Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#181

Post by hughfarey » Sun May 07, 2017 11:08 am

DBowling wrote:
hughfarey wrote:The current fantasy is that individual 25 micron diameter threads were unravelled, spliced together with similar threads, and then rewoven to match the original weave. I claim that this is impossible. I claim that it has never been done, and cannot be done. I claim that to say that it might be is as fantastical as the proverbial invisible pink unicorn.
And there are those who studied the Shroud for decades who would disagree with your opinion on this.
Two of which are among the most knowledgeable experts on the Shroud in the world. And neither of which are Christians, Barrie Schwortz and the late Ray Rogers.
Disagreeing is easy. Demonstrating I'm wrong is quite another matter.
When non-Christians of the caliber and experience of Rogers and Schwortz, can conclude based on the scientific evidence that a) the Shroud is not a medieval forgery b) the cloth where the radiocarbon samples were taken from included cloth from a Medieval repair and was not representative of the cloth of the Shroud itself and c) the Shroud most likely wrapped the body of the historical Jesus of Nazareth; Then I am inclined to defer to the expertise and credibility of Rogers and Schwortz and the physical evidence on the Shroud itself over bombastic assertions about 'invisible pink unicorns'.
It was a bit bombastic, wasn't it?! Anyway, by all means have recourse to an argumentum ad auctoritatem if you like. It saves all the bother of finding evidence and drawing conclusions and all that irritating scientific stuff. I fear I do not find it convincing myself.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 94 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#182

Post by DBowling » Sun May 07, 2017 12:12 pm

hughfarey wrote:
DBowling wrote:
hughfarey wrote:The current fantasy is that individual 25 micron diameter threads were unravelled, spliced together with similar threads, and then rewoven to match the original weave. I claim that this is impossible. I claim that it has never been done, and cannot be done. I claim that to say that it might be is as fantastical as the proverbial invisible pink unicorn.
And there are those who studied the Shroud for decades who would disagree with your opinion on this.
Two of which are among the most knowledgeable experts on the Shroud in the world. And neither of which are Christians, Barrie Schwortz and the late Ray Rogers.
Disagreeing is easy. Demonstrating I'm wrong is quite another matter.
I think Rogers has done that quite adequately, as we have already discussed.

But I think we do need to clarify what specifically you are wrong about.
1. Are you wrong about the fact that the rewoven patch on your sample does not demonstrate the same characteristics that we see in the patched area of the Shroud?
No... you are right about that. I think it is pretty apparent that whatever reweaving technique was used on the Shroud is different than the reweaving technique that was used on your sample.

2. Where I think you are blatantly wrong is your refusal to acknowledge multiple evidences that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample area is different from the cloth in the rest of the Shroud (flax vs cotton, Medieval vs 1st century date, inconsistency in date across the sample, pigment vs no pigment, lignin in the repaired area vs no lignin in the Shroud, cotton and flax unravelling in a sample from the repaired area) We have multiple indicators that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample is different in both composition and date from the cloth in the Shroud itself.

Now can I explain precisely how the repair was made? No
But that in no way negates multiple evidences that demonstrate that a repair was made.
Just because you (and I) can't explain precisely how the repair was made does not mean that the physical evidence for the repair magically disappears.
The physical evidence demonstrating that the cloth in the sample area is fundamentally different from the cloth in the rest of the Shroud is real, and will not disappear through wishful thinking or even attempting to dismiss and rationalize away the many evidences.

None of us can explain exactly how the image on the Shroud was formed. But our inability to explain how it happened does not allow us to dismiss the evidence that it did happen.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#183

Post by hughfarey » Sun May 07, 2017 12:46 pm

DBowling wrote:Where I think you are blatantly wrong is your refusal to acknowledge multiple evidences that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample area is different from the cloth in the rest of the Shroud (flax vs cotton, Medieval vs 1st century date, inconsistency in date across the sample, pigment vs no pigment, lignin in the repaired area vs no lignin in the Shroud, cotton and flax unravelling in a sample from the repaired area) We have multiple indicators that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample is different in both composition and date from the cloth in the Shroud itself.
Ah, good. Moving on. But be careful. I have never refused to acknowledge multiple evidences that the radiocarbon area is different from the rest of the cloth. Quite the reverse. I have examined each and every one of your suggestions in excruciating detail. And find them wanting. Shall we start with 'flax vs cotton'? There is cotton all over the Shroud, as was observed by McCrone, Heller and Adler, Lucotte and everybody else who has had a chance to look at it in sufficient detail. The question becomes not that the radiocarbon area has cotton and the rest does not, but whether there is a significant difference in proportion. Thibault Heimburger examined a thread from the Raes sample, and concluded that about 15% of the fibres were cotton. Giulio Fanti did the same and concluded that about 5% of the fibres were cotton. Roberto Villareal did the same and concluded that all of his piece of thread was cotton. To my knowledge no threads from the main body of the Shroud have been quantitively analysed for cotton. There is no good evidence that the radiocarbon corner had any anomalous quantity of cotton with regard to the rest of the Shroud. Maybe I'll do the inconsistency in date tomorrow! (Homework: Read Riani and Atkinson and see what they say).

