-10, so that only 0.000000192 % of the N14 that is assumed to be in the linen at 650 ppm must be converted into C14 to shift the C14 date from 30 AD to 1260 AD. This small change in the N14 content in the Shroud would not even be measurable.
I hope this answers your questions. Bob Rucker
Bob. Have you any other examples where the enormous discrepancies your process would cause have been recorded? Or are you assuming a one-off Resurrection event?
Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other human bodies that have emitted neutrons from within Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other human bodies that have emitted neutrons from within their bodies, and the answer to this question is no. Perhaps you are asking whether I know of any other linen that was exposed to neutron radiation that resulted in a shift in the C14 date, and the answer to this question is yes – see “Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation of Linen” by Art Lind, et al. The process of transporting the neutrons, slowing them down, and absorbing them is all being handled by the MCNP computer code, which has been validated and verified to NRC and DOE standards, so that all of these aspects of the issue are according to the normal laws of physics. The only thing that is not according to the laws of physics as we currently understand them is the emission of neutrons from within the dead body that was wrapped in the shroud. To put this issue into perspective, think about the estimated 7.3 billion people on earth at this time. In the trillions of times they put clothing on and take clothing off, at no time does their body leave an image on the inside of the clothing. Perhaps something like 10 billion people previously died on this planet, and probably most of them were buried in some kind cloth, yet none of them have left an image of their body on the cloth. If the process by which an image of a body can be left on cloth is a naturalistic process, then we should have seen other examples of a body image on cloth. But we only see an image of a body on cloth for one person, whose bearded naked body was very evidently crucified exactly as the New Testament gospels say that Jesus was crucified. It should be obvious that something very special and very unique is going on here. Thus, we should be open to something going on here that is outside the bounds of our current understanding of the laws of science. So yes, I believe that what science is saying from the Shroud of Turin is consistent with what the historical records (the New Testament gospels) are saying – that Jesus was raised from the dead in the resurrection. It makes sense Biblically, theologically, and physically. See Appendix H in Mark Antonacci’s new book “Test the Shroud” where Mark has included a paper that I wrote on how Jesus’ body disappeared from the tomb, where I discuss the Biblical, theological, and physical/scientific issues related to the disappearance of Jesus’ body from the tomb. This paper will be soon be published and available in two parts under the title “The Disappearance of Jesus’ Body Part 1: Biblical and Theological Considerations” and “The Disappearance of Jesus’ Body Part 2: Physical Considerations”.
Bob, thank you for your detailed reply. However we have other linens with images on them and so the Shroud is not unique in that respect. One of the best examples of images on a linen cloth similar to those on the Shroud is the Zittern veil In Saxony where the pigments of an originally painted surface were steamed off by looters in WWII leaving discoloured linen behind.
You are assuming that the images on the Shroud were caused by a body but the so- called blood evidence has never been replicated and is disputed by experts on the grounds that it is too red for dried blood. It could, of course, have been added in the medieval period when cults involving the blood of Christ became very lucrative so even if new tests do show human blood this does not mean that it is first century.
Personally I cannot see how a cloth laid on a body could produce images such as those that we see.
Thank you very much, Bob. A man after my own heart. If only everybody was as thorough!
Thank you Robert Rucker,
I think your particular speculations
can be tested.
If the Image of the Shroud had been
formed “through a neutron absorption event”,
then we can try to check what are the exact
effects of a “similar phenomenon” on
Then, I would suggest, as possible
“detection system”, the use of Attenuated
Total Reflectance (ATR) for thin film
analysis (see also: thin layers on linen fibrils…).
In other words, in my opinion, a set
of ATR-FTIR controls can show us
something of interest…
And, if you want to be more exact in
your controls, then you can try to do
something using SPMs techniques.
