Shroud of Turin Topics 2005: Thinking About Authenticity

GOD, CHRIST: QUESTIONS & FAITH: Ohio Shroud of Turin Conference Blog: New article by conference speakers in Chemistry Today

 

An article by two of the conference speakers, M. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino has been published by the peer-reviewed international journal "Chemistry Today" (www.chemistry-today.com) The article, entitled "Role of calcium carbonate in fiber discoloration on the Shroud of Turin," appears in the March-April 2008 issue (vol.26,no.2, pp. 57-62) and is accessible free online for 30 days starting May 12th.  Free registration is required to view article.  Afterward, it will be accessible only via subscription.  According to Shroud expert and archaelogical chemist, Dr. Mary Virginia Orna of the College of New Rochelle (NY), ". . . the role of calcium carbonate in fiber discoloration and especially its relationship to the possible means of formation of the image on the Shroud of Turin describes a fascinating hypothesis and experiment . . .  [the] hypothesis may provide the 'chink in the armor' of the hitherto un-crackable problem."

Read Details: Ohio Shroud of Turin Conference Blog: New article by conference speakers in "Chemistry Today"

GOD, CHRIST: QUESTIONS & FAITH: Ohio Shroud of Turin Conference Blog: New article by conference speakers in Chemistry Today

Ohio Shroud of Turin Conference Blog

UPDATED TENTATIVE CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

Thursday, August 14, 2008

5-7 p.m. On-site registration

6:45-7 Opening remarks

7:00-8:30 Opening address: The Shroud: An Eternal Challenge by Rex Morgan, Shroud Science Group member

8:30-8:45 Break

8:45-9:00 A Tribute to STURP by Barrie Schwortz, STURP documenting photographer and Shroud Science Group member

9:00-10:00 Informal gathering in Ballroom

Friday, August 15, 2008

7:00-9:00 a.m. On-site registration

8:00-9:30 Breakfast

8:45-9:00 Opening remarks

9:00-9:30 The STURP Experience by Tom D’Muhala, former President of STURP

9:30-10:00 The Sudarium of Oviedo: A Study of Fiber Structures by Ray Rogers, STURP member and Shroud Science Group member, read by Joanna Emery.

10:00-10:30 VP-8 Shroud Image Analysis, Impact and History by Peter Schumacher

10:30-11:00 My White Linen White Paper by Kenneth Stevenson, STURP member and Shroud Science Group member

11:00-11:15 Visibility of the Shroud Image: An Optical Physicist’s Perspective by John Dee German, STURP member

11:15-11:45 The Spectroscopy of Various Candidate Processes Associated with Image Formation and Features of the Shroud of

Turin

Redux (what we might have seen if we did it right) by Joseph Accetta, STURP member

11:45-12:00 Question/Answer session with STURP members (time permitting)

12:00-1:30 Lunch

1:30-2:00 Role of Calcium Carbonate in Fiber Discoloration on the Shroud of

Turin

by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, Shroud Science Group member

2:00-2:30 Digital Image Analysis of the Shroud of

Turin

: An Ongoing Investigation by Ray Schneider, Shroud Science Group member

2:30-3:00 A Physical Hypothesis on the Origin of the Body Image embedded into the

Turin

Shroud by Paolo Di Lazzaro

3:00-3:30 Revisiting The Right Eye Image: What is it? By Alan and Mary Whanger, Shroud Science Group members

3:30-4:00 Shroud Coins Dating By Image Extraction by T.V. Oommen

4:00-4:30 Aspects of The Shroud in Botany and Related Art By Alan and Mary Whanger, Shroud Science Group members

4:30-4:52 Body Image Formation Hypotheses Based on Corona Discharge: Discussion by Giulio Fanti, Shroud Science Group Member

4:52-5:14 Resolution of images obtained without an acquisition system using MTF by Giulio Fanti, Shroud Science Group member and Roberto Basso

5:14-5:36 Statistical analysis of dusts taken from different areas of the

Turin

Shroud

by Giulio Fanti, Shroud Science Group member and Roberto Basso

5:36-6:00 Scourge bloodstains on the

Turin

Shroud: an evidence for different instruments used by Barbara Faccini, Shroud Science Group member

6:00-8:00 Dinner

8:00 Rest of evening free

Saturday August 16, 2008

8:00-9:30 a.m. Breakfast

8:45-9:00 Opening remarks

9:00-9:30 What Went Wrong with the Shroud's Radiocarbon Date?  Setting it all in context by Paul Maloney, Shroud Science Group Member

9:30-10:00 Overview of and New Findings for Historical and Scientific Evidence Pertaining to Possible “Invisible Mending” of the C-14 area of the

Turin

Shroud by Joseph G. Marino, Shroud Science Group member and M. Sue Benford

10:00-10:30 Surface chemical analysis of the Shroud of

Turin

identifies discrepancies in Radiocarbon Dating Region by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino, Shroud Science Group member

10:30-11:00 TO BE ANNOUNCED

11:00-11:30 SEM-EDXA Analysis of Red Particles Removed from the Underside of the Turin Shroud in 1988 by Parr RL, Reguly B, MacKenzie A, Merriwether DA, Benford MS, Baraldi P, and Fanti G

11:30-12:00 Questions for morning speakers

12:00-1:30 Lunch

1:30-2:00 Neutron Radiation Effects on Linen Fibers and Consequences for a Radiocarbon Dating by Francesco Barbesino & Mario Moroni

2:00-2:30 A Global Forensic Analysis of the Elements of the Shroud of

Turin

: Compatibility Between the Evidences of Vitality and the Absence of Signs of Death on the Cloth by Miguel Lorente

2:30-3:00 The death of the Shroud Man: an improved review by Barbara Faccini, Shroud Science Group member

3:00-3:30 The Shroud of

Turin

, The Holographic Experience by Petrus Soons

3:30-4:00 Botany of the Shroud of

Turin

by Avinoam Danin

4:00-4:30 Jesus Christ, the Man of the Shroud, and Bilirubin by Carlo Goldoni, read by Roberto Basso

4:30-5:00 Ancient

Edessa

and the Shroud by Jack Markwardt

5:00-5:30 On

Besancon

and Other Plausible Theories for the Shroud During the Missing 150 Years, 1204 to 1355 by Daniel Scavone, Shroud Science Group member

5:30-6:00 Was Sixth-Century Desertification a Factor in the Transfer of Relics from

Palestine

? by Diana Fulbright, Shroud Science Group member

6:00-8:00 Dinner

8:00-10:00 GENERAL OPEN FORUM: Twenty Years After – Where Do We Stand with the Carbon dating? moderated and with a brief introduction by Bill Meacham, Shroud Science Group member and member of the 1986 conference convened by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Archbishop of Turin to Advise on carbon dating the Shroud

SUNDAY, AUGUST 17, 2008

8:00-9:30 a.m Breakfast

8:45-9:00 Opening Remarks

9:00-9:30 Advancing the Shroud into the 21^st Century: Reaching the next generation by Russ Breault, Shroud Science Group member

9:30-10:00 Focus Projects for Student Involvement in Researching the Scientific Properties of the Shroud of

Turin

by Ray Schneider, Shroud Science Group member

10:00-11:00 GENERAL OPEN FORUM: The 2002 “Restoration” – its Impact and Prospects for Future Testing moderated and with a brief introduction by Bill Meacham, Shroud Science Group member and member of the 1986 conference convened by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and the Archbishop of Turin to Advise on carbon dating the Shroud

11:00-11:30 The Tangible Emmanuel: How the Scriptures Shed Light on the Meaning and Presence of the Shroud of

Turin

by Chris Knabenshue

11:30 Closing remarks; End of Conference

Ohio Shroud of Turin Conference Blog

How Darwin Lost His Faith

Article by Dinesh D'Souza over at News Bloggers:

It's widely believed that Charles Darwin lost his faith when he discovered evolution. And many contemporary atheists proclaim themselves followers of Darwin in this sense. Michael Shermer, for instance, writes that he abandoned Christianity when he learned about evolution; finally he could see how there could be design--or the appearance of design--without a designer. Richard Dawkins writes that it was Darwin who finally made it possible to be an "intellectually fulfilled atheist."