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 94 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#184

Post by DBowling » Sun May 07, 2017 1:39 pm

hughfarey wrote:
DBowling wrote:Where I think you are blatantly wrong is your refusal to acknowledge multiple evidences that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample area is different from the cloth in the rest of the Shroud (flax vs cotton, Medieval vs 1st century date, inconsistency in date across the sample, pigment vs no pigment, lignin in the repaired area vs no lignin in the Shroud, cotton and flax unravelling in a sample from the repaired area) We have multiple indicators that the cloth in the radiocarbon sample is different in both composition and date from the cloth in the Shroud itself.
Ah, good. Moving on. But be careful. I have never refused to acknowledge multiple evidences that the radiocarbon area is different from the rest of the cloth. Quite the reverse. I have examined each and every one of your suggestions in excruciating detail. And find them wanting. Shall we start with 'flax vs cotton'? There is cotton all over the Shroud, as was observed by McCrone, Heller and Adler, Lucotte and everybody else who has had a chance to look at it in sufficient detail.
There is a difference between trace amounts of cotton on the surface of the Shroud due to contamination and cotton within the fabric of the cloth itself.

Per Ray Rogers
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
(A) Cotton is not evenly distributed throughout the cloth. Cotton fibers are easy to find mixed
intimately with the linen fibers of all of the Raes threads.
Figure 10 shows a heavily encrusted cotton
fiber on the surface of one of the Raes threads. It can be identified by its flat, tape-like shape, the
presence of one reversal, and the absence of the bamboo-like growth nodes of linen. When the cotton
fiber was drawn out of the thread, it showed reversals about 1.2-mm apart. Cotton is not a simple
surface contaminant: It occurs throughout the Raes threads.
Fibers retained on the sampling tapes can
be differentiated according to their relative indices of refraction compared with the index of the tape's
adhesive. The two indices of cotton are close to that of the adhesive. Birefringence is first-order white.
The index of linen across the fiber is appreciably lower than that of the adhesive.


I did not attempt to make a quantitative cotton comparison between Raes threads and Shroud tapes,
because there was too little cotton of any kind on Shroud samples. We had been puzzled by the Raes
report at the time of the 1978 STURP observations in Turin. We could not find more than traces of cotton
on the cloth. The Shroud appeared to be pure linen. We used cotton gloves during the STURP studies of
1978 to protect the relic, and they could have been responsible for the traces of modern cotton found on
a few Shroud sampling tapes.
Samples from the main part of the cloth are significantly different from the
Raes samples with regard to cotton content.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9618
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 585 times
Been liked: 613 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#185

