Ethan the Freethinking Historian’s Attempt to Debunk the Shroud is Wrong
Let’s correct Ethan the Freethinking Historian. We’ll do so in bold.
On Episode 30 of Radio Freethinker . . . we talked about the Shroud of Turin and some recent scientific tests that disproved its authenticity. (We’ll hold off on this because Ethan contradicts himself, further on down).
But before we go any further let’s discuss what the Shroud of Turin is. The shroud is a 14 x 3 foot piece of cloth with the image of a man who appears to have been killed by crucifixion. Supposedly, this is Jesus Christ and supposedly it’s stained with his blood, although the Catholic Church does not officially recognize it as authentic.
. . .Since then the shroud has been subjected to carbon dating and now the recent scientific experiments by Luigi Garlaschelli. . . .
What Garlaschelli did was prove that with materials available in Medieval Europe, one could leave such an imprint on a piece of cloth. Not really, but read on.
Now this does not prove the shroud is a fake (emphasis mine, contradiction his, and I agree), it was already proved a fake when it was carbon dated several times in 1980’s. It was only dated once in 1988. One sample was divided between three labs. It has now been proved (if Ethan can use that word, so can I) that the sample was from a mended area of the cloth containing old and much newer thread. Moreover:
- The combined evidence from chemical kinetics, analytical chemistry, cotton content, and pyrolysis/ms proves that the material from the radiocarbon area of the shroud is significantly different from that of the main cloth. The radiocarbon sample was thus not part of the original cloth and is invalid for determining the age of the shroud. – from Thermochimica Acta, an international science journal, “Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin” by Raymond Rogers, January 2005.
Rogers work has since been confirmed by numerous chemists, including John Brown at Georgia Tech and Bob Villarreal at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
The shroud was estimated to be no older than 1260, which would put it right in the period of time of pilgrimage and charlatans creating holy relics and then making a profit off them. Now, it is understood to be no later than 700 CE and perhaps earlier. Moreover, history reliably traces it back to 544 CE and there is some evidence that points back to at least the third century.
The only “controversy” was that scientist weren’t sure how the image was transferred to the cloth, which led some to proclaim that it could only be a real miracle. Actually, most scientist who have actually studied the image on fibers and thread from the shroud, under a microscope, believe that the image was formed by some natural process, possibly an amino/carbonyl reaction. Did some proclaim a miracle. Sure. That is to be expected. But the implication is misleading, not very freethinking.
However Garlaschelli proves that it was indeed possible, they placed a sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. Then the cloth was artificially aged by heating it in an oven and washing it, this process removed the pigment from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. After that you just have add some burn marks or blood stains to get the final product.
Similar in appearance but not similar chemically, physically, optically. It proves nothing except that some arts and craft method can be used to make something that looks like the shroud.
If there is a lesson to be learned, don’t believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Ethan the Freethinking Historian’s blog: Debunking the Shroud
Italian Scientist Reproduces Humans & Shroud of Turin
Italian Scientist Reproduces Humans Using Materials Available in the Middle Ages Thus Proving that the First Humans Were Manmade
ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has reproduced a human being, a feat that he says proves definitively that humans, which Christians say are made in the image of God, are medieval fakes produced using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.
A scientifically-made mannequin, measuring 6 feet, 2 inches tall, looks eerily like Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist himself.
"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as a human being," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.
A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
The mannequin resembles the back and front of a bearded man with long hair with his arms crossed on his chest. He has two hands, two feet and a single head with two eyes and two ears.
Since Darwin, evolutionary biologists have believed that humans evolved along with other animals and plants from a common ancestor. But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain why some people smoke cherry flavored pipe tobacco since it offers no evolutionary advantage.
Garlaschelli, who received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, expects people to contest his findings. “They didn’t believe me when I reproduced the Shroud of Turin, Quantum physics and the Egyptian pyramids, thus proving that they, too, were medieval creations. “
“It works for me,” said PZ Myers, pastor of the Morris, Minnesota Pharyngula Church of Fundamentalist Atheists. “I was getting tired of evolution, anyway. I believe everything I read in the newspapers so long as it doesn’t conflict with my beliefs. If humans are manmade, that’s fine. I still don’t need to believe in God.”
Garlaschelli said the funding for his work by his own organization of like-minded atheists had no effect on his results. "I always start with results," he said. “That way, I always arrive at the desired conclusion.”