In any case I believe we can easily
show what are the true effects
of Neutron Radiation on Linen…
We alrerady know that
Dr. Ray Rogers wrote:
“…Direct comparison between image
and non-image parts of the shroud show
exactly the same amounts and types of
radiation damage in the two types of areas …
>…This suggests that the image was not
produced by any mechanism that
involved heat, light, or ionizing radiation…
We have also to remember what Gonella
said (Symposium of Villa Gualino, Turin)
about particular claims on radiations…
In any case we can test the linen
materials submitted to the neutron irradiations
and we can measure the different
mechanical effects with comparisons
(see also: AFM three-point bending tests, etc.).
Esteemed Robert Rucker,
What is your answer ?
As you have previously read
I think it’s possible to work in this textile
field with useful comparisons.
In my idea the Shroud was
not submitted to great neutron fluxes.
>We already know
>We alrerady know
— — —
Yesterday the line was very slow and,
oddly enough, I was not even able
to correct the error.
I tried to do something before
sending my message, but
everything was blocked!
— — —
When in 1998 I went to Pisa University
the young doctor gave me a copy of
the text of his Thesis (Dissertation)
in the PhD program of Materials Science
of “Scuola Normale” of Pisa.
The title was the following:
“Scanning Probe Microscopy and its Application to Polymers”
Here the title of an old text:
“Scanning Probe Microscopy and Spectroscopy: Methods and Applications”
Cambridge University Press, 29 september 1994
>The investigation and manipulation of
matter on the atomic scale have been
revolutionized by scanning tunneling
microscopy and related
scanning probe techniques.
>This book is the first to provide a
clear and comprehensive introduction
to this subject.
>Beginning with the theoretical
background of scanning tunneling microscopy,
the design and instrumentation
of practical STM and associated
systems are described in detail,
including topographic imaging,
local tunneling barrier height
measurements, tunneling spectroscopy,
and local potentiometry.
>A treatment of the experimental
techniques used in scanning force
microscopy and other scanning probe
techniques rounds out this section.
>The second part discusses representative
applications of these techniques in
fields such as condensed matter
physics, chemistry, materials science,
biology, and nanotechnology, so this
book will be extremely valuable
to upper-division students and researchers in these areas.
Please read what I said carefully. I did not say that “the Image of the Shroud had been formed “through a neutron absorption event””. What I said was “The dating laboratories, not realizing that the shroud had been through a neutron absorption event, would have misinterpreted their result by assuming the wrong C14 decay curve.” The neutrons shifted the C14 date, but it should be clear that the neutrons did not cause the image on the Shroud of Turin. The reasoning is fairly simple. Neutrons have no electrical charge, so that they do not interact with the cloud of electrons going around the very small nucleus in the center of each atom. Neutrons only interact with an atom if they hit and interact with the nucleus, which is thousands of times smaller than the cloud of electrons going around the nucleus. This means that neutrons are highly penetrating particles. They would probably penetrate one or two feet into the limestone before being stopped. As a result, neutrons emitted from within the body would easily go through the thin cloth of the shroud. So if somehow neutrons caused the image on the inside of the cloth, then they would have also caused the same image all the way through the cloth and onto the outside of the cloth. But this is not the case so the image was not produced by neutrons. Since the image is just a surface effect, it must have been caused by something that would be stopped by just the thinnest of materials such as low energy charged particles such as protons and electrons, or by low energy photons of electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet energy range, which is why Lazzaro is working on experiments with ultraviolet.