Post by Kurieuo » Sun May 07, 2017 10:00 pm

hughfarey wrote:I agree with much of that, but go back to a slightly wider point, which is why should I have to be the one who actually investigates the possible truth of a claim, rather than the people who make it. As I said,the patch hypothesis has evolved slightly, and interweaving (as demonstrated by Withoutatrace, above) is increasingly being seen as more and more improbable.
Then at most we have a mystery, don't we, considering the image of the shroud can't be replicated.
hughfarey wrote:The current fantasy is that individual 25 micron diameter threads were unravelled, spliced together with similar threads, and then rewoven to match the original weave. I claim that this is impossible. I claim that it has never been done, and cannot be done. I claim that to say that it might be is as fantastical as the proverbial invisible pink unicorn. Now it is not up to me to prove a negative, it is up to the claimants to demonstrate some support for their hypothesis.
And there are many fantasies on how the shroud was created, yet to date none have really come close upon careful consideration. Yes, we have copies, even a quick glance that might convince those in a sensationalist media report -- yet, when closely compared these copies:
  • whether through ironisation (when no iron particles are present on the shroud)
  • contain full saturation (i.e., bas relief where cloth makes full contact with surface covered in pigment) compared the the shroud which has 20% saturation and includes 3D information to within 4cm)
  • paint substance seep too deep into cloth (the shroud image is rather superficial, scrape a couple of microscopic threads off the top and it'd vanish)
  • powder would evidently distort over time, wash, rendering powder theories invalid
  • photography wasn't invented in medieval times, yet even with such tests, it is a fully clear negative and not simply down to 4cm
  • blood is also found on the shroud, the image came after -- so methods should take this into account.
Seriously, at some point, all these fantasies and postulations, nothing comes close to matching ALL the features found with the image on the cloth that we call the shroud. It is unique and one of a kind and we've known this for years. The artist, should have made more of this work (maybe he'd have had to murder a few more people though :P), yet we don't find anything else like the shroud anywhere. There is a point when all such failed replications (like your one failed mending test) must count as positive evidence.
hughfarey wrote:I note with interest that even those experiments I have carried out, or have had carried out, and which refute entirely a stated authenticist hypothesis, have now had their goalposts shifted. The claim was, by bippy if I recall, that Michael Erlich could produce a repair that was wholly invisible on both sides. That's all. Not that he had to use precisely Shroud material, in a precisely specified condition. The authenticist side is making increasingly desperate attempts to try to get me to prove a negative, which is notoriously unscientific. Why don't any of them try to prove a positive for a change? Find someone who can do repairs using the method they prefer. (Then it'll be my turn to say that they have cheated by using the wrong thread!)
We have issues on one side, that aren't denied, and so solutions are put forward to try explain why the date can't be trusted. But then, we also have major issues on the other side, based upon all we do truly and positively know about the shroud.
hughfarey wrote:Yes, Mr Erhlich was informed precisely as to why I wanted him to perform an extremely expensive repair to a deliberately damaged piece of fabric, and no, the process is interweaving, not sewing on a patch. The "fluff" on the "back" is the inevitable result of the interwoven threads having to end somewhere.
Ok, still, one test? It's not on you, and I don't know what has been done. Yet, then on the other hand, how many tests have been conducted to reproduce the shroud? 100s right? And while "copies", looking rather similar to the eye, none really when scrutinized come close to matching all the significant points found on the shroud.
hughfarey wrote:One more point and then I'll go and have a look at your video. As I said, the 'patch hypothesis', which is the authenticist's main defence against a medieval origin for the Shroud, is only one of my research interests. You are perfectly correct that an argument such as this should not consist only of refuting the opposing case, but of finding evidence to support one's own. A credible method whereby the image could be made, and a credible reason for doing so, have been the principal foci of my own research for years. Both Joe Nickell's pouncing method and Luigi Garlaschelli's acid paint have come close, but not close enough yet, to demonstrate the former, and my attempts to produce the 'smoking gun' historically are also insufficient to demonstrate the latter. I have never denied this. I have, however, suggested, and continue to suggest, that investigations are closing in on credibility, and that it is probably unwise for authenticists to jeer from the sidelines that it will never be done.
And, you will I'm sure continue affirming the shroud will be replicated, despite right now such being of fantasy. And, then those who have come to believe in the authenticity of the shroud will continue believing some fantasy that the C14 test was contaminated or something.

Doesn't a lack a knowledge in anything mean we must concoct fantasies to some degree, or to use less derogatory terms, hypotheses and theories? As the following National Geographic article explains:
  • The sum result is a standoff, with researchers unable to dismiss the shroud entirely as a forgery, or prove that it is authentic. “It is unlikely science will provide a full solution to the many riddles posed by the shroud,” Italian physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro, a leading expert on the phenomenon, told National Geographic. “A leap of faith over questions without clear answers is necessary—either the ‘faith’ of skeptics, or the faith of believers.”
That's probably too simple "faith" of skeptic vs "faith" of believers, since shroud experts like Rogers and Schwortz were skeptics, as I was once also although I'm by no means a shroud expert. No doubt, you know a whole lot more than myself Hugh, but what I do know I find convincing to accept the shroud's authenticity.

As for covering all the positive features of the shroud that must be replicated, including the many attempts made to reproduce the Shroud, I came across a video on YouTube by Dr. William Guy which goes into the many fanciful ideas.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Ka7In1SWF0
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#186

Post by hughfarey » Mon May 08, 2017 12:13 am

Thank you, Gentlemen.

1) (DBowling) There is a difference between trace amounts of cotton on the surface of the Shroud due to contamination and cotton within the fabric of the cloth itself.

Quite true. However, it has not been established whether the main body of the Shroud contains significant quantities of cotton within the threads/weave or not. Remember that Rogers, Heller and Adler only had tape-samples of broken fibres to look at, not whole threads, and that linen, because of its 'bamboo-style' nodes, breaks more easily than cotton. To my knowledge, as I said, no examination of 'main-cloth' threads has quantified the cotton included.