In reality Darwin's atheism had little to do with his discovery of evolution. First of all Darwin was never a very devout Christian. He was raised as a nominal Anglican. It says something about Anglicanism in Britain that a lukewarm Christian like Darwin actually considered becoming a clergyman. What turned Darwin against Christianity, however, was two things.

Read How Darwin Lost His Faith

Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury Meet

 

Pope Benedict and the Archbishop of Canterbury discussed Christian-Muslim relations on Monday in their first meeting since the Anglican leader caused a storm with comments on the role of Sharia law in Britain.

The Vatican said the Pope had received Dr Rowan Williams in a private audience but gave no details.

An Anglican spokesman said the two spoke privately for about 20 minutes and discussed Christian-Muslim relations, inter-faith dialogue and the Pope's impression of his visit to the United States last month.

He described the visit, the second official meeting between the Pope and the spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans, as "warm and friendly".

GOD, CHRIST: QUESTIONS & FAITH

Rabbi Shmuley Answers Richard Dawkins

Dawkins goes off the deep end with his hate filled rant.  Read Rabbi Shmuley's letter to Dawkins after Dawkins compared him to Hitler.

Dear Richard,

I am in receipt of your open letter of May 2.

An ancient Rabbinical teaching says that one should respond to points in the order in which they are made. And that was my plan until I came across the part of your letter where you compare my speech at the IdeaCity convention to Hitler and say he would be proud of me.

Perhaps it was providence that your letter was posted on your website on World Holocaust Remembrance Day. Are you really so callous? Have you developed such uncontrollable loathing to people of faith that you would equate a Rabbi who was your friend and who hosted you at his home and at so many public forums and debates to a monster who killed six million Jews and bombed the people of England mercilessly?

Surely, you are aware that British academia has become a world epicenter of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment. You are familiar, I am sure, with the shameful story of your colleague, Oxford Pathology Professor Andrew Wilkie, refusing to accept an Israeli doctoral applicant because he served in the Israeli army, or the shocking and disgraceful decision by the British Academics Union to bar fellow Israeli academics from academic conferences in the UK.

And now you would add to this infamy by comparing me to Hitler? Really Richard, I mean no disrespect and once knew you to be a very genial and decent man, but Hitler? Have you lost your mind? Your loathsome comment brings you, Oxford University, and Charles Simonyi who endowed your chair into disrepute and you should issue an immediate apology.

Time for a reality check. The forum of which you speak, The IdeaCity Convention in Toronto, is one of the world’s leading media forums. They invited us to argue our ideas about atheism and religion on a stage in which I spoke directly after you. I sat right next to you. When you saw me you barely said hello, and then, just before you spoke, you gave me a card explaining that you would not be staying for my response to your comments. Amid your casual dismissal of me, I started my presentation by referring to you as ‘”a true intellectual, a very fine man, and extremely humble.” I added that we had been friends at Oxford and had debated on religion and evolution. You claim my rebuttal was “a ranting attack,” yet anyone who watched the video will see that the audience laughed over a dozen times – go and count them – during a twenty minute presentation. While you listened to me and heard Hitler, the celebrated convener of the conference, Moses Znaimer, wrote to me on July 23, 2007, “With your terrific contribution to [the conference] still ringing in my ears, I’d like to send you my formal thanks… We’ve had great feedback about the conference as a whole and you are certainly one of the top reasons why.” Press reports of my speech which are available online were similarly laudatory. Indeed, when it was over two Canadian TV companies were so enamored of my presentation that they approached me to discuss hosting a TV series. And contrary to your comments that I decided to attack you after I had learned that you were leaving to the airport, I was actually quite disappointed that you did not stay, and was relieved to hear from the conference organizers that you had stood glued to my comments on the outside speaker.

I consider the speech I gave at IdeaCity to have been a fine rebuttal of your dismissal of faith and encourage the readers of this open letter to please view it on YouTube, or my website home page, where it has been available for close to a year. Perhaps, as a scientist who respects fact over fiction, you too should have viewed it, Richard, before you decided to take the incomprehensible step of comparing a Rabbi whom Newsweek just chose as one of the ten most influential in the United States to Hitler. I am well aware of the fact that you believe religious people to be “know-nothings,” weak-minded illiterates who require a myth to get through the travails of life. Some would regard such condescension as elitist arrogance. You have a right to be egotistical. But you have no right to compare a Rabbi who refutes your arguments to the most demonic murderer that ever lived.

As to your point that the video of the Oxford debate, which you denied ever happened and which your atheism side lost, is not on my website, please look on the left-hand column of my home page. Significant portions of the debate have also been posted on YouTube.

Read the entire letter at Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's website.

New Book News

From Australia's CathNews: NSW Minister backs Shroud claims


Speaking at the launch of a new book on the Shroud of Turin by Australian author, Brendan Whiting, NSW Minister for Commerce John Della Bosca says that the most likely explanation for the Shroud is that "it is in fact the burial cloth of Jesus Christ".

Mr Della Bosca (left) was speaking at a NSW Parliament House launch of Brendan Whiting The Shroud Story, the Catholic Weekly reports.

Saying that any reasonable inference based on available evidence as detailed in the book, points to this explanation, Mr Della Bosca described Mr Whiting's book as a "very balanced, very thoughtful and very spiritual presentation of what are critical scholarly issues".

"It's an historical account of the cloth's location and custodianship over 2000 years and it's about the Shroud as an object of scientific study, political scrutiny and as a symbol of our Christian faith," he said.

The book, four years in the writing, details the history of the Shroud, a piece of linen cloth 4.3 metres long and 1.1 metres wide that bears the life-sized image of a naked man bearing wounds consistent with scourging and crucifixion. It is now housed in the Turin Cathedral in northern Italy.

The book also addresses recent claims that the cloth is a forgery.

It says that new scientific findings prove conclusively that carbon-dating carried out in 1988 was anomalous.

Most important of these discoveries is the 2005 finding that the sample taken from the cloth for testing was "chemically different" to the rest of the cloth - that it was not part of the original cloth and actually contained fragments of medieval invisible mending.

. . .

He said debate about the authenticity of the Shroud has raged from the time it was first put on public exhibition [in France in 1357] when the local bishop declared it as a fake.

"It was the start of a long debate about the authenticity of the Shroud … and that debate still goes on," he said.

Read the entire article at http://www.cathnews.com/news/610/24.php

Carbon 14 Dating Clues

Kathy, this might help:

An early clue that something was wrong came was from Alan Adler at Western Connecticut State University. He found significant levels of aluminum in yarn segments from the radiocarbon sample area, up to 2%, by energy-dispersive x-ray analysis.

Why Aluminum?hydrous aluminum oxide or alum, a common mordant used with dyes. Spliced-in new threads used to repair the shroud had been dyed to match older age-yellowed thread.

