[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]Unraveling the Shroud of Turin[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]STEVEN D. SCHAFERSMAN
Department of Science and Mathematics
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Odessa, Texas[/FONT]
Copyright © 1998
Since the research data, and
modern scientific findings explained in the link I first provided in my previous post were of the 21st century, this
outdated link from 1998 has little to no merit.
I went to the trouble of doing extensive reading through the website I mentioned. It is about the most recent scientific reports published on the Shroud of Turin, and I placed the link here in my earlier post with a strong urging that others read it
entirely first, then comment
after.
It would seem that those who have commented thus far failed to read this website at all, and therefore lacked the information needed before they posted links to old material, quoted outdated findings, and simply dismissed the Shroud as having been “debunked freaking decades ago.” Since it is apparent that the website I recommended was not thoroughly read, let me quote you some excerpts to think about.
“An Open Letter to Journalists
A few weeks before he died in 1963, Washington Post publisher Philip Leslie Graham described journalism as the “first rough draft of history.” ...
...All of us can think of many instances when the first draft of history was wrong; from world events to science. It is a problem when journalists, by turning to dusty archives or online repositories, repeat an old story without taking the trouble to look for new information....
...When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, journalists often fall into the first-draft trap. Some recent examples - that have become something of urban legends - will serve to illustrate this:
* John Blake in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote: “The image of a bearded man was declared to be the image of the crucified Christ for centuries until carbon dating in 1988 suggested it was a medieval forger.” (March 2, 2007)
* Randi Kaye on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 said: “Forensics in the past 40 years didn't show blood, instead, something similar to paint.” (February 26, 2007)
Updated, peer reviewed science tells a completely different story, as we will see. Blake completely ignored the ongoing scrutiny of the shroud by scholars. Yes, ongoing. Yes, scholars...
...Look at the list of scientific journals. Read the articles (listed in an appendix to this letter). There is not a single religious assumption.... ...Controversy surrounding the possible authenticity of the shroud, as we will see, is a matter for real science, objective history and archeology.
Parnie Schwortz, one of the most prominent and objective shroud researchers of the last three decades, serves as a useful example. He once wrote:
'Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified. That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype. The only reason I am still involved with the Shroud of Turin is because knowing the unbiased facts has convinced me of its authenticity. And I believe only a handful of people have really ever had access to all the unbiased facts. Most of the public has had to depend on the media, who always seem to sensationalize the story or reduce the facts to two minute sound bites from so-called experts who have 'solved the mystery.'
...Towards the end of the CNN segment on the Shroud of Turin, Chetry said to Gallagher:
'The argument that the gentleman made in the piece is that they accidentally -- or they -- not accidentally, but they snipped a piece that ended up being a reconstructed part of the shroud....Do we buy that?'
Buy what?
That John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers' findings. Brown worked independently and with different methods, including a Scanning Electron Microscope. He wrote:
'This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan's attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.'
Had the shroud been correctly carbon dated, the cloth should produce measurable amounts of vanillin. Found in medieval linen, but not in much older cloth, vanillin diminishes and disappears with time. Rogers, who initially accepted the carbon dating, discovered that there was no detectable vanillin in the flax fibers of the main part of the shroud just as there is no vanillin in the linen wrapping from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There was, however, vanillin in the corner from which the carbon 14 samples were taken. He demonstrated -- his methods and conclusions withstood the rigors of peer review - - that the main part of the shroud and the carbon dating sample had a different age. Had the cloth of the shroud been manufactured in 1260, the oldest date suggested by carbon dating, it should have retained about 37% of its vanillin.”
The Shroud of Turin was debunked freaking decades ago. It was a medieval forgery. The researchers were able to figure out the method.
Ok, now let me introduce you to the
21st century of scientific findings.
The following are some of the journals listed on the last page of the above letter I quoted:
Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp. 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect online information site.
Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Lloyd Currie.
NIST, Washington D.C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)
Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto.