2) (Kurieou) Then at most we have a mystery, don't we, considering the image of the shroud can't be replicated.

We have a mystery, yes, and the image has not been replicated, yes. Whether it can be replicated or not is of course the crux of the authenticist/medievalist argument.

3) And there are many fantasies on how the shroud was created, yet to date none have really come close upon careful consideration.

A fantasy is a idea plucked from the aether without any supporting evidence. Those who have thought of 'clever' ideas - such as photography, hot statues, Leonardo da Vinci and so on - have at least made some attempt to support their ideas by experimentation or research. If the results of this research have been found wanting, the ideas have been rejected. To class such hypotheses as fantasies is terminologically inexact. The idea that the threads of the shroud have been spliced together was plucked from the aether after Mechthilde Flury-Lemburg and John Jackson insisted that no repair was evident, but has never been tested in any way. It remains a fantasy, and can only be dignified by the term hypothesis if some attempt is made to substantiate it.

4) ironisation (when no iron particles are present on the shroud)

The Shroud is covered in iron oxide particles. There is no dispute about that. The nature and distribution of the particles is much discussed. Again, remember that McCrone looked in detail at whole tape-slides, whereas all Heller and Adler's tests were carried out on individual fibres from which extraneous matter (mostly the glue of the tape) had been carefully washed off.

5) contain full saturation (i.e., bas relief where cloth makes full contact with surface covered in pigment) compared the the shroud which has 20% saturation and includes 3D information to within 4cm)

A series of meaningless ideas here, I'm afraid. There is no definition of "full saturation". If it is an attempt to quantify an image intensity derived from a contact, then it is generally thought that the hair and nose of the image represent contact, whether from pigment or from natural causes. "20% saturation" means nothing to me at all. The idea that the Shroud "contains 3D information" does not of itself say whether that 3D information derives from a body, a bas-relief, or a painting.

If you mean that a bas-relief covered in paint would only produce a binary "contact or no-contact" image, then experiment shows that this is incorrect. While it is true that no contact means no image, there is a wide variation in intensity in contact areas, because pressure plays a large part in determining it.

6) paint substance seep too deep into cloth (the shroud image is rather superficial, scrape a couple of microscopic threads off the top and it'd vanish)

No. I keep being told that one or another experiment "would" result in this or that, entirely by people who have never carried out any experiments themselves. It is easy to paint a cloth such that the paint doesn't seep anywhere, especially with a cloth of very dense weave such as the Shroud.

7) powder would evidently distort over time, wash, rendering powder theories invalid.

Would it? I don't know if you have access to iron oxide pigment. It is extraordinarily fine, and in my experience will not completely wash out even after repeated attempts to do so. I hope you will forgive me for getting a little fed up when these very old authenticists "would do"s are blithely trotted out year after year without anybody making any attempt to find out if they are true or not.

8) photography wasn't invented in medieval times, yet even with such tests, it is a fully clear negative and not simply down to 4cm.

Photography is not essential for producing an image which will appear, after being photographed, to appear extraordinarily realistic. There are several such examples on the net, including one of mine. The accuracy and detail of the negative is largely created by the human mental tendency to recognise faces.

9) blood is also found on the shroud, the image came after -- so methods should take this into account.

They should, provided this is true. I'm not sure it is. Heller and Adler's experiments are certainly interesting in this respect, although they are in direct contradiction to Rogers's researches regarding what exactly the chromophore is, but they are not to my mind conclusive.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9618
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 585 times
Been liked: 613 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#187

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 08, 2017 12:42 am

For anyone wanting a comprehensive introduction to the Shroud of Turin, I haven't found better videos than this four video series:
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 94 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#188

Post by DBowling » Mon May 08, 2017 10:17 am

hughfarey wrote:Thank you, Gentlemen.

1) (DBowling) There is a difference between trace amounts of cotton on the surface of the Shroud due to contamination and cotton within the fabric of the cloth itself.

Quite true. However, it has not been established whether the main body of the Shroud contains significant quantities of cotton within the threads/weave or not.
From the Rogers quote above,
Based on the samples available to Rogers (from both the Raes samples and the main cloth), he was able establish the following:
"Samples from the main part of the cloth are significantly different from the Raes samples with regard to cotton content."
To my knowledge, as I said, no examination of 'main-cloth' threads has quantified the cotton included.
Rogers also addresses this in his quote above
"I did not attempt to make a quantitative cotton comparison between Raes threads and Shroud tapes,
because there was too little cotton of any kind on Shroud samples"


According to Rogers, the reason that the cotton in the main cloth samples wasn't quantified was there was not enough cotton there to quantify.