You make reference to Ray Rogers’ paper from 2005. Please don’t believe this paper at face value. The certainty of his statement in the abstract “It is concluded that the image could not have been involved energetic radiation of any kind; electrons, protons, alpha particles, and/or neutrons” is contradicted by the tentativeness of his statement at the end of the body of the paper “I believe that the current evidence suggests that all radiation-based hypothesis for image formation will ultimately be rejected.” From this latter statement it is clear that Rogers knew that the information that he presented in his paper did not prove that radiation could not be involved in the image formation. The issue is that Rogers knew that the discoloration in the image on the Shroud of Turin could be formed by lower energy radiation than he had experimental evidence of and discussed in his paper. So how then did he know that radiation would “ultimately” be rejected? It’s because of his philosophical presupposition of naturalism. His statement “I do not believe in miracles” can be seen on youtube.com. Radiation being emitted from a dead body would be a miracle in his mind, so he just knew that it would ultimately be rejected. So why would he allow the statement in his abstract to contradict the conclusion in the body of the paper? There is no evidence that this paper was ever published or peer reviewed, and Ray Rogers died on March 8 of 2005, so he only lived for 67 days out of that year. Realize also that authors often, if not usually, write the abstract based on what they hope and think that they can prove in the body of the paper so that the abstract will act as a guide to them to keep them on track, so that they write the abstract prior to writing the body of the paper. Then after writing the body of the paper they go back and revise the abstract to reflect what was actually proven in the body of the paper. What I am suggesting is that Ray Rogers evidently never did this last step probably because of his health problems while in the process of dying of cancer. I, along with others, have completed a thorough review of Rogers 2005 paper and have documented the inadequacy of his evidence that he presented. I will soon be publishing this as a 13 page review of his 10 page 2005 paper under the title “Review of “The Shroud of Turin: Radiation Effects, Aging, and Image Formation” by Ray Rogers”.
At this point, I don’t feel like searching for what Gonella said about radiation but if you could find it and include it in a reply to me, I will try to respond to it. Bob Rucker
There is a forth fact that this model could explain: the intensity-distance relationship we observe in the image is compatible with the attenuation pattern in air expected
Yes, the intensity-distance relationship is just one of the evidences that something was going from the body to the shroud across the air gaps in between. As they travel through the air, sub-atomic particles could be absorbed, scattered, or decay. Photons such as ultraviolet light could be absorbed or scattered. The information content that is on the shroud that defines an image of a crucified man had to come from the body, and it could only be communicated from the body to the Shroud of Turin by radiation. I will soon be publishing an article that discusses this. The title is “Information Content on the Shroud of Turin”. Bob Rucker
It puzzles me a little why Jesus would find it necessary to spontaneously emit neutrons as part of his resurrection process, and how he might be able to do that when he was dead. I would tend to consider resurrection to be an entirely miraculous event and of divine origin, and once resurrected, he would not find it necessary to emit neutrons to aid the process any further.
If there is anything at all in the neutron hypothesis, then I wonder if it might have a natural origin due to the presence of seismic induced radon, which has a relatively short half-life. The image is clearly that of a corpse, pathologists asserting that rigor mortis is still evident, and not at all as what one might imagine a glorified resurrected Christ might appear.
I am not persuaded that the repair hypothesis can be dismissed so easily, partly because of Ray Rogers’ findings, nor am I persuaded of the validity of the C14 dating because of the extremely poor sampling regime.
If any of the pollens or other organic debris accumulated some time soon after the resurrection, then they ought not to have been affected by any such neutron emission, and it might be possible to date these accurately, perhaps at some time in the future with further developments in the technology. Possibly some of the debris might then show some consistency with a 1st or 2nd century provenance.
Piero’s suggestion that the effects of neutron emission on linen, its possible effects on C14 dating, the conversion of its nitrogen content, and testing for any image formation in the laboratory seem worthy of consideration and ought to be demonstrable.
I think it would be something that happened during the Resurrection process not by Jesus, but by God the Father. Thats what I would think for any hypothesis like this, radiation, corona discharge etc.
As I mentioned sometime back Jesus told that at resurrection we get a body like Angel. (Matthew 22:30). After resurrection Jesus appeared to many as an Angel. So we have to get rid the conception of Jesus resurrected bodily. As Jesus had a body like Angel. Then at resurrection Jesus body had to be dematerialised. That is how neutrons were emitted uniformly from the body of Jesus.
We have to get rid of the concept of bodily Resurrection? Biblical Scholars disagree.
Sampath, I agree with Matthew L. Your ref to Mat 22:30 was a reply Jesus gave to the Sadducees in response to an attempt to trap him, seven brothers who serially married the same woman all leaving her widowed; At the resurrection, ‘Whose wife shall she be?’. Jesus replied, “At the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels in heaven.” Angels do not marry! After his own resurrection, Jesus did not appear to many as an Angel as stated by you, but appeared to have a special kind of body which could be touched and do things that a bodily person can, things that pure spirit cannot. St Paul also refers to a bodily resurrection, “We shall all be changed”, and he refers to a glorified body. It is not merely a spiritual resurrection.