MyCatholicSource.com News & Opinion Page
Opinion piece from My Catholic Source:
Does the New Replica Disprove the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin?
By: Ed Kelley
I love it when you can smell the bias right up front: "Shroud of Turin Once Again Proven a Fake". What can you expect from CNN and from a San Francisco "alternative" daily column by Tommi Avicolli-Mecca, author of something called "Smash the Church, Smash the State: The Early Years of Gay Liberation"? Hardly unbiased sources, are they?
As I look at the pictures, and read the articles one thing is for certain – they have made a cloth that looks like the face on the Shroud, but so far, that is it. The Shroud has undergone decades of research – it is the most studied relic in history – and yet there are still many characteristics that scientists cannot explain or reproduce. Several attempts to make a "copy" of the Shroud have scientifically turned out to be ridiculously simple by comparison to the actual Shroud. Some attempts to reproduce the Shroud have contained a few of the characteristics of the Shroud. Others have contained different characteristics of the Shroud. But none have even scratched the surface of the hundreds of known, unique and scientifically proven qualities that the Shroud holds. Most of these authentic characteristics would not be identifiable except for the many, very sophisticated modern tests that it has undergone. No attempted reproduction of the Shroud has passed more than a few of these scrupulous exams.
Only time will tell as to how accurate a copy this will turn out to be. I have rarely heard of any reproduction attempt that has continued to be studied after it has been initially revealed and held up as a "true copy" of the Shroud. Most likely, like all the other "explanations", it will turn out to be hollow ‘gotcha’ attempt, a "Hah!, look what we have done! We have created a copy that ‘proves’ the Shroud is a fake." Then, after the 15 minutes of fame has worn off, this fake will be tossed into the scrap-heap of other so-called proofs that go no further in their scientific study than the highly flawed radio carbon dating which "proved" the Shroud was a medieval fake based on a sample cut from an area still disputed as not being part of the original Shroud fabric.
The true Shroud is a photographic negative and the pictures shown in recent articles appear to show an image similar to the Shroud. Let’s assume that the pictures in the articles exhibit the same photographic negative characteristic as that of the Shroud. That makes it similar to the Shroud in one instance. The scientific community and their biased media accomplices should be asking if it also projects 3D characteristics under the VP-8 Image Analyzer. The Shroud does. Only one other "copy" has shown some 3D characteristics, albeit very distorted and disfigured. The Shroud’s 3D image is surprisingly detailed and clear.
They used pigmented paint, heating and washed the cloth afterwards to leave a stain on the cloth fibers. They suggest that the Shroud was similarly painted and that the pigment simply wore off over the centuries. Not true. The Shroud cloth’s fibrils, the fine strands of material that form the woven-together threads of the cloth, are not stained. The fibrils that make the image have decomposed at a more accelerated rate that the rest of the cloth fibers, making the sepia colored image that can only be seen at distance. There is no seepage of materials or stains. The image does not go beyond the uppermost strands of the threads. How can these scientists conclude that this was made by "paint" when there is no stain, just discolored fibrils? Are the threads of the cloth they made stained through the threads with the pigment they used? I’ll bet they are. An important note that frustrates scientists skeptical of the true Shroud – the only test that they have come up with that simulates rapid decomposition of the fibrils similar to Shroud – is enormous bursts of radiation, causing the exposed (upper fibrils on each thread) to decompose at a more rapid rate. (Can you say "Resurrection"?)
Other materials such as pollens that are only found in specific geographic regions that put the cloth in specific geographic areas are also on the Shroud. They did not "wear off over time" so why would we assume that pigment would be completely gone?
Why are there descriptions and drawings that show specific details on the true Shroud that predate any modern dating methods?
Is their image still visible when backlit or does it disappear like the image on the Shroud, indicating that there is no actual material comprising the image such as paint or stain?
Recently, scientists who work with and test the actual Shroud found that image information is on the topmost fibers of the other side of the cloth. But there is no image the fibers in the center of the threads. Can these scientists explain this? Get back to me when you have finished putting an image on the other side of your shroud and clean up the likely stained interiors of all the threads on your image. Make sure they line up exactly. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.
Why did they put blood on after they made the image? Tests show that there is no image under the blood stains on the Shroud, indicating that the cloth was touching the body before the image on it was created. Please remake your image and put on real human blood before heating and washing the cloth.