Again from Rogers
"The Shroud appeared to be pure linen."

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#189

Post by hughfarey » Mon May 08, 2017 12:33 pm

DBowling wrote:According to Rogers, the reason that the cotton in the main cloth samples wasn't quantified was there was not enough cotton there to quantify.
Indeed. But as I said, neither Rogers nor Heller and Adler had any opportunity to study any Shroud threads, as opposed to sticky tapes. Neither were any of them looking for cotton when they examined the tapes, and by the time Rogers re-examined the matter, he no longer had any to look at anyway. Of course we need a new examination of some whole threads, but until then, I cannot agree that the radiocarbon area has been shown to be different from the rest of the Shroud in this respect.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 94 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#190

Post by DBowling » Mon May 08, 2017 1:57 pm

hughfarey wrote:
DBowling wrote:According to Rogers, the reason that the cotton in the main cloth samples wasn't quantified was there was not enough cotton there to quantify.
Indeed. But as I said, neither Rogers nor Heller and Adler had any opportunity to study any Shroud threads, as opposed to sticky tapes.
Again your assertions appear to come into direct conflict with the statements of Ray Rogers.
"Samples from the main part of the cloth are significantly different from the Raes samples with regard to cotton content."
This statement from Rogers specifically contrasts "samples from the main part of the cloth" with "Raes samples".
And I believe it was Ray Rogers who sent Fanti a sample that he used in his 2013 tests.

Unless you can present real evidence to refute Ray Roger's conclusions, then I have no reason to consider your assertions to be more credible than Ray Roger's scientific conclusions.

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#191

Post by hughfarey » Mon May 08, 2017 2:46 pm

Well, suit yourself. Ray Rogers had no thread samples from the main part of the cloth, and neither did any of the STuRP team. The Italian contingent, led by Perluigi Baima Bollone, has access to the cloth before STuRP were allowed at it, and extracted several threads, but I don't think they have been analysed with respect to cotton.

DBowling
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 16 times
Been liked: 94 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#192

Post by DBowling » Mon May 08, 2017 4:14 pm

hughfarey wrote:Well, suit yourself. Ray Rogers had no thread samples from the main part of the cloth, and neither did any of the STuRP team.
Again you are wrong on the basic facts.
1. I double checked and confirmed that Ray Rogers did send Fanti an 'Image fiber', so Rogers and the other STURP members did have access to samples from the main Shroud body.
2. It is simply non-credible to assert that the STURP team was unable to determine whether or not the main body of the Shroud contained cotton. They determined that it did not. Roger's scientific analysis directly contradicts your personal unverified views on the shroud so you are choosing to dismiss the scientific conclusions of Rogers with absolutely no evidence to the contrary.
You are simply grasping at straws on this one.

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9618
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 585 times
Been liked: 613 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#193

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 08, 2017 6:49 pm

hughfarey wrote:2) (Kurieou) Then at most we have a mystery, don't we, considering the image of the shroud can't be replicated.

We have a mystery, yes, and the image has not been replicated, yes. Whether it can be replicated or not is of course the crux of the authenticist/medievalist argument.
No, it's more the crux of the medievalist argument, not with those who believe it authentic which draw from many other arguments. I do think attempts to replicate are helpful to shedding light on different features of the shroud image itself and just how unique it is.
hughfarey wrote:3) And there are many fantasies on how the shroud was created, yet to date none have really come close upon careful consideration.

A fantasy is a idea plucked from the aether without any supporting evidence. Those who have thought of 'clever' ideas - such as photography, hot statues, Leonardo da Vinci and so on - have at least made some attempt to support their ideas by experimentation or research. If the results of this research have been found wanting, the ideas have been rejected. To class such hypotheses as fantasies is terminologically inexact. The idea that the threads of the shroud have been spliced together was plucked from the aether after Mechthilde Flury-Lemburg and John Jackson insisted that no repair was evident, but has never been tested in any way. It remains a fantasy, and can only be dignified by the term hypothesis if some attempt is made to substantiate it.
Why does the corner of the shroud that the 1988 sample was cut from fluoresce differently if it is same material? And the cotton... sorry, but I'm going with Rogers on this one, who was a materialist, skeptic and initially peeved that the C14 date was challenged by those he considered fanatical believers. On the other hand, while you are very much interested and knowledgeable with the shroud, I don't know much about your credentials or experience with the shroud. So, based upon authority alone, being non-authoritative myself, I ought to defer to a higher authority.