Thank you Daveb. According to Jesus on Judgement Day or at Resurrection we get glorified bodies. My understanding is Angels are having Glorified Bodies.
According to Hebrews 13:2 -Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.
According to that verse Jesus act like an Angel. According to that verse angels can have special type of body.
Mat. 22:30 does not say that we will have a body like an angel in the resurrection. It does say “but are like angels in heaven” but the context is that we will not “marry nor are given in marriage”. So the meaning is that in the resurrection, we will not be married just as the angels in heaven are not married. It is also clear that Jesus in his post-resurrection appearances had a physical body that could be felt (Luke 24:39, John 20:27) and he could eat food that was given to him (Luke 24:42-43). It should also be clear that our resurrection bodies will also have physicality since our resurrection bodies will be patterned after Jesus’ resurrection body (Phil. 3:20-21).
There does not seem to be any point in talking about the same old theories over and over again. Both Professor Giulio Fanti and Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro have made their contributions. Yet, some of the things they have said can only be verified with a non-invasive examination of the relic, which is what they have asked for. https://www.academia.edu/8841978/Professor_Giulio_Fanti_discusses_the_controversies_in_the_realm_of_Shroud_studies
Professor Fanti’s DNA findings found their way into the recent “Nature” paper and Dr. Di Lazzaro’s experiments are worthy of consideration.
Radiation? It doesn’t seem so. No difference was found between the fibres with and without image.
What is this “evidence has accumulated”? Dr. Ray Rogers proved the tested area was chemically different than the rest of the flax linen. The bottom line is it most likely was repaired.
Alas; if only repeating a thing often enough would make it true.
As it is, of course, Ray Rogers’ findings have been disputed at several levels, from the integrity of his samples to his water soluble gum, and from his mass spectra to his overall starch coating. Words like ‘proved’ lose their meaning in such circumstances, even if Rogers eventually turns out to be correct. Detailed examination of the threads of the Shroud, including the remaining Tucson sample show no evidence of interpolation, and a number of convinced authenticists are equally convinced that there was no repair. I don’t think there really is a ‘bottom line’, but if there were, the words “most likely” would not be part of it.
For backgroud on the reasons for my statement, please see chapter 9 of Mark Antonacci’s new book titled “Test the Shroud”.
Unfortunately the most neutron flux occurred where the image resides, not in a far corner (C-14 area) of the cloth unless that part was folded under or over the Body during image formation.
However, a single 14 ft thread just off image would have been the best sample in this case. That could provide an immense amount of information alla various isotopic ratios (not just carbon) to examine the nature and levels of the energy responsible for this unique Image.
Your first sentence sounds like it is based on the assumption that it was the neutrons that caused the image on the cloth. I am not saying that and do not believe that. Please see my response above to piero.
We humans can’t imagine the resurrection activity and it process. As Mr. Rucker says neutrons must have emitted during the resurrection process. So in addition to neutrons what sort of radiation emitted from the Jesus body to create the image on his burial cloth?
Experiments have shown that protons and ultraviolet light can cause discoloration similar to that found in the image on the Shroud of Turin. I think both of these are good candidates.
Bob, protons too? Are you suggesting alpha particles?
As with other human bodies, the atoms that made up the human body of Jesus would have been composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons. I am suggesting that a very small fraction of these (0.000000015%) were left behind, ie. emitted, when the body disappeared from the tomb in the resurrection. My MNCP computer code calculated that 3.0 x 10E18 neutrons emitted from the body would be needed to shift the C14 date in the sample region from 30 to 1260 AD. Protons and electrons, as well as photons in the ultraviolet energy range, could also have been emitted from the body in the resurrection as well as neutrons. So I am saying that the neutrons would have shifted the C14 date, and the protons, electrons, and ultraviolet could have caused the image as a radiation burn. An alpa particle is a combination of two neutrons and two protons with no electrons. I am not considering the emission of alpha particles from the body at this time. Bob Rucker
222Radon from the Friday earthquake being 7.5 times heavier than air would settle in the floor of the unventilated sealed tomb. Its decay process would emit alpha particles. Matthew 28:1-2 asserts another earthquake occurred on the Sunday morning resulting in the stone being forced from the entrance (an occurrence common enough to those familiar with earthquakes), more radon, and more alpha particles!