One could go on endlessly about how remedial an attempt this is at actual scientific study. File this under "One more critical self-proclaimed scientist attempts to make a Shroud copy and ends up looking the fool". We may never know for sure exactly how the image was made on the Shroud of Turin. But one thing is certain – few other relics are as truly miraculous as the Shroud. And, if it is a fake, and all of these critics have "proven" that it is, why are they still trying so hard?
Interfax-Religion
Moscow, October 6, Interfax – The Russian Orthodox Church does not intend to change its view of the Shroud of Turin after a group of scientists at the University of Pavia, Italy, stated that the Shroud was a fake.
"The scientists make their research and arrive at different conclusions, however, the Church is not in the position to approve or disprove anything. This is the authority of scientists who use different methods which always are limited in their capacities," head of communication service of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Relations Priest Georgy Zavershinsky said Tuesday to Interfax-Religion.
According to him, the Church’s attitude to scientific discoveries and achievements always takes into account that "eventually, anything may change, and the research work may continue, and today’s conclusions may be challenged."
Thus, Father Georgy noted that the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Shroud "remained unchanged, along with its standpoint on the previous research which had proved that the Shoud of Turin is not a fake."
Fr. Georgy favours the worshipping of the Shroud by believers.
"The existence of the Shroud has led many people to God, and this is only beneficial for the Christian Church in Europe," the priest said.
One Deacon’s Idle Musings: Debunking the debunker
On point:
Last week it was widely reported in the press that Italian scientist Luigi Garlaschelli claimed to have reproduced the Shroud of Turin with materials and techniques available in the middle ages. Garlaschelli concludes therefore that the shroud to is a fake.
In response Barrie M. Schwortz, documenting photographer of the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) which has spent thousands of hours studying the shroud itself, derides the reports as "science by press release". Noting that the work of scientists is normally submitted for peer review, which was not done in this case, a quick reading of the press release indicates that "…it is apparent immediately that the author knows very little about the actual Shroud of Turin." He further notes that a detailed scientific response to this press release is being drafted by the online Shroud Science Group.
The Catholic Church never has formally asserted that the shroud is the actual burial cloth of Christ but recognizes that it serves as a valuable reminder of the passion of Jesus. However it appears that, in this year when the shroud is again to be publicly displayed, opponents of the shroud feel compelled to try to undermine claims of authenticity and are willing to misrepresent science to accomplish that end.
Taking a Second Look…: MIRACLES ARE SO MEDIEVAL. OR ARE THEY…?
Interesting. Worth reading.
We move in a world bursting with conflicts. Between rich & poor…black & white…West & Islam. However, perhaps the most persistent conflict is the ancient one between belief & doubt!
We of today’s technological age of wonders, wonder how the medieval peasant could wonder about perfectly explainable phenomenon, then call them "miracles." After all, once the magician’s trick has been duplicated by the audience, the audience should now know better.
And so, once again, the so-called miraculous Shroud of Turin has come center stage in this belief vs doubt debate. Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli reports he has been able to "duplicate the trick by simply using the materials available at the time the Shroud was discovered in 1360." For him, and other scientists, this finally nails it. Anything man can make is no miracle!
But of course this nails nothing. . .
Read the entire post. Taking a Second Look…: MIRACLES ARE SO MEDIEVAL. OR ARE THEY…?
Stephen Jones’ Take on the Garlaschelli Fake
Stephen Jones at The Shroud of Turin blog has offered us a compelling analysis of the dust up over the latest attempt to reproduce the Shroud of Turin and try to argue from that effort that the Shroud is a fake. This latest attempt is by Luigi Garlaschelli, a Researcher in Organic Chemistry, University of Pavia, Italy for a presentation to the Fifth World Skeptics Congress, 2004, Italy.
Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin
Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin, Reuters, Mon Oct 5, 2009 … ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has
[Above: The face of the Shroud (L) compared with Garlaschelli's shroud's image (R): Reuters]
reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ’s burial cloth is a medieval fake. It is now over 20 years since a report in Nature, the world’s most prestigious scientific journal, declared that radiocarbon dating provided "conclusive evidence" that the Shroud was "mediaeval":
"The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range .. for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 – 1390 … These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval." (Damon, 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, 337, p.614. My emphasis).