I do know Rogers had access to the shroud as Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). So here, I rest with someone of authority who is in a better to know than myself, who is neutral and even was anti-authenticity immediately after the 1988 carbon dating. If you are granted access to the shroud to perform direct tests, then that may change.
hughfarey wrote:4) ironisation (when no iron particles are present on the shroud)

The Shroud is covered in iron oxide particles. There is no dispute about that. The nature and distribution of the particles is much discussed. Again, remember that McCrone looked in detail at whole tape-slides, whereas all Heller and Adler's tests were carried out on individual fibres from which extraneous matter (mostly the glue of the tape) had been carefully washed off.
If you added up all the iron oxide particles together that exist on the shroud, then you'd likely still need a microscope to see them. And then, oxide mainly exists in parts (water stained), not across the whole. The iron that is there, is consistent with natural effects. (more below)
hughfarey wrote:5) contain full saturation (i.e., bas relief where cloth makes full contact with surface covered in pigment) compared the the shroud which has 20% saturation and includes 3D information to within 4cm)

A series of meaningless ideas here, I'm afraid. There is no definition of "full saturation". If it is an attempt to quantify an image intensity derived from a contact, then it is generally thought that the hair and nose of the image represent contact, whether from pigment or from natural causes. "20% saturation" means nothing to me at all. The idea that the Shroud "contains 3D information" does not of itself say whether that 3D information derives from a body, a bas-relief, or a painting.

If you mean that a bas-relief covered in paint would only produce a binary "contact or no-contact" image, then experiment shows that this is incorrect. While it is true that no contact means no image, there is a wide variation in intensity in contact areas, because pressure plays a large part in determining it.
By "saturation" I meaning "saturation points" in 3D terms.

When you apply pigment direct to a surface direct (as is bas-relief), all the points which touch the surface are 100% saturation, and those points that don't come into contact are 0% saturation.

Looking at the shroud, we see the nose came into contact with the shroud causing it to be more light (when the negative is digitally processed) - 100% saturation. Further back are the cheeks and eye sockets which have less saturation. This saturation content is what enables a 3D image to be constructed from a 2D impression.

Pressure plays a large part in determining intensity, yet produce a 3D image from those bas-relief examples, and you only have dark spots (0% saturation) or very light spots (100% saturation). It's really "distance" encoded in a 2D image that provides true saturation information required for 3D ("contact pressure" is inadequate).

Furthermore, the image of the shroud isn't just on one side of the linen as far as I'm aware. Rather, we have the image on the cloth on both sides of the linen with nothing in-between. In that first video of my previous post, he likens it to a sandwich. We have an image on one side, then blank, blank, blank in the middle of the linen, and then a very faint image found to be coming through on the other side. So then, the bas-relief and any attempt at replication, needs to do the same.
hughfarey wrote:6) paint substance seep too deep into cloth (the shroud image is rather superficial, scrape a couple of microscopic threads off the top and it'd vanish)

No. I keep being told that one or another experiment "would" result in this or that, entirely by people who have never carried out any experiments themselves. It is easy to paint a cloth such that the paint doesn't seep anywhere, especially with a cloth of very dense weave such as the Shroud.
No, it's not that I'm saying experiments would result in this or that, so much as specific conditions that all replications must meet in order to claim success. If bas-relief impressions are done intended to replicate the shroud image, then so long as it meets these specific unique features that pertain to the shroud, then fine. I doubt they will. They're inadequate to account for the features I'm aware to.

Re: the image of the shroud, the image is so superficial, it only exists to a microscopic depth. Scrape off a few fibres, 1/100th of a strand, and the image would vanish. The shroud is no doubt absorbent like any linen. The image layer is so thin that it has been said for a painted picture to have the same "thinness" would require someone painting pigment on with a camel hair. I doubt bas-relief could replicate this feature. Hence, we get into "powder"-based ideas.
hughfarey wrote:7) powder would evidently distort over time, wash, rendering powder theories invalid.

Would it? I don't know if you have access to iron oxide pigment. It is extraordinarily fine, and in my experience will not completely wash out even after repeated attempts to do so. I hope you will forgive me for getting a little fed up when these very old authenticists "would do"s are blithely trotted out year after year without anybody making any attempt to find out if they are true or not.
Again, while iron is found on the shroud, it is so minute that say egg yolk mixed with oxide particles would yield much more iron oxide than actually exists on the shroud, let alone what is in the shroud image itself.