I think Rob makes a good point which is one of the reasons that my gut feeling is a supernatural explanation. Given the forensic evidence that would seem to indicate this cloth is Jesus it is a stunning coincidence that the burial cloth of that man who has rumored to have been Resurrected also has an image that despite the best efforts of well, everyone, cannot be explained naturally. Its just a feeling I have that this is not a coincidence. Add to this the negative image, 3-D data, X-ray like quality etc. and I do think a supernatural explanation is plausible though we should keep searching for a natural hypothesis.
The teeth in the image behind closed lips is an example of the X-ray like quality the image has. I really do think in this particular image the row of teeth are clear as day http://blog.world-mysteries.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/shroud_sml1.jpg
Also, why in 2015 are there still people who do not believe the Shroud held a real human body that leaked blood on the Shroud? As far as I can tell such people are not helping Shroud research one bit denying some of the most basic well-established details about the Shroud. The blood is to red? There are a number of explanations, and just because there is one detail about the blood that we don’t understand completely doesn’t mean therefore blood isn’t on the Shroud, but its better and convenient for certain hypothesis to ignore all the other evidence for real blood I guess.
It is difficult to even talk about “miracle” and “super-natural” because people have so many different ideas about what the words even mean. “Miracle” to many scientists simply means a violation of the laws of science, but there have been many violations of the “laws of science” in the past due to discovery of new phenomena so that the “violation” was a very natural thing and a good thing that lead to a revision of the “laws of science” to bring them into conformity with reality. So a better definition of a miracle would be a violation of the laws of science as we currently understand them. A Christian definition of a miracle might be “an event caused by God that causes awe in the beholder” but then even a flower growing might be called a miracle. The word supper-natural has the same problems. Does it mean above or outside of the laws of science as we currently understand them? But the “laws of science” are not static things, but have been developed over time so that something that would have been outside of the laws of science in 1890 might not be outside of the laws of science in 2015 because the laws of science have been adjusted over the last 125 to account for the new phenomena. I think nearly everyone would consider the resurrection of Jesus to be a miracle and a super-natural event but perhaps that is only from our perspective. Perhaps God used a process that was well known to him from before the foundation of the world, yet He had never used it before. So to us it would be totally outside of the laws of science as we currently know them, though it would not be new to God as all.
As I see it, the main problem in Shroud research is the philosophical presupposition of naturalism, which rules out the possibility of the resurrection of Jesus as well as ruling out the possibility of radiation being emitted from within the body, which I believe is the main solution to the enigma of the Shroud. Regarding the blood having too red of appearance, I have encountered two explanations: 1) the high bilirubin content would keep the blood red, and 2) neutron irradiation of the blood may have kept the blood red. I’m not sure about either one so that both probably need further experimentation . Of course the second explanation fits in nicely with my emphasis on neutrons being emitted from within the body. Bob Rucker
The presence of real blood could be confirmed by replicating the tests in a forensic laboratory. Until this is done there will inevitably be doubt whether this is blood or lot, especially as the 1976 tests done in Modena did NOT find blood. Forensic experts have never heard of blood this red- if it were the result of blood from a shocked man it would be well known from criminal cases.
Please don’t assume that we are ignoring evidence for some reason , it is simply that the evidence is at present insufficient to say that this is blood. Bring out the samples for testing in an independent forensic laboratory if you are confident that this is blood. It might still, of course, be medieval blood added to cash in on the lucrative market in blood relics.