That there is still a need to "prove… definitively" that the Shroud is a medieval fake, is tacit acknowledgment by Shroud sceptics (i.e. true believers in the Shroud’s inauthenticity) that none of their previous `proofs’ of the Shroud being a fake hold water. And as we shall see, neither does this latest claim that the Shroud is a medieval fake hold water either.
The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. This is one of the tests that those who claim they have reproduced the Shroud must meet: it must be "reversed like a photographic negative." It is not enough to produce an image that is only superficially like the Shroud. It must be exactly like the Shroud in its uniquely important details – down to the microscopic level. I here predict that if this claimed reproduction of the Shroud is submitted for microscopic analysis, it will be shown to be unlike the Shroud, and therefore itself just a fake copy of the Shroud original.
But there is no need to even do that. There is a major difference between Garlaschelli’s description of how he made his shroud’s image (see below) and the image on the Shroud of Turin, that totally disqualifies Garlaschelli’s shroud from being a faithful and credible reproduction of the Shroud of Turin.
"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli,
[Left: Luigi Garlaschelli, Researcher in Organic Chemistry, University of Pavia, Italy: Fifth World Skeptics Congress, 2004, Italy]
who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. Note that Garlaschelli only claims vaguely that his alleged reproduction "has the same characteristics as the Shroud." Why doesn’t he say, "has the exact same characteristics as the Shroud"? Because he knows it doesn’t!
A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs. Superficially Garlaschelli’s photographs look very convincing. It may even be that he has produced the best reproduction of the Shroud yet. If it is, and it fails to withstand microscopic analysis (as I predict it will-if it is ever submitted for such testing, which I predict it won’t), that will be more evidence that the Shroud cannot be reproduced and therefore is the very burial sheet of Jesus, bearing the image of His crucified and resurrected body!
The Shroud of Turin shows the back and front of a bearded man with long hair, his arms crossed on his chest, while the entire cloth is marked by what appears to be rivulets of blood from wounds in the wrists, feet and side. The don’t just appear to be blood, they are blood!:
"Adler was asked how he could answer McCrone’s claim that there was no blood, but merely a mixture of red ocher and vermilion. Adler flashed on the screen the following table from our paper. Table 5 Tests confirming the presence of whole blood on the Shroud 1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence 2. Indicative reflection spectra 3. Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra 4. Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence 5. Positive hemochromogen tests 6. Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests 7. Positive detection of bile pigments 8. Positive demonstration of protein 9. Positive indication of albumin 10. Protease tests, leaving no residue 11. Positive immunological test for human albumin 12. Microscopic appearance as compared with appropriate controls 13. Forensic judgment of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks Then, after explaining each item briefly, Al said, `That means that the red stuff on the Shroud is emphatically, and without any reservation, nothing else but B-L-O-O-D!’" (Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," pp.215-216. Italics original).
Carbon dating tests by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona in 1988 caused a sensation by dating it from between 1260 and 1390.
That dating has to be wrong. For one thing (and there are many) the
[Right (click to enlarge): The Hungarian Pray Manuscript and the Poker Holes: Daniel R. Porter]
Hungarian Pray manuscript (or codex) is dated 1192-95, or 65-68 years before 1260 the earliest possible radio- carbon date of the Shroud, yet it is obviously depicting the Shroud with its: 1. naked Jesus (otherwise unknown in the 12th century); 2. having his arms crossed in front;
3. hands with no thumbs; about
[Left: Burn holes on the Shroud of Turin depicted on the Pray codex of 1192-95: Daniel R. Porter]
to be covered by a shroud with 4. the same herringbone weave pattern; and 5. (the clincher) the same unique pattern of burn holes that are on the Shroud of Turin!
Sceptics said it was a hoax, possibly made to attract the profitable medieval pilgrimage business. If the "sceptics" were truly sceptical (and not just true believers in the Shroud’s inauthenticity) they would realise that it would take far less than the Shroud to make money in the gullible 14th century:
"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?" (Wilson, 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud," pp.58-60).
But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth. Yes! But given that:
"The Shroud of Turin is now the most intensively studied artifact in the history of the world. Somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 scientific man-hours have been spent on it, with the best analytical tools available." (Heller, 1983, Ibid., p.219. My emphasis).
how can it be that "scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth"? How could an unknown medieval forger create only one work such that the advanced science of the 20-21st century has been "at a loss to explain how the image was left on the cloth"? That alone is proof (if one thinks about it) that no medieval (or any time) forger created the image on the Shroud.