"Thus we find three types of iron on the Shroud:
a) a cellulose bound chelated form
b) heme bound forms
c) iron oxide (Fe2O3)
The predominant form is the cellulose bound form. We have been able to identify Fe2O3 primarily in the water stain margins and charred blood areas indicating that it only constitutes a very small percentage of the total iron forms found on the Shroud."

"Although iron in several forms is found over the whole cloth its distribution is shown to be accounted for by natural processes rather than as an added pigment."

"A prior investigator17-19 has published a microscopic evaluation of the samples from the Shroud. This study claims that the body image is due to an iron oxide First published in: Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, 14 (3), 1981. 36 earth pigment bound with an age yellowed animal binder that had been painted onto the cloth.17, 18 The blood marks are attributed to a mixture of iron oxide pigments and vermillion in this same binder.19 In light of our chemical findings we disagree with these conclusions."


https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part3.pdf
hughfarey wrote:8) photography wasn't invented in medieval times, yet even with such tests, it is a fully clear negative and not simply down to 4cm.

Photography is not essential for producing an image which will appear, after being photographed, to appear extraordinarily realistic. There are several such examples on the net, including one of mine. The accuracy and detail of the negative is largely created by the human mental tendency to recognise faces.
It's not essential, yet it (producing a photographic negative) was one test done, perhaps more for fun since medieval folk didn't have such. The detail was much too specific and clear. That's all I meant.

Edited: to make more clear around 3 hours after posting.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9618
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia
Has liked: 585 times
Been liked: 613 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#194

Post by Kurieuo » Mon May 08, 2017 9:03 pm

DBowling wrote:
hughfarey wrote:Well, suit yourself. Ray Rogers had no thread samples from the main part of the cloth, and neither did any of the STuRP team.
Again you are wrong on the basic facts.
1. I double checked and confirmed that Ray Rogers did send Fanti an 'Image fiber', so Rogers and the other STURP members did have access to samples from the main Shroud body.
As to where Rogers obtained his samples, this seems like a good paper: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerpaper.pdf

My understanding is a strand from the Raes sample was tested, around 6 years prior to the popular 1988 sample that was carbon dated to A.D. 1260-1390. In 1982, without permission from the cloth's custodians or knowledge at the time, STURP sent a thread from the Raes sample to be radiocarbon dated. Interestingly, one end of the thread dated to A.D. 200 while the opposite end -- containing starch -- date to A.D. 1000. (http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedi ... cciWeb.pdf)

While one might question and/or dismiss, since no strict protocol was followed, yet the tests Rogers did was enough to turn around from extreme skeptic wanting to crucify those questioning the 1988 sample carbon date. So one has to question why he would turn and fabricate such tests, not to mention his honesty and integrity, not to mention several STURP scientists have also confirmed the earlier dating of a strand.

Hugh, I wonder if you've read Meacham's book, The Rape of the Turin Shroud? Seems like an interesting one to read.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

hughfarey
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 750
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2013 2:58 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 49 times

Re: Shroud of Turin - Summary of Evidence for its Authenticity

#195

Post by hughfarey » Tue May 09, 2017 6:14 am

DBowling wrote:Again you are wrong on the basic facts.
1. I double checked and confirmed that Ray Rogers did send Fanti an 'Image fiber'.
Yes. just read that last word again, would you? Fibre. Quite so. Fibre. Not thread. Threads are made of fibres. A fibre can be linen or cotton or wool, but not a mixture. A thread can be a mixture. I do not believe Rogers ever had access to any threads.
so Rogers and the other STURP members did have access to samples from the main Shroud body.
The rather dubious story of who kept what is fraught with suspicion. Heller, I think, says that the main tape collection was held by Adler, whose widow returned it to the Vatican when he died. There is some doubt about whether this included both halves of the samples cut in two by McCrone, or how many of the 3 or 4 samples that were not given to McCrone but were given to Heller and Adler. There are, I think, several samples scattered around various people, who are now unable to do anything with them as they no longer have any authority or provenance, although Gerard Lucotte is examining a shred of tape allegedly unstuck from a blood stain on the brow by Riggi di Numana in 1978.
2. It is simply non-credible to assert that the STURP team was unable to determine whether or not the main body of the Shroud contained cotton. They determined that it did not.
No, they didn't. For a start, as I say, they only had access to fibres, and for a second, they do not discuss cotton at all in their conclusions. Indeed, in their 'Physics and Chemistry' paper, Rogers and Schwalbe refer to the cotton in the Raes sample without any suggestion that it was anomalous. Heller, in his book, McCrone and Baima Bollone all refer to cotton on the main body of the Shroud.
Roger's scientific analysis directly contradicts your personal unverified views on the shroud.
No. Rogers's conclusions directly contradict the findings of Giulio Fanti, in his analysis of a Raes thread, and Heller and Adler's findings with respect to starch. I have not studied any threads or fibres, and any contradiction I mention is based on the papers of those who have. It is convenient to attempt to compare a 'scientific analysis' and some 'personal unverified views', but that's just shooting the messenger. The discrepancy won't go away.
You are simply grasping at straws on this one.
One of us is...