Multiple peer-reviewed papers by two very good blood chemist Alan Adler, John Heller. Independently confirmed by Dr. Baima Bollone, and its only the opinion of the STRP team and nearly every medical expert, pathologist, immunologist etc. I’m fine with saying it is not 100% proven, but it is pretty well-established. Your assertion that forensic experts have not seen blood this red is unjustified. If I remember correctly jbejon who I believe said he was medical experience (might have spelled his name wrong) said on here that it is not abnormal at all. When all the tests done indicate that it is real blood with serum stains included then the fact that the blood is red is just something that needs to be worked out, and there are multiple explanations on the table that are credible. You don’t jump to conclusions and say it proves the blood is not real blood, that is absurd.
Well, it happens a lot Charles I see it all the time. Deny Jesus burial despite it being well-established and you have a weaker Resurrection argument that you can refute easier. Deny the blood despite it being well-established and its a lot easier to deny the authenticity of the Shroud. With all due respect, you know nothing about blood stains, neither do I. However, when multiple independent peer-reviewed test by blood chemist/medical experts come to the conclusion that there is real blood I would think you ought to respect that conclusion. When the vast majority of those with medical experience who have see the Shroud in person or in lifesize pictures (Barbet, Zugibe, Bucklin the list goes on and on) agree it is real blood you ought to respect their expert opinion as well. And I don’t want to hear about anonymous forensic experts you have allegedly consulted with.
Lastly, it is not easy to just say “well someone just tossed some medieval blood on there” its not that simple, and i’m sure this has been explained to you many times before. I have to be honest Charles i’m not sure another series of test would do anything to sway your opinion. Why do we even need a handful more of experts to tell us what all the other experts have been saying all along?
Why, if the Shroud was an artistic creation designed for ceremonial use, did the artist place the side wound on Jesus’s left hand side of his torso? Without exception, as far as I am aware, 14th century depictions of Christ showed the wound on his RIGHT side.
Of course, a wound on the right hand side of a real body (or a statue), would create a contact image that shows it on the left hand side of the body on the cloth.
Which makes me think your theory is wrong, and that the Shroud is either authentic, OR it was created to fake Christ’s imprinted burial shroud via a contact printing mechanism.
the nakedness remains a massive problem for the ‘fake’ theory, and for your theory, too.
It is not unreasonable to suggest a medieval origin for the blood as there were relics of the liquid blood of Christ as well as numerous dried ones in the fourteenth century and they were often very lucrative. This is my speciality area and I would refer you to the definitive book on the subject ‘ Wonderful Blood’ by Caroline Walker Bynum.
I gathered all the Heller and Adler papers and a top professor of Physiology from London University read them for me. He found them totally unconvincing and felt that they had misinterpreted what were animal proteins. So they would have failed his peer review abysmally.
I have never found any of my forensic contacts who have seen blood this red, in one case from thirty years of experience.You need to firm up your evidence that you can get old blood this red. Perhaps English blood is different!
But best of all get a 2015 laboratory to do the tests again and then we would have a definitive answer. I am doing my own independent work on the Shroud and can only go on what I am told by independent experts. If I ever publish again( and I am happy for the moment with the responses I have had to the History Today article) then I can set out the expert opinions I have received on the blood.
Thomas. You are right. In the gospel of John, the only one to mention the side wound, it does not say which side it was on. By the sixth century, the Rabbella Gospels, the convention had grown up of placing it on the right side. The artists of the ceremonial cloths were recreating the marks of the body as transferred onto the linen and so they placed it on the left. We have another example on the Besancon Shroud and there were doubtless many more now lost.There needs to be a lot more research on the Spanish evidence as the Mozarbic rites talk of early cloths with double images- the key evidence we need to pin down precursors of the Shroud images. It is all too easy to assume that these are copies of the Shroud but the originals may have been in Spain and the Turin Shroud an offshoot. with virtually every painted cloth lost, we may never know but it is worth following up.