Ray Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory would later answer that question in his seminal paper disproving the carbon 14 dating. The aluminum was in the form of

Adler examined a fragment of the carbon 14 sample and compared it to fibers from elsewhere on the shroud. He used both Courier Transform Infrared Microspectrophotometry and a Scanning Electron Microscope. "The results clearly indicated differences in chemical composition," he wrote. The samples were clearly not representative. 

In 1988, Teddy Hall, then director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Laboratory, had found cotton fibers that might be from mending.

So did P. H. Smith, a consultant for the Oxford lab. He later wrote an article for Textile Horizons called "Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud," Smith suggested that those cotton fibers were suspicious and might have been part of repairs./p>

Giovanni Riggi, the person who cut the carbon 14 sample stated: "I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud. . . . This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric . . . "  (emphasis added)

Giorgio Tessiore, who documented the sample, wrote:  “. . . 1 cm of the new sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads.”  (emphasis added)

The Arizona lab made eight measurements with dates that varied widely. The clearly suggested that the sample was not homogeneous. Rather than deal with the problem, the British Museum asked Arizona to discard the four outside measurements and use only those that were most similar. It was the only way they could calculate a satisfactory error distribution.

Shroudie

Kathy wrote:

The 3D aspects of the shroud image are among the most amazing. I just noticed that the Pecular 3D Optical Illusion page has bad links to the images. That is too bad. It needs to be fixed. It not only doesn't tell the whole story with out the images, it looses people who leave the site.

Is it true?

Kathy wrote:

Is it true that the British Museum asked the Arizona lab to discard some of the carbon 14 results. I read that they performed eight measurements from various subsamples obtaining eight widely different dates and the British Museum asked them to discard the sample with the more extreme dates because the results did not dovetail with results from Oxford and Zurich.

If this is true, this is a violation of scientific ethics. Isn't this a clue that the sample being tested was a coarse mixture. Isn't this evidence, even back then, of mending the cloth?

All Shroud Stories are Good Stories These Days

People are curious. Those who are naturally skeptical will probably stay that way. Those who want to think will consider the facts about the Shroud. People will decide based on many factors, not the least of these being faith.

People who don't read news account the end of the story will seek out more content if they are interested. If they are not interested they won't give the story in a newspaper a second thought.

Shroudie

More Sloppy Sloppy Sloppy

Mason wrote:

Let's face it. This could be dishonest rewriting. It could be biased. It could also just be that the story had to cut my some copy editor to make it fit. Newspaper stories are supposed to be written top down with the big picture on top and more detail as the story develops. This not only enables easier space editing but allows readers to read as much as they want without getting a distorted picture.

The orginal AP story was sloppy. The KC Stars editing was sloppy. But overall, we are getting more positive and accurate reporting about the shroud than we did about two years ago.

The public is becoming more aware. That helps.

Kansas City Star Dishonestly rewriting AP story

Kathy wrote:

Amazing what the Kansas City Star did with the AP story. They rewrote the first paragraph, copied some of the text and then . . . well, after saying that in 1988 carbon 14 tests showed the shroud was from 1260 to 1390, the lopped off the part of the story that mentioned that those tests had been proven wrong in 2005.

Is this bias, dishonest rewriting, or what?

Redoing the Carbon 14 Dating

First of all it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is the Archdiocese of Turin. They are the Papal Custodians of the Shroud and the Vatican is, so far, not second guessing Turin's decisions -- or at least there is not indication that they are.

Okay, the carbon 14 tests were a bust. We know why, scientifically. But the underlying reason is incompetence (not those in the Catholic Church, but those managing things in Turin). The biggest failure was violations of established protocols for accurate carbon 14 dating. The orginal protocol called for 7 sample locations and 7 labs. The seven labs was probably overkill, but the seven samples was not.

There was only one sample location and the cutting was divided into three subsamples. We now know that the sample was a medieval repair, a mixture of older and newer thread in roughly 50/50 proportions. (If the old is 1st century and the new is ca 1530, as history suggests, the result is almost exactly what the labs calculated; 1260 to 1390).

I think every serious shroud researcher would like to see the tests done again. But how? Cut the cloth is several places? Pull a thread from the full length of the cloth? Use the scraped away carbon dust from the 2002 restoration? There are serious problems with all of these? The dust was collected in secret by non-scientists. The sample bottles are few and so the locations are not precise. Any results would be treated as suspect. Pulling a thread could have disasterous consequences for damage to the shroud. The cloth is so frail. Cut it again? That is probably the best idea, but I think it is unlikely.

Anything that is done will expose the current regime to how poorly they handled the carbon 14 dating in the past and how poorly they did the restoration in 2002. I don't think we should expect anything.

why not c14 test the shroud again

JR writes:

i just don't get it. if the rc church wants to prove that its real and believes that its real why not simply do the c14 over again? what are they afraid of? i think the biggest reason for thinking the shroud is fake is that the rcc wont allow testing.

Sloppy Sloppy Sloppy

Mason writes:

The AP article was sloppy in many ways. For instance: "Blood stains seen on the cloth contain chemicals from human blood and weren't painted on. The catch is that the stains are red — but old blood turns black."

That the bloodstains are real blood has been proven over and over by many scientists working independently of one another. It isn't just that it contains chemical from human blood.

While it's true that old blood normally turns black, it doesn't always. The reasons it is red are simple. Ancient cloth, as it was manufactured in the the Middle East during the first century, was starched on the loom and then washed in soap from the soapwort plant. Ingredients of this natural soap are hemolytic, which would keep the blood red. We know, as well, that the blood on the Shroud is rich in bilirubin, a bile pigment produced when a human body is under severe traumatic stress. Bilirubin is bright red and stays red.

Sloppy, sloppy reporting. The next piece about the bishops is inaccurate, very inaccurate. Where does this guy get his facts?

Insiders Look at History Channel Documentary

Mason writes:

This is a must read. I'd say the HIstory Channel bordered on dishonesty in the documentary. (Scroll Down 2/3 of the way on the page)

Shroud Documentary Reaches New Lows - A Personal Review of the Recent History Channel Program by Barrie Schwortz
(with some additional comments by Sean Heckman, the associate producer of the program)

Reply to Kathy on News Story

Mason writes:

Kathy, the standing Jesus thing is not news. Richard Ostling, AP's religion writer is not on top of things. That's all. Gilbert Lavoi has been saying this for years, that Jesus was standing when the image was made. And for years not one single shroud researchers has ever agreed with him. Lavoi just happened to be in Dallas, he presented some stuff and threw his old theory out as he always does.

The mistake he makes is assuming that the hair hangs straight down. This is an optical illusion caused by banding.

It is a much better story than some that have appeared in the past in the press. I think these reporters are starting to learn.

Yahoo News Story about the Shroud of Turin

Kathy wrote:

Just caught the story on Yahoo News. What's this about two bits of news that came out of Dallas? I certainly didn't read before about "the image of the body's back on the cloth lacks flattening of the calves and buttocks, indicating the body was upright, not lying down, when the image was formed" or "that It may be that first known exhibit didn't occur in 1357, after all."

That first point is a big deal. Why has there been no news about it on any of the shroud web sites?

This story seems to be short on accuracy and long on opinion.

New Shroud of Turin Website

Check out this new website. It is truly informative: The Sugar Coated Shroud of Turin

The introduction reads:

New Shroud Document on History Channel

Just confirmed:

The new Shroud of Turin documentary, as part of the new "Decoding the Past" Series, will be broadcast on Dec 19, 9:00PM EST, 8:00PM CST, 7:00PM MST and 9:00PM PST. Barrie Schwortz has spent time with the producers, hoping that they will concentrate on scientific fact and not polemic speculation.