Kurieou wrote: I do think attempts to replicate are helpful to shedding light on different features of the shroud image itself and just how unique it is.
You are possibly unique among authenticists, almost every one of whom begins almost every remark to me by shouting, in capital letters and accompanied by many exclamation marks, words to the effect that "It cannot be replicated, therefore it is authentic." Any other evidence always seems secondary to them. Once I have replicated it, of course, they will find some other evidence to fly at the mast-head, but for the time being, it's the lack of replication which dominates authenticist thinking.
Why does the corner of the shroud that the 1988 sample was cut from fluoresce differently if it is same material?
There is a photo on the internet that purports to be a UV-fluorescence photo of the radiocarbon corner of the Shroud. Its provenance is wholly unknown, and it is quite clearly not by the STuRP team, whose photos are all well documented in their research paper, and whose photos do not extend to the radiocarbon corner. I have asked Barrie Schwortz about this, and he is unable to account for it. In my opinion it is a heavily manipulated version of one corner of an ordinary light photo of the Shroud, and the difference in colour is due to fade-off in light intensity at the edges.
And the cotton... sorry, but I'm going with Rogers on this one, who was a materialist, skeptic and initially peeved that the C14 date was challenged by those he considered fanatical believers. On the other hand, while you are very much interested and knowledgeable with the shroud, I don't know much about your credentials or experience with the shroud. So, based upon authority alone, being non-authoritative myself, I ought to defer to a higher authority.
Fair enough. There are occasionally good reasons for an argumentum ad authoritatem, and that's one of them. As long as you don't think it's evidence, and see my response to DBowling above. Shooting the messenger does not remove the message.
I do know Rogers had access to the shroud as Director of Chemical Research for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP).
Yes. So what did he do with his samples? Firstly, to the horror of John Heller, handed nearly all of them over to Walter McCrone, and secondly, when he got them back, to John Heller and Alan Adler. Rogers knew very well that his expertise lay in explosives, and that specialists in microscopy and haematology would be more authoritative than himself. Remarkably, apart from co-authoring the summary paper (Physics and Chemistry), he is not recorded as have carried out any research at all on any of the Shroud until his return to the fray after Benford and Marino proposed the patch hypothesis. No doubt any personal speculation of my own will be jeered at, but I personally think that he believed the diagnosis of forgery of Walter McCrone, who had been his friend for many years, but did not want to upset the convictions of his fellow researchers, especially Jackson and Jumper, who were convinced of the Shroud's authenticity.
If you added up all the iron oxide particles together that exist on the shroud, then you'd likely still need a microscope to see them.
Clearly not. McCrone's book is packed with photographs of Shroud sample slides clearly showing the iron oxide particles.
And then, oxide mainly exists in parts (water stained), not across the whole. The iron that is there, is consistent with natural effects. [...] "Thus we find three types of iron on the Shroud:
a) a cellulose bound chelated form
b) heme bound forms
c) iron oxide (Fe2O3)
The predominant form is the cellulose bound form. We have been able to identify Fe2O3 primarily in the water stain margins and charred blood areas indicating that it only constitutes a very small percentage of the total iron forms found on the Shroud."
All true, but remember these conclusions are based entirely on what was left of the fibres after they had been rinsed free of extraneous material in order to extract them from the sticky tape. Morris, Schwalbe and London conducted X-Ray Fluorescence studies on the Shroud itself in Turin, and found a clear correspondence between image intensity and iron content in a continuous series of sample sites.

Finally, the story of the alleged 1982 radiocarbon testing is too vague for any sensible comment. The provenance of the thread tested is wholly uncertain, as the STuRP team did not remove any threads, and it is extremely doubtful if radiocarbon testing could be carried out at all on that tiny mass in 1982. It is mainly used by authenticists to try to discredit radiocarbon dating generally, than to attempt any genuine appeal to authenticity. After all, if the Shroud dates to 200AD, then it's a fake. Some people vaguely hope that a margin of error of say, 200 years or so might just be able to be applied, but that's grasping at a very feeble straw indeed.

Post Reply