Let’s start with the third comment, one by Hugh Farey:
I also agree with Daveb. He summarises the evidence that counters a medieval date for the shroud admirably, and uses, entirely reasonably, words like “ambiguous” and “unproven”, and explains that he is persuaded of authenticity. I, on the other hand, am not persuaded of authenticity. I think that’s fine. The Shroud will not become authentic, or medieval, on the basis of what Daveb or I am persuaded, and it is good that together we can work towards removing some of the ambiguity of the evidence, whichever way it leads.
The “also agree” is agreeing with John Klotz who packed it into six words:
As usual, Daveb says it all.
And what Daveb said:
Until proper representative sampling is carried out in accordance with a valid sampling protocol, the validity of the results from the single grab sample in 1988 must remain ambiguous and debated, whatever the cause might be of the mismatch from an earlier date, in view of other indications that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. These indications may include: 1) Fanti’s mechanical testing suggesting the possibility of a 1st century date; 2) Historic arguments that the Shroud was in Constantinople in 1204; 3) Indications from the Hungarian Pray manuscript that distinctive features of the Shroud were known in 1195, prior to the alleged C14 dating; 4) Forensic arguments that the image is that of a real crucified person who suffered the punishments reported in the gospels including a crown of thorns and percussio wound to the chest; 5) the otherwise inexplicable cause of the image; 6) the unsmeared blood stains; 7) Presence of Jerusalem limestone; Etc, etc!
The assertion of homogeneity of the cloth remains unproven, in light of reputable assertions of occasional mending, and in that case a single grab sample is insufficient, even though it might be a routine practice for testing of other cloths (e.g. mummy wrappings) for which there would be no cause to presume mending. Rogers, whatever shortcomings there might be in his chemistry knowledge, and also reputed to be an agnostic, was the chemist with the greatest familiarity with Shroud chemistry. His investigations persuaded him that there were anomalies indicative of highly skilled mending.
Should perchance representative sampling demonstrate that the single grab sample was in fact adequately representative of the whole, then some other explanation for this peculiar result might then have to be considered. The forensic arguments, together with the enigmatic cause of the image, seem to me to be particularly persuasive of authenticity.
I’m not sold on numbers 1 and 6, but I am sold overall. And I think that the historic argument is much more than Constantinople in 1204. I find the Hymn of Pearl very persuasive, for instance.
That Rogers might have been agnostic doesn’t weigh on me. And if it did, it might impress on me a measure of objectivity. However, Joan Rogers, Ray’s wife, has publically stated in the past that they were both Protestants.
Subject:
authenticity and scientific controls.
Daveb:
>1) Fanti’s mechanical testing suggesting
the possibility of a 1st century date;…
…Fanti’s mechanical testing … ???
I hope to see more controls, with more
exact works in that field!
In the past I wrote some generic remarks
(also indicating some particular controls,
as the “AFM three-bending tests”,
perhaps useless due to the possibility
to obtain direct AFM [elasticity] maps, etc. …).
Then, due to the usual level reached in
our “controversial discussions” on this blog,
I think you have to try to be more scientific
in your approach.
And then, please, attention. Be careful
in reading my text:
Here I don’t write that past mechanical tests
done by Fanti and Malfi (an interesting
educational work) can mainly be seen
as hallucinations or only classified in
the scientific field of bad works… or other
similar bad things.
— —
Here a generic reference about
“Three-point bending tests with
an atomic force microscope”
and “mechanical properties”:
“Measurement of the elastic modulus of
spider mite silk fibers using atomic force microscopy”
by
Stephen D. Hudson, Vladimir Zhurov, Vojislava Grbić,
Miodrag Grbić and Jeffrey L. Hutter
Link:
i http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/113/15/10.1063/1.4800865
— — —
Here I want to add another particular
remark/question:
Why in the past the researchers
did not use ATR-FTIR controls
on areas covered by serum which
prevented the formation of the image
on linen cloth?
Am I wrong in my question?
See also :
“depth of penetration” for ATR-FTIR controls…
Sorry.
This problem has to do with the BIF
mechanisms proposed as originated
the Image on the Cloth.
and then, written here, it is off topic …
Subject:
The idea of a “New Archaeological
Chemistry” and the old problem of
absence or presence of an Image
under blood and serum.
— —
Here what I can again say,
following the switching from
the main argument (“…Seven
or So Reasons to Believe the
Shroud is Authentic”), arriving
to the other problem underlined:
The late researcher Dr. Alan Adler
wrote that all the blood images show
evidence of clot retraction rings of
serum about each wound and this is
easily seen in the fluorescence photographic studies.
And then see also: ultraviolet lighting on blood
marks throughout the entire body…
What can furthermore observe (about
the problem of ATR-FTIR controls) a
forensic scientist about the (presence
or absence of the) Image (under the
serum layer)?