Garlaschelli reproduced the full-sized shroud using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages. That materials were available in the middle ages does not mean that someone then could have reproduced the Shroud. For starters it was not known the Shroud was a photographic negative until the end of the 19th century:
"The modern history of the Shroud might be said to have begun on May 8, 1898, when Secondo Pia was permitted to photograph the Shroud for the first time while it was being exhibited at the Cathedral in Turin. Pia was flabbergasted to find that his glass-plate photographic negative was turning out in the developing bath to show, in fact, a photographic positive image. The Shroud itself had somehow been stained in such a way that the body imprint on the cloth was a negative. This feature alone would seem to rule out the claim that the Shroud is an ancient or medieval forgery. What artist, centuries before, would have fabricated details that could only be discerned with the help of a nineteenth-century invention? And the photographic process, subsequently confirmed by the photographs taken by G. Enrie in 1931, brought out a wealth of hitherto concealed details." (Sullivan, B.M., 2005, "Reading the Shroud of Turin: How in fact was Jesus Christ laid in his tomb?," National Review, July 20, 1973, Reprinted March 24, 2005).
They placed a linen sheet flat over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid. Note the "rubbed it." That means the pigment and acid marks on Garlaschelli’s shroud’s image would have, like all known works of human art, directionality. But the Shroud of Turin has no directionality:
"Still further, the shroud image is nondirectional. Now if one is going to put paint on a cloth, one moves the hand from side to side. When one gets tired, one often starts moving the hand up and down. But even if one only moves from side to side all of the time, that is directionality. One cannot generally apply paint without directionality. If one uses a spray gun it still involves directionality. But there is no directionality on the shroud image." (Habermas, 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?," p.119).
A mask was used for the face. … The pigment was then artificially
[Above: The front body of the Shroud (L) compared with Garlaschelli's image (R): Reuters]
aged by heating the cloth in an oven and washing it, a process which removed it from the surface but left a fuzzy, half-tone image similar to that on the Shroud. He believes the pigment on the original Shroud faded naturally over the centuries. Note again "similar to" not "identical to"! And Garlaschelli’s "the pigment on the original Shroud faded" is a tacit admission by him that there is no pigment on the Shroud of Turin:
"We do not have to know how somebody could have painted it, but science is adept at finding paint when it is present. But first, if the scientists have come up with one major conclusion, it is that the shroud is not a known fake. There is no paint, dye, powder, or other foreign substance on the image fibrils that could account for the image. Microchemical analyses revealed no paints or pigments … A 1982 report from a team of scientists, released at a New London, Connecticut, meeting, states that, `No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found in the fibrils.’ [Press Release, The Shroud of Turin Research Project, 8 October 1981] So again, we could falsify the shroud if there was paint. But they have not found any … The shroud image does not appear to be painted at all." (Habermas, 1987, "Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?," p.119).
but there is pigment on his shroud. After all, what is Garlaschelli’s "fuzzy, half-tone image" if it is not a residue of the "pigment containing traces of acid" that he applied and then mostly washed off his shroud?
They then added blood stains, burn holes, scorches and water stains to achieve the final effect. Here is a major difference between Garlaschelli’s shroud and the Shroud of Turin. Garlaschelli "added blood stains" to his shroud after the image was created, but the blood on the Shroud of Turin is before its image, i.e. there is no image under its bloodstains (which fits the Shroud being Jesus’ and its image being imprinted by His resurrection):
"Our hypothetical artist obviously must have used blood – both pre-mortem and post-mortem. And he had to paint with serum albumin alongside the edges of the scourge marks. Since serum albumin is visible only under ultraviolet, not white light, he had to paint with an invisible medium. If an artist had painted the Shroud, the blood must have been put on after the images. We decided to check that point. We took some blood- and serum-covered fibrils from a body image area. If the images were there before the blood, and if we removed the blood, we could expect to see straw-yellow image fibers. We prepared a mixture of enzymes that digest blood and its proteins. When all the blood and protein were gone, the underlying fibrils were not straw-yellow; they were ordinary background fibrils. This was strong evidence that the blood had gone on before the images. It suggested that blood had protected the linen from the image-making process. Surely this was a weird way to paint a picture." (Heller, 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," pp.202-203).