If Professor Michelle Brown is right the illustrations in the Holkham Bible (London, 1330) were used as a template for artists and these show Christ naked on the cross and with wounds on his head very similar to those on the Man of the Shroud- even down to the same kind of squiggle. I am not saying that the Holkham Bible was the template for the Shroud but that this iconography, and even more so the all over front and back scourge marks was typical of the early fourteenth century. It is just some of the subsidiary evidence that fits with the original production of the Shroud as a painted linen. If you have Beldon Scott, and it amazes me that people who claim to be Shroud researchers don~’t have it at their fingertips, you will see the lithograph of 1868 that show the images partially disintegraqted.
Would God the Father deliberately skew the evidence well away from a 1st century date? By using this method of irradiation, an all knowing God would foresee the problems this would create for those in the future searching for evidence.
I note that of the three items listed by Bob Rucker as a possible effect of neutron emission, image formation does not appear to be included, but the items are more generally related to the possible effect of skewing the C14 dating.
I am uneasy about the emission of neutrons from the body as being part of the process of resurrection. It looks too much like pseudo-science and also too much like pseudo-theology. It remains untestable, and to conceive it as part of the resurrection process strains my credulity.
Nevertheless a source of atomic particles as a result of radioactive decay is available, and which might add some credibility to their skewing of the date. All four gospel accounts relate the occurrence of an earthquake. John’s gospel takes it further than the synoptics and attributes an aftershock to the moving of the stone set and sealed into the tomb entrance on the instructions of Pilate at the instigation of the Jewish priests. That all four gospels mention an earthquake suggests to me that it was more than a mere literary device but was in fact a real occurrence.
Since about 1980, 222Rn has been identified as a significant cause of background radiation. It accounts for most of the exposure from background radiation, and is considered the most serious cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, particularly for those living in enclosed spaces of lower floors of apartment buildings. It has a half life of 3.28 days. Radon is apparently the only known radioactive gas, and the health risk arises because the daughter products of the decay process are solid particulates, mostly isotopes in the lead chain.
222Rn is a daughter product of the decay of radium, itself a daughter product of the decay of uranium. It is released from within the ground during earthquakes, and has been investigated as a possible precursor of earthquakes.
I have a question for Bob Rucker. Can he envisage that 222Rn released from within the tomb as a result of an earthquake might produce the effects that he postulates may have occurred as a result of neutron emission? I respectfully suggest that pursuit of this origin of atomic particles might yield a more scientific basis for his theory. I also note that Giovanna De Liso in her seismic investigations of image formation, only ever obtained her images when Radon was detected.
It sounds like you are suggesting that Radon, which is a gas, is released from the limestone of the tomb when an earthquake occurs. The radon then diffuses around in the air of the tomb until it decays presumably by neutron emission. I see several problems with this idea. First, radon-222 decays by alpha emission with a half life of 3.8 days. An alpha particle consists of two neutrons + two protons and has an electrical charge of +2. Absorption of an alpha particle in the Shroud would not cause N14 in the cloth to go to C14, so it would not have an affect on the C14 date. But even if it released neuterons instead of alpha particles, the 3.8 day halflife must also be taken into account. Since radon is a gas, it would gradually diffuse out ot the tomb through the gap between the stone and the opening of the tomb. My calculations indicate that at leaset 3.0 x 10E18 neutrons would have to be released inside the tomb (and actually with a starting location inside the Shroud) to achieve a shift in the C14 date from 30 to 1260 AD for the sample area near the feet. I do not have the data to do the calculation right now, but I seriously doubt that enough radon atoms could be released from the limestone in an earthquake that would cause this many neutrons to be released in the tomb before it leaked out of the tomb. Next, my computer calculations show that the neutrons must be emitted uniformly inside the body in order to achieve the neutron distribution inside the tomb that could produce a slope or gradient in the C14 date of 42 to 57 years per cm across the C14 dates from the three laboratories. With the radon assumed to be emitting neutrons fairly uniformly in the air in the tomb, the date on the side bench would also be about 1260 AD for the face cloth. Thus, the slope of the C14 dates at the sample location in the Shroud and the C14 date for the Sudarium of Oeido would not be explained by radon releasing neutrons in the air in the tomb. I hope this is enough to persuade you that this is not a feasible option.
Has anyone detected Radon Gas in soils/limestone around Jeruselam?