See also: the absence of body image
on the wound-image margins (Jumper
et al., “Archaeological Chemistry”, 1984)
and the RGB image enhancement of
photographs of serum flows (by
Don Janney [= STURP team]).
Has really this “simple ATR-FTIR problem”
nothing to do with the question inherent the
authenticity of the Holy Shroud and the
various BIF mechanisms?
See also the other problem to solve:
the serum layer on linen fibrils and
the effect of radiations (and/or electric discharges)…
— — —
I am sorry for this curious “ATR-FTIR
diversion” (but see also the possibility
to use other more advanced techniques)
from the main topic, sometimes the reasonings
overlap, but this “source of confusion”
should not have a great influence (in
order to rule out a possible dialogue) …
I hope in your answers.
The first simple and reasonable thing
to do is (or it seems to be) the careful
measurement, in order to detect the
exact thickness of the serum layer on linen fibrils …
So…
Where are the data (and then see also
the results from the old micro-FTIR controls)
or the useful experiments?
#4 or course has always been the most compelling…Because you can reason..So this burial cloth held a real crucified human corpse..The human corpse that was inside the Shroud at one point has all the wounds of Jesus, and they are forensically accurate. Jesus had a pretty unique death so its not all that hard to tell it is in fact Jesus, and not some anonymous crucifixion victim, and of course by tradition the cloth has been connected to Jesus which is worth noting, and i’m not sure why a burial cloth would even be taken out a tomb unless it was significant.
I believe the forensic evidence is more than enough to establish the authenticity of the Shroud, but its always nice to have additional evidence like #7 where there is Jerusalem limestone. Its significant to me that it is largely concentrated near the feet which again just shows this is an authentic burial cloth of someone who walked around probably barefoot before being killed. Until we get further testing on the aragonite which i’m dying to see it will remain not quite excellent evidence, but still decent further evidence in part of a cumulative case for authenticity.
#2, and #3 are very significant for the Carbon Dating question, and along w/ other pieces of evidence I think shows the results are probably in error without even getting into the scientific evidence.
#6 Is interesting, but I don’t find it evidence for authenticity really, but more like possible evidence for the Resurrection. The body in the Shroud left within a couple days like Jesus in the Gospels left his empty tomb. Why did the body leave? Was it manual extraction or did Jesus just “disappear”? I think the evidence and what we see on the Shroud points to the latter more so than the former.
I’m not sure about #1, and don’t quite understand the rationale for #5
Thank you for your comments, Matthew.
#1) Fanti’s mechanical testing: The technical details setting up the testing are:
“A NEW CYCLIC-LOADS MACHINE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF MICRO-MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SINGLE FLAX FIBERS COMING FROM THE TURIN SHROUD” By Giulio Fanti, Pierandrea Malfi, Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua University;
http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/aimeta-fanti.pdf
It was essentially a pioneering effort by Fanti & Malfi to develop an alternative method for age determination of flax fibres. The margin of error must inevitably be quite large as age is not the only dependent variable. The specific history of the parent cloth, such as frequency of folding and the various storage environments are also significant in affecting the parameters measured. Thus the authors claimed a margin of error of 400 years, and found it was compatible within the time that Jesus lived. The paper is highly technical and it is helpful to know something of the theory of Strength of Materials, a standard discipline in Engineering. Parameters measured include Young’s Modulus, tensile strength, loss factor. Other methods have also been used including Raman spectroscopy.
#5) Cause of the image: This remains unknown; Possibilities include a) some as yet unknown naturalistic process; b) an artisan’s deliberate attempt by a process which still remains a secret; c) a miraculous divine intervention. Despite various attempts to replicate the image, none have been really successful, and few if any attempts display all the known properties of the Shroud image. If it was the result of an artisan, his identity is unknown and he left no record of either his attempts, or of his failures. The forensic evidence displays a knowledge of anatomy not known in medieval times.
#6) Unsmeared blood marks: This is also part of the forensic evidence. If say an artisan used even a crucified corpse to produce his image, then removal of the corpse would surely have resulted in smearing. There are good indications that the blood marks occurred before the image. However a miraculous resurrection could be expected not to smear the blood marks.
It is important I think to weigh the totality of the available evidence, not necessarily any single one. The evidence is necessarily circumstantial, and in such cases the total weight is what must determine any decision on the question of authenticity. Particular pieces of evidence will be more persuasive than others, and individual viewpoints also play a part.
I hope you will forgive me if I rise again
trying to clarify something about
the “alternative dating”…
Daveb:
>#1) Fanti’s mechanical testing: …
… … …
>…Other methods have also been
used including Raman spectroscopy.
The other vibrational spectroscopy
was based on ATR-FTIR (but see also
my past generic remarks about the problem
of exact ATR-FTIR calibrations).