Shroud experts Dr John Jackson and Dr. Keith Propp also made this criticism of Garlaschelli’s method, that on the Shroud of Turin, "the blood was on it first, then the body image came second" and "the blood contacted the shroud before the body":
"CNA spoke with Dr. John Jackson who runs the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado and is a physics lecturer at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained. He explained to CNA that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin. Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli’s team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted `two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud’ show `that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second.’ Dr. Keith Propp, a physicist who is also a colleague of Jackson’s, told CNA that while Garlaschelli’s shroud `does create an image that could’ve been done in medieval times,’ there are a many things that `are not consistent with what the actual shroud shows us.’ For example, he continued, we know that the blood contacted the shroud before the body `because there’s no image beneath the shroud.’ He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate `because it would ruin the blood stains.’ " ("Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin," Catholic News Agency, October 6, 2009).
Shroud photographer Barry Schwortz also noticed this major discrepancy (amongst others):
"It has been demonstrated scientifically that the bloodstains on the Shroud came from direct contact with a body and are all forensically accurate. It has also been shown that the bloodstains were on the Shroud BEFORE the image was formed since the blood and serum acted to inhibit the image formation mechanism. There is NO image under the blood and serum stains on the Shroud. However, to make this new `reproduction,’ the `blood’ was added (using a different pigment) AFTER the image was created. Obviously, it is much easier to add the blood to the image than to first create the blood stains and then create the forensically accurate image around them, which is exactly what a medieval forger would have had to do to duplicate the actual physical properties of the Shroud! Many of the bloodstains on the Shroud show a surrounding halo of serum stains that are ONLY visible with UV fluorescence photography. Also, the blood has been chemically analyzed and determined to include components of actual blood, NOT pigment."("Science by Press Release? An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz," Shroud.com, 7 October 2009. Emphasis original).
Excellent. Read the entire posting at The Shroud of Turin blog.
PZ Myers and the Shroud of Turin
Myers, who once asked readers of his blog to pilfer a consecrated host from a Catholic Mass (he called it a God Damned Cracker) so he could desecrate it, which he (thought he) did by nailing to a Quran and throwing it in the trash with coffee grounds, now writes:
I get thrown the miracle of the shroud of Turin on a regular basis — just last week someone confronted me with it, basically saying "A-ha! Jesus existed because there’s an old scrap of cloth with a face on it!" It doesn’t matter that I point out that it’s been dated to the 13th century, and was nothing more than a profit-making ‘relic’ for churches that would also hawk Jesus’s foreskin and John the Baptist’s pinky bone. They’d usually retort that it was not humanly possible to make the shroud, so it had to be a religious miracle.
Now I’ve got more ammo. The Shroud of Turin has been recreated, using simple medieval technologies. No magic, just acidic pigments.
I know, it won’t stop the kooks, but it’s still useful to know.
More ammo? Kooks?
Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He writes one of the most fascinating and most popular evolutionary science blogs on the Internet. But he strays. He is vehemently anti-religious. When he strays he demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge about religion, an unparalleled fundamentalist-atheism agenda, and a knack to surrender all scientific principals.
Suppose some professor in Italy had claimed to find proof that the Theory of Evolution was wrong. Would Myers salute the claim without thinking. Of course not. And he shouldn’t. But this is just what he did with the claim that the shroud had been reproduced. It wasn’t of course. That has already been demonstrated. But Myers accepts the claim without any qualification.
I doubt very much that someone actually said, “A-ha! Jesus existed because there’s an old scrap of cloth with a face on it!" The absurdity is obvious.
Myers is a good writer about biology. He should stick to what he know.
Italian Fake Not 3D Encoded like the Shroud of Turin
It was widely reported in the media that the Italian Fake exhibited the same 3D aspects as the Shroud of Turin. You decide. Hint, the Italian fake is on the left. Find the nose. Parts of both cheeks protrude higher than the nose. It is hard to see that here but it has been confirmed with grayscale density measurement.
Of course, it could not have the subtle grayscale, given the method with which it was made. And if you are familiar with height-fields as used in computer graphics, you quickly realize it can not produce anything like the shroud image.
The press merely reported what Dr. Garlaschelli said without, it seems, taking a look.
These images are courtesy of Prof. Giulio Fanti at the University of Padua.
Why the Italian Fake Does Not Reproduce the Shroud of Turin
Petrus Soons, a very gifted shroud scholar, has commented on the the Italian Fake. It is thoughtfully presented and warrants full consideration.