Here is the description from the History Channel site:

Unraveling the Shroud

For centuries the Shroud of Turin has been a touchstone of faith for millions. Many believe it is the primary evidence of the way Jesus Christ died on the cross. But is it real or a clever forgery? Did Renaissance genius Leonardo da Vinci play a trick on the Roman Catholic Church? We bring you the latest theories and the most current tests, some commissioned especially for the program. Despite centuries of scrutiny from scientists, theologians, and art historians, the linen cloth with the faint image has remained a three-and-a-half by fourteen foot enigma. Like a mirror, for some it has reflected what we know; for others, what we believe. cc

The Rape of the Turin Shroud

Bill Meacham's new book, The Rape of the Turin Shroud, has just been released. It is available at Amazon for $24.50 (288 pages). I haven't read it yet since I am still awaiting delivery. But I know Bill personally. From the many conversations I have had with him, I don't hesitate to recommend it. I will post some comments after I have read it.

Book Description
This book describes the "desecration" of the Shroud of Turin due to serious errors in its study and conservation. It is the story of how this relic, once the subject of worldwide curiosity and awe, with its haunting and still unexplained image of Christ, came to be wrongly dismissed as a medieval fake by the general public. And how it recently suffered major damage in an ill-advised and secretly executed "restoration" conducted for cosmetic and misguided conservation purposes.

From the Author
The book begins with the Shroud at the pinnacle of its prestige in the early 1980s, when millions of people, including a respectable number of academics and scientists, considered it quite possibly the actual burial cloth of Christ with a mysterious imprint of His body. This perception changed almost overnight with the announcement in 1988 that Carbon-14 dating had produced an age of around 1260-1390 A.D. for the cloth. The relic was wrongly condemned, however, since the dating was poorly planned, marred by petty rivalries, and scientifically flawed.

The final stage in the desecration was a travesty carried out by aggressive "restorers" in 2002. Valuable scientific data was irretrievably destroyed, opportunities for research squandered, materials taken from the cloth without stringent controls, and repairs dating from 1534 that constituted part of the Shroud’s visual heritage were removed. This so-called "restoration" was conducted totally in secret, engineered by a small clique around the archbishop of Turin. It has been roundly condemned by most Shroud researchers as a conservation and scientific disaster. The relic and its study have been altered forever.

These things should not have happened. The reasons behind them are complicated, and I have tried to reconstruct the sequence of events and its causes, based on my own knowledge and notes, plus the accounts of others.

To commit lunacy to posterity

The most recent issue of Sindone News is at once uproariously funny, sad and a tad bit insulting. How can an intelligent person read it and not see in it a pitiful attempt to gloss over the truth and fabricate history?

The publication of this puff piece is to commit lunacy to posterity.

Moreover, it will only expand the divide between the Clique of Turin and those who recognize that the restoration was reckless. It will only clarify that there are two points of view: Turin's and those who give credence to peer-reviewed scientific journals.

A simple example will illustrate the fabrication of history. Tom D'Muhala, Isabel Piczek and Michael Minor wrote:

"The international media was well represented at the conference. Representatives from many major newspapers, magazines, television networks and film and documentary producers were among the media who attended the conference. NBC News from New York City sent a crew of four to film and cover the conference."

And how much news was reported? The Fort Worth, Texas, newspaper did write two incredibly inaccurate, deeply buried stories. Other than that I saw no coverage. In fact, I hardly saw any media people at all. Who is kidding who?

And how are we to interpret these words by Pier Luigi Baima Bollone? What can he possibly mean? Who are those who among believers "tend to interpret their own work as a form of privileged relationship with God."? Are they to be compared to atheists he mentions? Good grief. How judgmental Bollone is. He wrote:

"Psychologically it happens that those who work with the Shroud tend to interpret their own work as a form of privileged relationship with God. This may be seen both in the believer and in those who as atheists believe that his or her God is Reason or Truth. Privileged relationships are by nature exclusive and it is for this reason that there are - at least in my personal opinion - some attitudes of intolerance towards those who are working in a parallel direction.

"This is not right," wrote Bollone, "Neither for the image that the Shroud bears which we are called upon to study, nor for the tolerance of the true scientist such as, among many others, Vignon, Barbet, Hynek and, in more recent times, the unforgettable Alan Adler and Ray Rogers."

Turin has made a series of mistakes. The restoration was one and they seem intent on keeping it a lively issue until all fall into line. Their involvement in a stage-managed conference, which only signals their attitude, is another: their way or the highway; their science or peer-reviewed science. This puff piece is the latest.

In the future, I am sure, there will be open and honest Shroud conferences. And perhaps there will also be carefully orchestrated conclaves with glorious reports. But it would seem to me that sooner or later the Vatican will realize how far things are out of control.

Nothing would be better for advancing the science of the Shroud than cooperation with Turin. But it will not happen by pretending.

Dan Porter

New Shroud Documentary To Premiere on the History Channel

This bit of good news comes by way of Barrie Schwortz:

New Shroud Documentary To Premiere on the History Channel

Over the past six months I have been working with producer Sean Heckman of Actuality Productions here in Los Angeles in the preparation of a new Shroud documentary titled, "Relics," that will tentatively air on December 19, 2005 on the History Channel. Actually a two hour, two part program, the first hour deals exclusively with the Shroud. Other well known sindonologists appear in the program, including Dr. John Jackson and Dr. August Accetta. Interestingly, the second hour deals with the Veil of Manoppello, among other relics.

One of the more interesting aspects of my involvement was working with a professional 3-D animation studio to extract the spatial information encoded in the Shroud image. I think the results of this and other experiments commissioned by the producers will give some very interesting results. I was most pleased to watch Lee Schneider, the director, make every effort to stick to the scientific facts about the Shroud. Of course, Actuality is already well respected for their Modern Marvels series that regularly appears on the History Channel. Although I have not seen the program, I am hopeful that this will be one of the best Shroud documentaries in recent years. Remember, the date is only tentative, so check your local listings for the date and time in your area.

Conference Update to Shroud.com

Barrie Schwortz has completed an update to his site with a special page, The 3rd International Dallas Conference,  I recommend it to you.  There are 11 new papers including the now famous list of fact.

Of particular interest was this blurb about the Papap Custodians futile attempts to defend the 2002 restoration that most Shroud researchers thinks was reckless:

Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemburg, the textile expert that restored the Shroud in 2002, who presented the reasons that she felt made the restoration necessary. After reminding us that the Shroud was now stored in a special case with a 99.5% argon atmosphere, I was somewhat surprised to hear her state that the carbon found trapped between the 1532 patches and the Shroud cloth itself (from the charred edges of the burn holes) had to be removed before it caused "oxidation of the linen." Yet oxidation requires the presence of oxygen, not carbon, and not much oxygen can exist in a 99.5% argon atmosphere. She also claimed that moisture could potentially cause this carbon to "dissolve" and form a "black ink" that would permanently stain the cloth. Yet carbon, in its elemental form, does not dissolve in water. In fact, it is commonly used in water filtration systems to trap particulates. This did not seem to be a very strong scientific argument in favor of the restoration.

Walter McCrone Did Not Lie About the Shroud of Turin. But He Was Mistaken

Jo, you wrote: Look most people know that Walter McCrone was a preeminent scientist. He would not lie.

I am not saying he lied. He was mistaken, however. As you wrote previously: facts are facts. Other than perhaps some trace contaminates, there is no paint on the Shroud; at least nothing that would form a visible image.

