Skip to comments.Experts question scientistís claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin
Posted on 10/07/2009 5:49:28 AM PDT by NYer
.- An Italian scientist is claiming to have re-created the burial cloth believed to have covered the crucified body of Jesus, called the Shroud of Turin. However, CNA spoke with experts who maintain that there are till several major differences between the new shroud and the ancient one.
According to Reuters, Luigi Garlaschelli, an organic chemistry professor at the University of Pavia announced that he and his team have shown it is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud. The scientist plans to present his findings at a conference on the paranormal this weekend in Italy.
The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to bear an image of the face of Jesus Christ. Made of herring bone linen, the shroud is nearly four feet by 14 feet and bears faint brown discolorations forming the negative image of a crucified man.
The shrouds positive image, revealed by modern photography, shows the outline of a bearded man. While skeptics contend that the shroud is a medieval forgery, scientists have been unable to explain how the image appeared on the cloth.
Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, created their image by placing the linen over a volunteer before rubbing it with a pigment called ochre with traces of acid.
The linen was then aged by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. Reuters reports that the team then added blood stains, burn holes and water stains to finalize their product.
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 that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschellis shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesnt exactly match the Shroud of Turin.
Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschellis 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 Garlaschellis shroud does create an image that couldve 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 theres no image beneath the shroud. He added that this image pattern would be difficult to duplicate because it would ruin the blood stains.
Another area concern for the scientists is the three dimensionality of the shroud.
Propp explained that while Garlaschellis cloth does have some aspects of light and dark to create a three-dimensional perspective, its nowhere near as sophisticated as the shroud and that it misses out on the accuracy and subtleties that are in the actual image.
Dr. Jackson from the Turin Shroud Center also touched on the same point, saying, The shrouds image intensity varies with the distances in between the cloth and the body. While he admitted that the images of Garlaschellis shroud on the internet look authentic, when taken from a 3-D perspective, its really rather grotesque.
The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps, he explained.
Jackson noted that he or his colleagues would be open to testing the Garlaschelli shroud or any other idea about the shroud relative to the scientific characteristics that have been documented in respect to the shroud, however to do so they would need more detailed information about what was specifically done.
Garlachellis technique has also received criticism from other experts. One scientist from the Shroud Science Group, a private forum of about 100 scientists, historians and researchers provided CNA with some of the critiques made in the forum.
One English-speaking expert explained that the blood used on the Shroud of Turin is not whole blood. They didn't just go out and kill a goat and paint the blood on the cloth. The blood chemistry is very specific, he said explaining that the blood is from actual wounds.
He added that most of the blood on the shroud flowed after death. The side wound and the blood that puddles across the small of the back are post-mortem blood flows, he said, adding that blood flowing after death shows a clear separation of blood and serum.
Propp added, In some ways, it comes out better than most others Ive seen before. Still there are too many things the shroud is more than just the image.
Jackson also pointed out that Garlaschellis findings have yet to be peer reviewed. What scientists need to do is present their work for publication before their peers.
He explained that any person can conduct his or her own research, but it doesnt matter whether or not the author believes his or her hypothesis was proven. In the end, what the scientific community decides upon seeing and reviewing the work is what counts, he said.
Pope Benedict has announced that the Shroud will be open for public viewing in 2010 and that he is planning to visit the image at some point during its exposition.
The Catholic Church has not taken an official position on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin.
Wow I didn’t see that coming./sarc I don’t think it will ever be settled.
Tests have indicated the method of imrpinting the image was not due to dyes or paints.
Atheists just annoy me so much.
Are there any plans to run new carbon dating tests on a newly cut piece of the Shroud? The three which were done years ago were, if I remember, proved to have come from a newer piece of the cloth which was sown on and not part of the original.
Yes, Aetheists can go to hell (and they will).
What Jesus looked like is only conjecture.
The curious thing is that if it is indeed a fraud, science may one day definitively establish that.
If, on the other hand, it is the real deal, Christ himself could descend from the heavens, covered worldwide on TV, radio and the internet, show that the image is in fact him, submit to blood tests to establish ownership, and volunteer to be re-crucified and make another shroud to show how it was done, and yet skeptics would still fall over themselves trying to deny its veracity.
I understand why the science community wants so vehemently to disprove the Shroud. If it is what many purport it to be, it is a powerful testimony to the presence of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ - two things most of the science community want to discredit at all costs.
The Shroud is not the foundation for my faith so I honestly don’t care if it is or isn’t a hoax. If it isn’t, hallelujah. If it is, it was one of many hoaxes to have come and gone and you have to tip your cap to whoever did it because it has not been proven easy to swat down as most hoaxes are.
I just don’t have much confidence in the people on either side of this debate giving us the honest truth because most of them have too much invested on either sustaining their faith or denying the existence of God to be objective about the subject. I’ll just ask the Heavenlies about it when I get there someday.