In the last few days, a story appeared in the mass media that an Italian professor of chemistry at the University of Pavia (Italy), reproduced the image on the Shroud of Turin using materials and methods that were available in the 14th century, concluding that the experiment proves the relic was man-made. Basically, he used a linen cloth in scale 1:1, that was baked at 215 degrees C for 3 hours and then put it in a washing machine with water only. Then they put a person dirtied with RED OCHRE (IRON OXIDE) on the linen and corrected by hand the colored image. A chalk bas relief was used for the face printing, liquid tempera simulated the blood and sulfuric acid at 1.2% in water added with Aluminium and Cobalt modified the linen surface. An artificial aging was the final treatment before the pigment was washed. The final goal was to show that it was possible to create a fake in the 14th century.
Now, there is nothing new to this. In 1979, Walter C. McCrone (1916-2002), an internationally recognized microscopist and the director of the famous McCrone Associates Research Laboratory in Chicago, reported that the Shroud image was due to the application of RED OCHRE, also known as Venetian red (an earth color) a red artist’s pigment, which is a red IRON OXIDE, so probably Prof Garlaschelli took over this idea from Walter C. McCrone.
This theory was already disproved by the scientific STURP team (and others in the years after that) that conducted the investigations in 1978 on the Shroud of Turin.
Their conclusions were:
- 1) Adler reported that the " straw yellow color" of the body image fibers does not match the color of any of the known forms of ferric iron oxides.
- 2) Moreover, Adler reports that there is no correspondence of the body-only images to the concentration of iron oxide since the spectral characteristics of the body-only image are different from those of iron oxide.
- 3) The colors of the fibers, due to iron oxide, is also precluded by the fact that oxidation or reduction converts the yellow fibers of the body-only image to a white color.
- 4) Only rare particles of iron oxide are noted on the body-only image fibrils.
- 5) Large amounts of iron bound to the cellulose of the Shroud (not iron oxide) and Calcium were both present throughout the Shroud. This is believed to be due to the ability of linen to bind iron and water by ion association during the retting process (manufacturing process by which linen is immersed in water during fermentation). AN ESTIMATED 90 PERCENT of the iron and calcium exist in this form bound to the cellulose of the linen, AND ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT IS PRESENT AS IRON OXIDE.
- 6) X-ray studies of the body-only image do not contain enough iron oxide to show up on the X-radiographs.
- 7) All of the iron of the Shroud, whether from iron oxide particles or from blood, proved to be 99 percent chemically pure, with no discernable MANGANESE, NICKEL, or COBALT.
The earth pigment, RED OCHRE (Venetian red), from either medieval or older sources that were being used, was contaminated with manganese, nickel or cobalt GREATER THAN 1 PERCENT!!!
The STURP team employed microprobe Raman spectroscopy, mass spectroscopy, optical and infrared spectroscopy, micro FTIR spectroscopy, pyrolysis mass spectroscopy, X-ray and a variety of microchemical tests on the fibrils, and came to the conclusion that there was NO ochre or other pigments, dyes or stains on the fibrils of the Shroud.
Prof Garlaschelli told Republica he didn’t think his research would convince those who have faith in the Shroud’s authenticity. " They won’t give up," he said. Those who believe in it will continue to believe."
Well, the reason why serious scientists do not believe Prof Garlaschelli’s work has been explained.
Prof Garlaschelli explains the absence of any traces of iron oxide on the original Shroud by stating that the pigment on the original Shroud faded away naturally over the centuries. This is not a statement that you would expect from a serious scientist. The spectroscopic investigations being done in 1978 would even show the slightest traces of iron oxide present on the Shroud and it is a little bit "unscientific" to state that they disappeared "naturally."
Another little detail is the fact that on the original Shroud there is no image under the bloodstains, proving the fact that there were two image formation processes. Direct contact for the blood proper and another image formation process for the image itself. Prof Garlaschelli added the "blood" (liquid tempera) later on top of the image that he had created. Under Ultra Violet fluorescence photography (not known of course in the 14th century), the blood on the Shroud shows a serum separation, visible as a lighter ring around a darker center, which is typical of post mortem wound exudate. This is not visible with the naked eye. The proposed artist from the 14th century could of course not have known this fact, so he could not create it either.
Petrus Soons M.D.
Volcan
Panama