In a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer, regarding an article by Joe Nickell, chemist Ray Rogers wrote the following. This letter is very telling on this subject:

Dear Editor:

Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].

My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?

Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.

Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.

Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others."

Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA

Walter McCrone and the Shroud of Turin

Jo wrote: "Walter McCrone found paint on the Shroud of Turin. Facts are facts."

This claim by Walter McCrone is completely discredited by facts, facts that appear in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

The public and many scientists are coming to realize that:

1. The images are in fact a caramel-like browning, in places, of an otherwise clear coating that covers the outermost fibers of the cloth. This coating is between 180 and 600 nanometers thick. This a a carbohydrate substance of starch and various sugars in trace amounts. It is not paint.

2. Spectral tests, some of them undertaken at the National Science Foundation Mass Spectrometry Center of Excellence at the University of Nebraska, clearly show -- beyond any dobut -- that McCrone did not see through his microscope what claims to have seen; at least not in quantities sufficient to form a visible image.

3. McCrone's work is really nothing more than his interpretations of what he visually saw. No one else, who has examined the same microscope slides, sees what he said he saw. His work violates one very basic fundamental of science. An observation must be confirmable. The work must be repeatable. McCrone's is not.

4. McCrone has made some sensational claims that call into question his credability. For instance, in <i>Biblical Archeologica Review</i>, he wrote: "The paint on the Shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution)." How in the world does one look at dried gelatin many hundred years later and know how much water was used to dissolve it. It is a ridiculous, unscientific claim.

Simon Dennington, Ph.D. wrote on the Shroud.com website: "I am a research chemist who works a lot with paints, and am amazed by this statement. Though McCrone, with his massive experience might be able to very roughly estimate the proportion of pigment to collagen present on the fibres as being of the order of 1 part in 10,000 (that is to say, 0.01%), to state this exact figure without any mention of the enormous error involved is really bad practice. And as for claiming it was applied as a 0.01% gelatin solution, well, it is quite simply IMPOSSIBLE to know this. You cannot, by any means known to science, tell by looking at dried gelatin what strength of solution it was applied from!!! To authoritatively present these wild guesses as "facts" looks like a cheap trick to 'blind people with numbers' and makes me suspect his other arguments."

THE SHROUD OF TURIN IN 2005

THE SHROUD OF TURIN IN 2005:

In 2005: American Chemical Society website quotes the late Raymond Rogers, Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the scientist who proved that the carbon 14 dating was invalid, as saying: "The observations do not prove how the image was formed or the "authenticity" of the Shroud. There could be a nearly infinite number of alternate hypotheses, and the search for new hypotheses should continue."

In 2005: Philip Ball, in Nature wrote:   "It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made" (Jan 2005).

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE SHROUD OF TURIN:

If we rely only on peer-reviewed science journals we know this: The Shroud of Turin is at least 1300 years old. The images are not painted. The images are really a darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating thinning than most bacteria. There is no paint. The Shroud of Turin is not medieval. The 1988 carbon 14 dating used a sample cut from a medieval repair to the Shroud that was chemically unlike the rest of the Shroud.

Joe Nickell and the Shroud of Turin

Believing the Shroud of Turin is genuine is not the same as knowing it. But from peer-reviewed scientific journals, alone, we can reasonably infer that it might be real. Adding historical records makes for a good recipe for believing.

Dear Jo:

Joe Nickell is not a scientist. Period. He is proud of not being a scientist. He is a columnist who publishes frequently in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine and LiveScience, a popular science and technology web site. LiveScience says of Nickell, he “Nickell is Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and "Investigative Files" columnist for the organization’s science magazine, Skeptical Inquirer.”

Skeptical Inquirer and LiveScience are not peer-reviewed. That is not a criticism. These high quality, easy-to-read publications serve a useful purpose reporting science to the public; but not always so in opinion columns such as those Nickell writes.

Joe Nickell is not a scientist. That is not a criticism either. Nickell finds not being a scientist advantageous. In “An Interview With Joe Nickell,” Eric Krieg of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, describes Nickell (using Nickell's own words) as an “investigator” and formerly an “undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician and spokesperson.” 

“Joe [Nickell] impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator,” Kreig continued.  “Joe seems to have no significant credentials . . .  Joe [Nickell] remarks that a scientist tends to approach an investigation from the narrow view of his own specialty - where as a ‘jack of all trades’ would come up with more avenues of investigation.”

Everyone should read a recent Nickell article at csicop.org/specialarticles/shroud.html and judge for himself or herself.

Before judging, read what Ray Rogers wrote to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer. Rogers wrote:

Dear Editor:

Joe Nickell has attacked my scientific competence and honesty in his latest publication on the Shroud of Turin. Everything I have done investigating the shroud had the goal of testing some hypothesis [Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin: Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 3 (1982); Rogers R. N., Arnoldi A., "The Shroud of Turin: an amino-carbonyl reaction (Maillard reaction) may explain the image formation," in Melanoidins vol. 4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp. 106-113].

My latest paper [Rogers, R. N., "Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the Shroud of Turin," Thermochimica Acta 425/1-2, 189-194 (2005)] is no exception. I accepted the radiocarbon results, and I believed that the "invisible reweave" claim was highly improbable. I used my samples to test it. One of the greatest embarrassments a scientist can face is to have to agree with the lunatic fringe. So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?

Incidentally, I knew Walter since the 1950s and had compared explosives data with him. I was the one who "commissioned" him to look at the samples that I took in Turin, when nobody else would trust him. I designed the sampling system and box, and I was the person who signed the paper work in Turin so that I could hand-carry the samples back to the US. The officials in Turin and King Umberto would not allow Walter to touch the relic. Walter lied to me about how he would handle the samples, and he early ruined them for additional chemical tests. Incidentally, has anyone seen direct evidence that Walter found Madder on the cloth? I can refute almost every claim he made, and I debated the subject with his people at a Gordon Conference. I can present my evidence as photomicrographs of classical tests, spectra, and mass spectra.

Now Joe thinks I am a "Shroud of Turin devotee," a "pro-authenticity researcher," and incompetent at microanalysis. If he ever read any of my professional publications, he would know that I have international recognition as an expert on chemical kinetics. I have a medal for Exceptional Civilian Service from the US Air Force, and I have developed many microanalytical methods. I was elected to be a Fellow of a national laboratory. A cloud still hangs over Walter with regard to the Vinland map. Joe does not take his job as "Research Director" very seriously. If he thinks I am a "true believer," I will put him solidly on the "far-right" lunatic fringe.

Joe did not understand the method or importance of the results of the pyrolysis/mass spectrometry analyses, and I doubt that he understands the fundamental science behind either visible/ultraviolet spectrometry or fluorescence. He certainly does not understand chemical kinetics. If he wants to argue my results, I suggest that we stick to observations, natural laws, and facts. I am a skeptic by nature, but I believe all skeptics should be held to the same ethical and scientific standards we require of others.

Sincerely,
Raymond N. Rogers
Fellow (Retired)
University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Los Alamos, NM, USA

Re: Secular Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Articles on the Shroud of Turin

Dear Jo:

I did not include Microscope because I don't think most people think of this as a peer-reviewed journal. It certainly was not at the time that McCrone published his findings. It is a publication of the McCrone Institute and, at the time, Walter McCrone was the editor.

Dan

Secular Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal Articles on the Shroud of Turin

Dear Jo:

The most significant peer-reviewed scientific journal articles are as follows. It is important to note all these journals are secular. Of these, only Nature argues against authenticity but its conclusion is now moot because of the article in Thermochimica Acta. But the article is nonetheless accurate.