In any case there is the book (by Fanti and Malfi)
and then all the readers interested on
the issue of “alternative dating” can
read that interesting book…
Link:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Shroud-Turin-Century-Christ/dp/9814669121
Like I already wrote on this blog particular works,
useful for “alternative dating”, can also
be done using SPM controls and
these works are based on the same
idea of degradation of mechanical characteristics
of linen fibers after centuries (See also my old
intervention, during the International Congress
held in Turin [in 1998], where I indicated
the SPMs as useful tools in order to check the
cellulosic chains of the ancient linen cloth and
the biological materials [blood, DNA, etc.]).
But, until now, no one was able to do
that SPM survey on Holy Shroud.
So, the work done by Fanti mainly seems
to be only a preliminar step in order
to improve the analyses, working with
the SPMs tools …as I indicated years ago…
Then there is another possible thing to take
into account in your investigations.
See the past exhibition:
“Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits from Roman Egypt”
[February 15 – May 7, 2000],
“Metropolitan Museum of Art”…
From where it come the use (Fayum, etc.)
to do the ancient “Graeco-Egyptian portraits”?
These reperts were rare and fragile works,
including the Metropolitan’s entire collection
of mummy portraits…
So, before to destroy linen fibrils coming from
the Holy Shroud there is that field to investigate
using:
– vibrational spectroscopies : ATR-FTIR, IR-Raman
– advanced microscopies: AFM, CFM, AFM-Raman
and
also:
SERS controls (vibrational spectroscopy)!
B.T.W.:
I have just found a book
by Ricardo Aroca with the following title:
“Surface-Enhanced Vibrational Spectroscopy”
John Wiley & Sons, 2006
Links:
http://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-museum/press-room/exhibitions/2000/ancient-faces-mummy-portraits-from-roman-egypt
https://books.google.it/books?id=4Wu3aQ3xefwC&dq=SERS+controls+vibrational+spectroscopy&hl=it&source=gbs_navlinks_s
If you find this is an interesting intervention
(that worth to deepen), then answer to me!
I was interested in the Fayum mummy portraits
even before the book by Thomas de Wesselow
(“The Sign”, 2012) came out!…
In any case see also (…the photographs):
Ancient Faces: Mummy Portraits in Roman Egypt (Metropolitan Museum of Art Publications)
Susan Walker, Morris Bierbrier
Link:
http://www.amazon.de/Ancient-Faces-Portraits-Metropolitan-Publications/dp/toc/0415927447
I want to add something about
“AFM Mechanical mapping of linen fibres”.
Nanoindentation using atomic force microscopy
can be used to examine the mechanical properties
of fibers at nanoscale.
Then the effect of accelerated aging of linen fibers
under ultraviolet (UV) and thermal-oxidative
conditions on mechanical property gradients
across the fiber cross-section can be investigated.
I am curious about the level of UV degradation
that produces bulk degradation up to x hours
of exposure and surface degradation
See also the possible lower values of
Young’s modulus at surface compared to center.
In my opinion we can also try to use
the AFM microscopy (= AFM and flexural tests)
with bending actuators…
See (f.e.) the old tests:
“Mechanical characterization of
nanofibers – A review”
E.P.S. Tan, C.T. Lim
published in
“Composites Science and Technology”
Volume 66, Issue 9, July 2006,
Pages 1102–1111
Nanocomposites
Here a short excerpt from the Abstract:
>… there is a need to characterize the
mechanical properties of single nanofibers.
>The aim of this paper is to provide a review
of experimental techniques for the mechanical
characterization of nanofibers, namely tensile test,
bend test and indentation done at the nanoscale. …
Link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0266353805003635
Tools:
For example, we can try to think at
polypyrrole (ppy) based bimorph nanoactuators.
These nanoactuators consists of
PPY nanowire and Cu thin film.
“Determination of Mechanical Properties and
Actuation Behaviors of Polypyrrole–Copper
Bimorph Nanoactuators”
3 Author(s):
Sul, O. ; Mech. Eng. Dept., Stevens Inst. of Technol.,
Hoboken, NJ, USA ;
Seongjin Jang ; Eui-Hyeok Yang
Published in:
Nanotechnology, IEEE Transactions on (Volume:10 , Issue: 5 )
>… The measured force from the nanoactuator
was approximately 1 nN (at ΔT = 100 K).
Link:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5618567
Here another kind of link
[piezoceramic actuator
© 1996-2015 PI (Physik Instrumente)]:
http://www.pi-usa.us/piezo_motion_tutorial/
— — —
A possible generic bibliographic reference:
Smart Materials-Based Actuators at the
Micro/Nano-Scale: Characterization, Control,
and Applications.
by
Micky Rakotondrabe
Springer Science & Business Media,
June 2013
This book also includes two of the most
emerging topics and applications:
Nanorobotics and cells micro/nano-manipulation…
And then:
see also the sad lack of “high technical innovations”
during the past Congress (2014) hold in Bari…
Links:
http://dee.poliba.it/ATSI2014/index.htm
http://dee.poliba.it/ATSI2014/Programma_ATSI%20final.pdf
http://shroudstory.com/2014/01/11/checking-in-on-the-bari-workshop-september-4-5-2014/
So, we can only hope to see
more efforts in the next future
(in the field that before I have
underlined = AFM and “non-destructive
flexural tests” useful to obtain an
evaluation about the probable epoch
of linen materials and also [perhaps]
for biological remains…).