The sample tested that yeilded the now debunked carbon dating information was a repaired section and had been mended by medival nuns using the process of french “reweaving” where they try to match the original linen as closely as possible —a laborous process.
“The Shroud was in a fire in 1532 that nearly destroyed the cloth. Eight gaping holes were patched up and the entire cloth was attached to a backing cloth for support.
This occurred in 1534 at a time when weaving had become an art and professional weavers were called upon to do invisible mending on fine tapestries restoring them to their original condition.
Now for whats making the news. The violation of the sampling protocol in 1988 appears to have been a colossal mistake.
Recent micro-chemical tests performed on thread samples from the area cut for carbon dating have been compared with threads taken from the main body of the Shroud and low and behold they are not the same!
It appears that Gonella and the carbon labs were fooled by the handiwork of highly skilled French re-weavers according to museum textile experts.
Another violation of the protocol now seems more important too. The labs were supposed to do micro-chemical tests on the sample to make sure it was representative of the entire cloth. Guess what, they didnt do that either. It seems like they just looked at it and said, Yep, sure looks like the Shroud to me. Lets cut it and get out of here.
We had to wait 17 years for Ray Rogers, a retired Fellow with the Los Alamos Scientific laboratory and lead chemist for the original Shroud project in 1978, to do the micro-chemical tests the carbon labs were supposed to do in the first place. Published recently (January 20, 2005) in a peer reviewed scientific journal, ThermoChimica Acta, is an article containing the results of his analysis.
The key findings are as follows:
The radiocarbon sample that was used to date the Shroud has a very different composition and structure than the rest of the cloth and was not valid for dating the Shroud.
The sample used for carbon dating had been dyed with Madder root dye and applied to the surface in a plant-gum medium. This was to hide the repair (probably done in 1534). This dye and gum mixture does not exist anywhere else on the cloth.
The flax portion of the carbon sample had been bleached by a different method than the Shroud showing that the threads were manufactured at different times and not part of the original cloth.
The carbon dating sample also contained a significant amount of cotton. The cotton was woven in with the flax in the repaired area to help the dye adhere better. There is no cotton in the main body of the Shroud.
Linen (flax) contains a natural polymer called vanillin. Vanillin decays over time. Most medieval linen still contains a portion of the original vanillin whereas the vanillin content of the Dead Sea Scroll wrappings is completely depleted.
The area cut for carbon dating still contains 37% of its original vanillin whereas 0% remains in samples taken from the main body of the Shroud.
All combined, it indicates that the carbon labs dated a rewoven area of the cloth.
It also shows that the Shroud is significantly older than 700 years.
Dr. Ray Rogers can only offer a date range of 1,300 to 3,000 years old because the rate of vanillin decay depends on storage temperature, something that is not known. But now, the Shroud being 2,000 years old doesnt seem out of the question anymore.
Remember, the genuine Shroud researchers' work is somehow "discredited" because they are motivated by religious feelings, which is supposed to cloud their judgment.
But this group, openly and explicitly funded by self-fellating atheists, is "objective."
Thank you, that is the most detailed explanation I’ve read. Can’t someone or some group ask a Cardinal or two to call for a new carbon dating test from a portion of the original shroud?
...O.K. show it to us....
...the hatred for Christians is so strong and the desire to "prove" that Christianity is on the same level with islam compels some people to spend vast amounts of money and spend vast amounts of time just to..
....show their ass.
Post of the day. :D
The enviromental preservative measures use
in storing the shroud since 78’ have permanently altered the shroud’s chemistry.
Still “shrouded” in mystery
The Shroud issue simply comes down to knowledge, motive and output. One can’t reasonably presume that it’s a fabrication if there’s no logical motive, and if there is no obvious relation between the output and any motive asserted.
In English: A medieval artist would not have an inkling of photographic negative phenomena, a medieval artist would have no motive to present a hoax of a miraculous image portraying such an obscure an unintelligible phenomena, and the output itself, if a hoax, would be better served by presenting an image that’s intelligible and “likely” to the public, i.e., a positive, not a negative.
Science can also, if it wants, determine that the Declaration of Independence was printed at Kinko’s. That doesn’t make it so.
And when you consider that nearly ANYTHING was presented and believed to be holy relic in the Middle Ages, there was no real incentive or motiviation to created a highly detailed fraud. It would have been unneccesary work.
I believe the Shroud is what it is purported to be, that it wound up in Constantinople, that the Crusaders captured it and it wound up in the hands of the Templars. When that order was falsely accused and disbanded, it wound up in the hands of Geoffrey DeCharney, the last owner of record who was a also a Templar.
Why people disregard the most obvious and REALLY simplest explanation for something in return for preposterous theories of irrational fraudelent scams is beyond me. Unless they are, like this group, atheists with a purely disguised motive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.