Dan

Peer Reviewed Journal Articles:

Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp 189-194).  The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect® online information site.

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology – Lloyd Currie, NIST, Washington D. C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)

Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)

Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. “The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.” s vol.4, Ames J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 2003, pp.106-113;

Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.”  46: 142-154 (2002);

Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Biochemical Analyses - Adler, Alan D. Updating Recent Studies on the Shroud of Turin. ACS Symposium Series No. 625.  Mary Virginia Orna, editor. 1996 by American Chemical Society, pp.223-228;

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews - Mills, Allan. Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin. , December 1995, 20(4):319-327;

Archaeological Chemistry IV; Advances in Chemistry - Dinegar, Robert H. and Schwalbe, Larry A. "Isotope Measurements and Provenance Studies of the Shroud of Turin."  Series 220, 1989; Ralph O. Allen, ed.; Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 409-417;

Nature - P. E. Damon, et al (Vol. 337, No. 6208, pp. 611-615, 16th February, 1989) Open
Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal - Heller, JH and AD Adler, "A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin." Volume  14 (1981), pp.81-103.

Applied Optics - Jackson, J., Jumper, E., and Ercoline W. "Correlation of Image Intensity of the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape." , 15 July 1984,23:2244-2270; Jumper, Eric J.;

Archaeological Chemistry III; Advances in Chemistry - Adler, Alan D.; Jackson, John P.; Pellicori, Samuel F.; Heller, John H.; and Druzik, James R. "A Comprehensive Examination of the Various Stains and Images on the Shroud of Turin." Series, #205; Joseph B. Lambert, ed; Washington: American Chemical Society, pp. 447-476.

Walter McCrone and the Shroud of Turin

Believing the Shroud of Turin is genuine is a far cry from knowing it. But from peer-reviewed scientific journals, alone, I can reasonably infer it is real. Adding historical records makes for a good recipe for believing.

Dear Jo:

No, Walter McCrone did not prove that the Shroud was painted. No, Walter McCrone did not examine the Shroud. He examined 32 microscope slides of material lifted from the surface of the Shroud with adhesive sampling tape. He visually identified traces of iron oxide which he determined was "jewelers rouge." He concluded that the images were painted with this. McCrone also claimed to have found a concentration of mercury that he says was used to make vermilion paint used to paint the bloodstains.

But chemical investigation, including mass spectrometry, shows that small quantities of iron oxide particles are evenly distributed in both image and non-image areas and that the quantities are too small to form a visible image. The bloodstains are from real blood. Different scientists, working independently, conducted immunological, fluorescence and spectrographic tests, as well as Rh and ABO typing of blood antigens that clearly show this. And several experts in forensic medicine and blood chemistry conclude that the stains were formed by real human bleeding from real wounds to a real human body that came into direct contact with the cloth. See the peer reviewed Canadian Society of Forensic Science Journal, Volume 14 (1981), pp.81-103.

Dan

More on Nature and Shroud of Turin Carbon 14 Dating

Dear Jo, I might add to my previous comments:

I think the Nature commentary by Philip Ball, in response to Rogers Thermochimica Acta article was particularly interesting. Some bits from it:

"Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game," he wrote, "but don't imagine that they will convince anyone . . . The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it." Later in his commentary Ball added, "And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made."

Ball, who understood the chemistry of the shroud's images, rejected a notion popularized by many news accounts that Leonardo da Vinci created the image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was "burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy" from Jesus' body. This he said was wild.

Almost all serious shroud researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the "lunatic fringe" of shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the shroud a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.

The idea that the shroud had been mended in the area from which the carbon 14 samples had been taken had been floating around for some time. But no one paid much attention. In 1998, Turin's scientific adviser, Piero Savarino, suggested, "extraneous substances found on the samples and the presence of extraneous thread (left over from 'invisible mending' routinely carried on in the past on parts of the cloth in poor repair)" might have accounted for an error in the carbon 14 dating. Longtime shroud researchers Sue Benford and Joe Marino independently developed the same idea and explored it with several textile experts and Ronald Hatfield of the radiocarbon dating firm Beta Analytic. The art of invisible reweaving, Benford and Marino discovered, was commonly used in the Middle Ages to repair tapestries. Why not the shroud, they thought? The believed they saw evidence of it.

But the skeptically minded Rogers did not agree. He had already debunked every other argument so far offered to explain why the carbon 14 dating might be wrong. According to Ball, "Rogers thought that he would be able to 'disprove [the] theory in five minutes'." Instead he found clear evidence of discreet mending. He also showed, with chemistry, that the shroud was at least thirteen hundred years old. And he proved, beyond any doubt, that the sample used in 1988 was chemically unlike the rest of the shroud. The samples were invalid. The 1988 tests were thus meaningless.

In words that seem strange in a scientific journal that once had bragging rights to claim that the shroud was not authentic, Ball wrote: "And of course 'authenticity' is not really a scientific issue at all here: even if there were compelling evidence that the shroud was made in first-century Palestine, that would not even come close to establishing that the cloth bears the imprint of Christ."

Dan

Nature vs Thermochimica Acta (No Way!)

Dear Jo,

It is not, as you ask, "Which peer-reviewed scientific journal should we believe since they contradict each other?"

You are quite right, Nature is an outstanding journal, very well known, and certainly highly respected. I agree as well, few, outside of a very specialized field have heard of Thermochimica Acta.

But scientific journals do not operate that way. What is important is what is accurate. And in the story of the carbon 14 dating of the Shroud, both journals were accurate. And they don't contradict each other.

The Nature article was written in 1989. More has been learned. Rogers found no fault with the article in Nature. Nor did he find fault with the quality of the carbon 14 dating. He defended it. What Rogers found was that the carbon 14 sample was taken from a mended area of the cloth that contained significant amounts of newer material. This was not the fault of the radiocarbon laboratories. But it did show that the dating was invalid.

Dan

Press Release: Shroud of Turin Conference Awash in Controversy and Criticism

 

NEW YORK, NY., Sept. 20, 2005 -- According to a report published today on the Shroud Story website (http://www.shroudstory.com), a recent conference on the Shroud of Turin erupted in controversy over how the Papal Custodians of the Shroud were dealing with scientific evidence. The report is entitled, “An Enchilada Comes to Mind.”

The conference, held from September 8 to 11, in the grand ballroom of the historic Adolphus Hotel in Dallas, Texas was attended by about 100 archeologists, scientists and historians from around the world.

According to Daniel Porter, author of the report, conference organizers had wanted a positive discussion of the Shroud’s possible authenticity. What they encountered instead was a barrage of criticism about a secret restoration of the cloth in 2002 and probing questions about why Turin officials summarily rejected chemical proof of failed carbon 14 dating.

According to the website report, most researchers at the conference, representing a broad spectrum of Catholic, Anglican (Episcopal), Protestant and Evangelical Christians, felt that the restoration was scientifically, archeologically and preservation-wise reckless. Moreover, they wanted to know why scientific evidence, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta, and independently verified by other scientists, was being ignored.

“John Paul II was clear when he said the church did not have specific competence to pronounce on scientific matters,” said Porter. “He said the Church entrusts that task to scientists. And just last week, Turin’s archbishop, Cardinal Poletto, reiterated that point. But Turin officials are ignoring microscopic, spectral and chemical analysis from multiple scientists. Instead they rely solely on the opinion of a non-scientist textile consultant. It doesn’t make any sense.”