I have to rewrite a deleted hasty message.
I wanted to add something about
AFM Mechanical mapping …
Nanoindentation using AFM can be used to examine
mechanical properties of fibers at nanoscale.
Then the effect of accelerated aging of linen fibers
under UV (and/or VUV) and thermal-oxidative
conditions on mechanical property gradients
across the fiber cross-section can be investigated.
I am curious about the level of UV degradation
that produces surface degradation
and bulk degradation up to x hours of exposure
(See also the lower values of Young’s
modulus at surface compared to center).
In my opinion we can also try to use
the AFM microscopy (= AFM and flexural tests)
with bending actuators.
See (f.e.) the old controls :
“Mechanical characterization
of nanofibbers – A review”
EPS Tan, CT Lim,
published in Composites Science anTechnology”
Vol. 66, issue 9, July 2006
Here ashort excerpt from the abstract:
>… there is a need to characterize
the mechanical properties of single
nanofibers, namely tensile test bend test
and indentation done at the nanoscale…
I apologize for what I quickly wrote (at 12:55 pm),
also committing two misspellings…
1) >“Mechanical characterization
of nanofibbers – A review”
Instead of:
“Mechanical characterization
of nanofibers – A review”
2) >ashort excerpt
instead of:
>a short excerpt
Unfortunately yesterday evening
did not appear to me the text of
the message (sent at 12:36 pm)
I had written a few minutes before
and then I thought that the text of that
message (sent at 12:36 pm) was lost …
I also wanted to add the following (generic) links:
http://www.piezoproducts.com/en/
http://www.piezoproducts.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/jm_piezoproducts_company_brochure_en_13022015.pdf
Explicavi sententiam meam eo consilio, tuum iudicium ut cognoscerem.
I have not yet turned the previous
statements “Semel in anno licito insanire”…
into: “Semel in anno licito cogitare”…
I have forgotten the translation about
the previous latin words:
“Explicavi sententiam meam eo consilio,
tuum iudicium ut cognoscerem.”
Then,
here my attempts:
= I explained my opinion, on going to know your opinion.
or:
= I explained my opinion in the intention to know your opinion.
Am I wrong for these translations?
Please, if I am wrong,
prove to me where I am wrong…
— — —
Another argument:
Flexural tests.
The three point bending flexural test
provides values for the modulus of
elasticity in bending, flexural stress,
flexural strain and the flexural stress-strain
response of the material.
Links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_point_flexural_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Bernoulli_beam_theory
Bending tests with atomic force microscopes (AFM) is a common method for elasticity measurements on 1D nanomaterials.
— — —
The classical example is the following:
“A method for testing the elastic modulus
of single cellulose fibrils via
atomic force microscopy”
Qingzheng Cheng, Siqun Wang
published in
“Composites Part A: Applied Science
and Manufacturing”
Vol. 39, Issue 12, December 2008
… and here a short excerpt from the
Abstract:
>… The elastic modulus of cellulose fibrils,
of diameter approximately 170 nm
isolated from Lyocell fibers by
high intensity ultrasonication was
evaluated to be 93 GPa. …
Link:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359835X08002352
There is also something to read,
printed in an interesting book,
titled:
“Carbohydrate Nanotechnology”
Keith J. Stine
John Wiley & Sons, October 2015
Links:
http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118860292.html
http://www.hoepli.it/libro/carbohydrate-nanotechnology/9781118860533.html
— — —
And then, see also:
the use of micro/nano-electronics and
micro/nano-electromechanical systems
(MEMS/NEMS)…
As you can easily verify, in a
past message (sent in data:
January 9, 2015 at 11:16 am),
I wrote:
>…I indicated the “AFM three-point bending test”.
But we know that is possible to propose
the use of SPM technology to obtain
the elastic mapping for ancient linen fibrils
(coming from areas not involved in the Fire
of the year 1532) instead of acting on each
single fibril with a single AFM bending test…
Obviously we cannot ignore other
sources of mechanical weakness than age alone…
For example FIre damage, bacterial attacks,
fungal attacks, and the effects of the repeated
flexing of the fabric in a given area (see also:
the well-known argument, already indicated
by Dr. Jackson: historical folds = and then a
possible idea, an interesting way to find
the epoch for these plies… if these plies were
not altered in 2002).etc.