“The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)
Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. “The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-
Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.” s vol. 4,
Ames, J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg,
(2003, pp. 106-113)
Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of
Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.”46:142-154(2002)
Here are my questions about the Shroud of Turin by itself, and the connection to the Sudarium of Oviedo:
1. It seems to me that there are three main pieces of contested evidence that is being used to claim the Shroud is a medieval artist rendering.
a. The carbon 14 dating:
- - Modern research has at least brought into question, if not adequately proven that the sample taken was from a patch of material which was added as a repair in the 14th century. This argument is not faulting the carbon 14 tests, or claiming the test was contaminated or gave false results. The newer evidence shows the test to be invalid because it was not of the material from the main section which scientific research shows is older than the sample.
b. The alleged presence of a paint-like substance:
- - Modern scientific methods has refuted this previously mistaken conclusion, and the researches have published new results that states there was no paint on the main section or used in the image.
c. The letter by the 14th Century Bishop:
- - It seems clear to me that this alleged claim by one man during a time of controversy over legitimate artifacts, would not hold up to the scrutiny of the skeptics own standards if this type of so-called “evidence” was offered on the other side of the debate. The Bishop can not be held as an unbiased witness, nor as an “expert” witness. His testimony was taken from an apparent draft of a letter that might not have ever been sent, thus makes no official, open declaration. His alleged knowledge of an artists claim to have created the shroud was hearsay which he claims originated with his deceased predecessor who never made any such noted claim in his lifetime, and cannot corroborate the Bishop's claim. Furthermore, it would appear that no one has ever identified the alleged artist who claimed to have made the shroud.
2. Each of the above points are
pivotal to denying the Shrouds authenticity. Without them being true, the Shroud stands out as a very credible piece of history. Modern, 21st century, scientific research, peer reviewed and published, has brought each of these three key points into serious question, and further research has tipped the scales toward the likely-hood that the Shroud existed centuries before the alleged 14th century creation.
Consider the following five points and address them individually if you like:
1. Even if the type of image on the shroud could be theoretically reproduced, in parts, by methods available in the 14th century, where is the scientific and historical evidence that anyone of that time period knew of it. Why only one artistic item with this reverse negative image? If it were used then, why have not more been found. Why would an artist use anything resembling a negative image instead of just painting the figure as a normal image?
Also, the fact that the figure's thumbs were not visible raises the medical issue that a crucified man would have this physical reaction. How would a 14th century artist know this, and why would he think to make the image without visible thumbs? Only through advanced, modern technology are we able to examine details of the shroud, not visible to the naked eye, which reveals the amount of wounds from whipping on the back, buttocks, and legs, as well as other bleeding wounds. How would an artist think to include any of these details, how would he accomplish this process, and why would an artist forging an image of Christ on a cloth take time to create nearly invisible markings that would either go unnoticed, or if they were made more visible to the eye at that time, would clearly be fake marks to the 14th century observer.
2. The tile image at the main gate of Edessa in 544 A.D., is clearly an exact replica of the face on the shroud. If anyone has evidence to refute the existence of the tile, or that it does not exactly match the symmetry of the Shroud, let them post it here! To my eye (from my own perspective as an artist) there is not anywhere near likely that these two renditions could be so identical and not have one taken from the other.
Therefore, either the shroud was present in Edessa in the 6th century, or the alleged forged shroud was placed over the tile (or an exact duplicate of the image on the tile) in the 14th century. One was clearly taken directly, and precisely from the other. Does anyone have evidence that the tile was removed from Edessa, or that an exact replica of the Edessa tile was taken to where the Shroud was allegedly forged?
3. The historical account of workers repairing the gate of Edessa in 544 A.D. says that they found a cloth hidden in the gate which contained the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Is this story contested, and claimed that it never happened, or is the claim that this was a different cloth? If the story can be confirmed, then what cloth was it, and why wouldn't the image of Jesus on the new tile over the main gate of Edessa after 544 be taken from that cloth?
Unless people discount that story, and even prove it is false, it seems logical that when they found a hidden cloth with an image of Jesus on it, they would use that image to create the gate's tile image thereafter. If that were true, then it is clear that the cloth they found is the same Shroud that turned up later in Turin because the images are the same.
4. If there is no evidence to refute the story of the workers finding a cloth with the image of Jesus on it, where did that cloth come from? Would this not be supported by the earlier legend that a disciple brought such a cloth to King Abgar? Do others deny that King Abgar existed? Do they deny that the earlier legend of the disciple existed?
5. Finally, and of very high importance, what is the argument against the physical, scientific evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) contains the same type of human blood, and the markings match for the various blood stains? Science seems to suggest, rather convincingly, that these two cloths are related, and were together at one time when they were used on a crucified man.
Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?
To conclude, I don't have time to quote
all of the current, 21st century evidence and its publications, so I ask that those who wish to simply dismiss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as proven during the last century to be a fraud, ignoring udated research, and further ignore the Sudarium of Oviedo, then please read the link that I posted earlier before you quote
old,
outdated, scientific
first-draft findings.
Last Fearner
One thing that's really impressive is the way that knight errantry, which is what it amounts to, isn't a matter of birth or wealth but committment, choice and discipline. It's darned near unique.