In an attempt to minimize controversy, conference organizers decided to prohibit questions and comments from the floor. But the scientists attending the conference were not deterred by this tactic.

“You don’t treat full professors and published scholars this way,” said Porter.

In a presentation that had been billed as a tribute to the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist and Science Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory who had studied the Shroud for many years, researcher Barrie Schwortz instead showed an interview with Rogers taped shortly before his death on March 8, 2005.  In the interview, Rogers explained why the 1988 carbon 14 dating had been invalid because samples contained significant amounts of new material from discrete repairs to the cloth. He also offered a blistering criticism of the secretive restoration and explained why the cloth and the still-unexplained images of crucified man may have been damaged in the process.

In a letter to the conferees, the Vatican Secretariat of State, Cardinal Angelo Sodano wrote that His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, “trusts that the Dallas Conference will advance cooperation and dialogue among various groups engaged in scientific research on the Shroud.”

“It happened,” said Porter, “but in startling ways that Turin had not anticipated.”

An Enchilada Comes to Mind: Dallas Shroud of Turin Conference 2005

An enchilada comes to mind: The 2005 Dallas Conference on the Shroud of Turin was like hot stuff wrapped in a corny don’t-mess-with-Texas tortilla, awash in a salsa of controversy.

Don’t mess with Texas? Yup; there was a gun-totting sheriff-type in the grand ballroom of the elegant Adolphus Hotel ready to boot out any of the approximately 100 college professors or scholars from around the world who might dare to ask a question. Questions from the floor were not allowed. When University of Hong Kong archeologist William Meacham asked why an armed guard was needed, conference organizer Michael Minor explained he was there to prevent ‘insulting’ controversy and criticism.

But controversy and criticism happened. It erupted like a Texas-style Wild West shootout.

Good Grief II

Day 2: Well, the conference got rolling. And as the following article says: "Microbiologist and skeptic Walter McCrone, who was not at the conference Thursday, has suggested that the shroud was a medieval hoax. His research revealed paint particles on the cloth."

Two points: Wlater McCrone was not at the conference because he died several years ago. And, also, 99% of everybody know fully well that we are long past debating about paint particles on the Shroud. Not only has it been disproven, everyone familiar with the Shroud now understands that the images are a caramel-like substance of starch and sugar thinner than most bacteria. This has been proven beyond a doubt.

The newspaper story does not mention the highlight of yesterday. Last evening Barrie Schwortz showed 30 minutes of an interview with the late Ray Rogers. Rogers blasted the "restoration," contamination with Thymol, and the errors made in sampling for C14 testing. He put the blame on the custodians of the Shroud in Turin. Rather than stay around to answer questions or defend the staff of the Archdiocese of Turin, Monsignor Giuseppe Ghirberti and his entourage stompted out of the room, his face showing anger. The talk later was all about his lack of courage and civility. That was the big story. Discussions went on until one in the morning.

Here is the story from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Dallas conference on Turin shroud begins

By Melissa Sanchez

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - Fort Worth Bishop Kevin W. Vann read aloud an Apostolic Blessing from the Vatican Thursday to kick off the three-day International Conference on the Shroud of Turin, which is the cloth that many believe Jesus Christ was buried in before his resurrection.

At the conference, scientists displayed pictures of the 3 1/2- by 14-foot piece of cloth. The negative images were also exhibited to show the imprint of what many believe is the body of Jesus Christ. The actual shroud is at the Turin Cathedral in Italy, where it has been for more than 400 years.

Tom D'Muhala, president of the American Shroud of Turin Association, addressed a controversial carbon-14 dating test done in 1988 that suggested the shroud wasn't very old. A study conducted by retired chemist Ray Rogers contradicted that theory, indicating that the sample was taken from a portion of the shroud that had been patched.

Microbiologist and skeptic Walter McCrone, who was not at the conference Thursday, has suggested that the shroud was a medieval hoax. His research revealed paint particles on the cloth.

But conference organizer Barrie Schwortz, who was on a team that examined the shroud in 1978, said the shroud came in contact with paint on several occasions while it was being studied.

Start of the Dallas Conference

Well, most of the people are here. The conference starts today at 1:30 at the Adolphus Hotel in Dallas. And this is going to be one really controversial conference. About 20 of us gathered yesterday to voice our general displeasure with this conference.

It seems disorganized. No agenda has yet been published. Even speakers don't know when they will be speaking over the next four days. And then we see this story in today's Star-Telegram (see below). Good grief. Most Shroud scholars don't subscribe to this simplistic theme: " Is the shroud proof of a resurrection or a medieval fake?"

Many think this statement is preposterous: "I am a lawyer, and I believe I can prove that the shroud is authentic in a court of law," conference organizer Michael Minor said.

And this statement is simply wrong: "This is an opportunity that has never existed in the past," conference official Tom D'Muhala said. "Scholars and scientists will discuss the results of their work and lots of new material will be presented."

They have been doing it for years. This on the other hand is a carefully orchestrated selection of papers that support the Turin custodians; the custodians who have botched nearly everything they have done with the Shroud.

Presenters to share Shroud research with public

By Melissa Sanchez

Star-Telegram Staff Writer

DALLAS - For the first time in three years, scholars and scientists will share their research at the Dallas International Shroud of Turin Conference. This year will be the first year they have shared it with the public.

Facts and fiction surrounding the highly debated ancient linen will be presented at the conference. More than 100 people are expected to attend. Many believe the 4-by 14-foot fabric with a faint image of a man on its surface is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

Officials from Turin, Italy -- who have never attended the conference before -- will discuss the results of their research for the first time with attendees. The theme: Is the shroud proof of a resurrection or a medieval fake?

"This is an opportunity that has never existed in the past," conference official Tom D'Muhalasaid. "Scholars and scientists will discuss the results of their work and lots of new material will be presented."

The largest single piece of evidence against the Shroud's authenticity was a carbon-14 dating test done in 1988. The Shroud was declared to be of medieval origin and probably "a hoax," according to British Museum spokesman Mike Tite.

A subsequent study released in January 2004 by retired chemist Ray Rogers revealed that the sample removed from the shroud was taken from a portion that had been patched. Officials believe the shroud was patched after surviving two fires.

"I am a lawyer, and I believe I can prove that the shroud is authentic in a court of law," conference organizer Michael Minor said.

IN THE KNOW

If you go

Dallas International Shroud of Turin Conference

• When: 1:30 to 5:30 p.m., today; 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday; and 9:30 to 11 a.m. Sunday

• Where: Hotel Adolphus, 1321 Commerce St., Dallas

• Cost: $300 per person; discounts are available for students and groups of five or more. Members of the clergy will be admitted free.

• Information: Call Michael Minor (972) 932-5141 or go to www.shroudstory.com

Avoiding the lunatic fringe

How ridiculous! A headline in the Christian Examiner asked the question, “Is image a hoax or visible projection of Christ’s resurrection?”

The article was about the Shroud of Turin. The reference to the image was a reference to the two enigmatic images – front and back – of a much wounded, crucified man on the Shroud.

The very idea that there are but two options to consider; that the images were faked or that they were formed in the slipstream of the Resurrection is sadly a very common public perspective. In reality there are other possibilities, perhaps several. All of these other possibilities embrace one commonality and two inescapable facts. 

The commonality is perplexity. No one really knows how the images were formed or how old the cloth really is. 

The two inescapable facts are observable by scientific methods, documented, materially accessible for review and published in respectable, peer-reviewed, secular, scientific journals.