Robert, Thank you for your considered reply.
I would note that radon gas is said to be about 7.5 times heavier than air, and is a sealed tomb without ventilation would seem unlikely to disperse, but would settle in the lower parts of the enclosed space, in depressions, and particularly so if the floor happened to be recessed below the sealed entrance. After a few days, the quantity would be reduced partly by decay, and no doubt by some dispersion.
Whether it might have any bearing on affecting the properties of the cloth could no doubt be investigated. Certainly De Liso claimed that she only ever obtained images when radon was detected as being present.
I would comment that Radon is a specific real source of radioactivity, known to occur, whereas neutron emission from a dead body is not, nor is it known whether it is a necessary concomitant of the resurrection process.
To Sampath: Simply by googling on “Radon Palestine” and “Radon Jerusalem” several public health investigations and scientific papers came to light, showing that radon was of some significant risk there, not only in the air but also in the drinking water, specific locations being the Gaza strip, Bethlehem, and notably in a Talpiot school, and also various other locations, and sufficient to be of some concern to the health authorities there.
I am in no way a scientist as a matter of fact in reading , or should I say try to read, some of the comments that a lot of the science types have put here to others of the same science trained minds – I am totally off and end up skipping a lot of the comment as it is as reading a foreign language because it is.
In my mind, the Jesus body that slid through the Shroud is the same Jesus that died but his body was totally reconfigured, that is one reason he asked or told St, Mary Magdalene not to touch him. I think it will take a miracle on our human part to fully explain just how every facet of the image was produced. We will have to know more about what God is composed of. Jesus changed from the Human body/God Soul to the God Physical Body/God Soul.
Hi ekmcmahon – I like the statement “Jesus changed from the Human body/God Soul to the God Physical Body/God Soul”.
My imagination is the same. No scientist can understand or can explain the resurrection activity and the resurrection process. Answer to resurrection process has to come only from the Father God. I think in this situation we can’t use human logic. So far I have not heard from any scientists or any human how Jesus performed miracles or how Jesus raised 3 dead bodies or how Jesus commanded to stop the storm or how he feed 5000 men (excluding women and children)
I suggest the electrons collapsed into the nuclei emitting UV and/or soft X-rays. A new force must be responsible for this. Unified theory maybe? Colossians 1:17 and Hebrews 1:3 both indicate Christ’s authority over the 4 forces we know about. In any event, the electrons were not in the way with His new Body. He could walk through walls so of course a cloth could collapse through that sort of matter, alla Jackson’s very elegant model.
If he could walk through walls why would the be a need to move the stone?
the=there, damn K mart keyboard
The earthquake after-shock moved the stone, see Matthew 28:1-2. Fortuitous, so the absence of the body could then be more easily witnessed.
The the angels moved the stone, but why would angels need to move the stone?
“And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”
Well this is way off topic so I’ll drop it.
PS I’ll buy that the earthquake moved the stone. Makes sense to me.
John, a short lesson in EQ 101: Earthquakes are a regular occurrence in NZ, and EQ Engineering had to be one my specialties. Occasionally we get a big one. There are four kind of waves according to their motion. The P-waves are the compression-tension waves, a bit like sound waves and arrive first. At an escarpment or cliff, the release of the P-wave at the face will hurl rocks and boulders several metres, maybe even up to 20m in a big quake. The tomb-rock was sealed against the tomb entrance. Not too difficult to see why the stone shifted. Matthew calls it an angel, which suits his purpose and their understanding of this sort of occurrence.
God wanted it open as an exclamation, like the Image. Go tell
Hi Daveb/mr. Green
These are the possiblities:
After the resurrection Jesus must have gone out from the tomb without moving the Stone
Angels must have moved the Stone
Earth quake must have moved the Stone
Soldiers must have moved the Stone to check the body of Jesus after the Earth quake.
No one mentioned where the Stone was when Mary Madgelene reached the tomb. Only thing mentioned was it was moved. We don’t know whether Stone was fallen to ground or left next to the Tomb entrance.
Sampath, see my response to John G above.
Comments are closed.