1)  The images are of a caramel-like substance that is a selective chemical change to a layer of starch fractions and sugars that seems to coat the outermost fibers of the entire cloth. This coating is as thin as the wall of a soap bubble, as thin as most bacteria, as thin as the glare-proof coating on modern eyeglasses. How that coating got there and how some of it was chemically changed, in bits here and there, to an image are matters of speculation: are matters for forensic science.

 

2) What was dated by carbon 14 testing is chemically unlike the rest of the Shroud. It was not until December 2003, fifteen years after the carbon 14 dating that a reserved bit of the sample cut for carbon 14 dating was made available for testing. Another year was needed for testing, independent confirmation and the rigors of peer review: the tests were invalid. It wasn’t the fault of three carbon 14 laboratories but the fault of church officials who ignored carefully planned and documented protocols. Moreover, chemical tests for the kinetic decomposition of vanillin in the Shroud suggest that when the Shroud made its first documented appearance in Western European History in 1356, it was already several centuries old. 

How do you know that the radiocarbon sample was not valid for dating the Shroud of Turin?

The 1988    radiocarbon age determinations were carefully done. The sample preparation    methods, the measurement technologies and procedures, and the data reduction    were adequately planned and executed to answer the most important question:    was the Shroud produced in the First    Century? Damon,    et al.,    reported that "The age of the shroud is    obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at least 95% confidence." However, that    date does not reflect observations on the linen ­production technology nor    the chemistry of fibers obtained directly from the main part of the shroud in    1978. The independent analyses from the different laboratories scatter more    than would be expected for a homogeneous sample, raising other questions.  

The 1988    sampling operation was described as follows: "The shroud was separated from    the backing cloth along its bottom left-hand edge and a strip (~10 mm x 70    mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed    in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body    of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas." The use of a single    sample, assuming it was representative of the whole cloth, defied normal    procedures and protocols established before the radiocarbon study. It was a    serious mistake.

How do you know that the fire of AD 1532 did not start a long-term autocatalytic decomposition of the Turin Shroud?

Based on the facts of chemistry and    current storage conditions, the Shroud of Turin is not now and has    never been in imminent danger of catastrophic autocatalytic decomposition.    The "restoration" of 2002 was based on an erroneous understanding of    chemistry.  

Autocatalytic chemical    reactions are those in which the rate increases as the amounts of reactants    decrease, i.e., while the materials are reacting. The most important single    factor in predicting effects is the temperature. When the    temperature changes, the rate changes. The only severe heating episode the    Shroud has suffered was during the fire of 1532. Any autocatalytic    decomposition that occurred then has long since stopped as the Shroud is    stored at normal temperatures.

Why are there bands of different colored linen throughout the Shroud, and what do they prove about image formation mechanisms?

   Bands    of slightly different color can be seen in Shroud photographs. They are most    visible in ultraviolet-fluorescence photographs (see Hands UV). Both warp and    weft yarns show this property. Some areas show darker warp yarns and some    show darker weft yarns. In some places bands of darker color cross. In other    places bands of lighter color cross. The effect is somewhat like a plaid.

 

   All of the bleaching processes used    through history remove lignin and most associated flax impurities (e.g., flax    wax and hemicelluloses). The more quantitative the bleaching process the    whiter the product. The bands of different color on the Shroud are the end    result of different amounts of impurities left from the bleaching process.

 

   Anna Maria Donadoni, a curator at the    Museum of Egyptology in Turin, pointed out locations where batches of yarn    ended in the weave and new yarn had been inserted in order to continue    weaving. The yarn ends were laid side by side, and the weave was compressed    with the comb. The ends are often visible, and the overlaps correspond to    zones of different color in the weave. The different batches of yarn show    different colors.

 

Where darker bands of yarn intersect    image areas, the image is darker. Where lighter bands intersect an image    area, the image appears lighter. This proves that the image color is not    a result of reactions in the cellulose of the linen. Some impurities    on the surface of the different batches of yarn produced the image color.    This observation is extremely important when tests are being made on    image-formation hypotheses. If image color is not simply a result of color    formation in the cellulose of the linen fibers, image formation must be a    much more complex process than we originally thought.

How fast does cellulose (linen) decompose (produce a color) compared with the impurities found on the Shroud of Turin?

J. L. Banyasz, S. Li, J.    Lyons-Hart, and K. H. Shafer [Fuel 80 (2001) 1757-1763] studied real-time    evolution of formaldehyde, hydroxyacetaldehyde, CO, and CO2    from pure microcrystalline cellulose by EGA/FTIR (effluent gas analysis and    Fourier transform infrared spectrometry). They detected 10 compounds    simultaneously in the gas phase by FTIR. The cellulose decomposition is very    complex. The quantity of formaldehyde produced is a function of heating rate,    so decomposition mechanisms change depending on how fast you heat the    cellulose. That is important in considering image-formation mechanisms and    long-term stability vis-à-vis scorching processes.  

   According to A. G. W. Bradbury, Y. Sakai, and F. Shafizadch, [J. Appl. Polym.    Sci. (1979) 23, pp. 3271-3280], the induction process in cellulose can be    neglected above 300^ºC. They observed two major decomposition    mechanisms with the following constants:

 

E₁    = 47.3 kcal/mole                   Z₁    = 3.2 X 1014    _s-1

 

E2    = 36.6 kcal/mole                   Z2 =    1.3 X 1010    _s-1

 

They assumed that 65% of the products in the char-forming    chain of reactions went to gas.

 

Glucose    decomposes by a multi-step process. As with all of the other saccharides, the    first is a dehydration/condensation reaction. The condensation processes    yield carbon-carbon double bonds, which ultimately lead to color formation.    Bruce Waymack of Philip Morris measured the kinetics of the first reaction as    E = 23.9 kcal/mole and Z = 1.26 X 10⁷ s^-1.     The low-molecular-weight polysaccharides are much less stable than cellulose.

 

I    measured the kinetics of vanillin elimination from lignin as E = 23.6    kcal/mol and Z = 3.7 X 10¹¹ s^-1. It is much    less stable than crystalline cellulose.

 

Results of kinetics studies    support a low­temperature image-formation process. The temperature was not    high enough to change cellulose within the time available for image    formation, and no char was produced.

How is it possible to get image only on the topmost surface of the cloth of the Turin Shroud?

 

   Because    the cellulose was not involved in image formation, the color must have    formed in impurities on the surfaces of the image fibers. Independent    observations have proved that all of the    image color resides in a very thin layer on the outside surfaces of    colored fibers.

 

   Evaporation concentration can explain the superficial nature of the image and    the identical properties of the front and back images. It can also explain    the "doubly-superficial" image, i.e., the presence of a superficial image on    the back surface of the cloth as reported by Ghiberti and Fanti and Maggiolo.

 

When a    solution evaporates at the surface of a porous solid, dissolved solutes are    concentrated at the evaporating surface. The principle is illustrated in the    photomicrograph with blue dye. A piece of linen was saturated with a dilute    solution of blue dye, and the cloth was dried while laying on a sheet of    Teflon. All evaporation occurred at the top surface, and the dye concentrated    on that surface. It is obvious that most of the dye deposited on the highest    parts of the weave and the upward-pointing fibers of the nap. A sheet of    cloth that contained sugars and starches would deposit those impurities at    the very topmost part of the weave after washing and drying.

Can some simple, natural process explain a doubly-superficial image?

   

When a    cloth is dried on a line, impurities concentrate on both evaporating    surfaces; however, more impurities will deposit on whichever surface dries    faster. Any concentration of impurities can take part in the image-formation    reactions. This can explain the "doubly­superficial" image.