Yet another go-round for the Shroud

[skepticscott]

http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-na-turin17-2008aug17,0,4950965.story

Truly mind-boggling that yet another gaggle of "scientists" has managed to convince the media that there is some controversy, some deep, unsolved mystery about the Shroud. It's a great way to get your name in the paper for a while, but at the bottom it's just another episode of trying to validate preconceived notions based on religious wishful thinking. These people will just never give up, no matter how many times they get smacked down.

[realisticphish]

1. it is ridiculous

it's been proven pretty definitively to be a 14th century fake, but, of course, wishful thinking

[Warpy]

2. That thing has been trotted out faithfully

at least every six months since I was a little kid. No matter how many experts say it's bogus, Mother Rome still clings to the thing as proof positive of its own legitimacy.

[jberryhill]

7. Really?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "bogus". It is a piece of linen in a box in Turin.

The Vatican has never taken a position on that.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html

The Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence. It first of all requires of every person, particularly the researcher, that he humbly grasp the profound message it sends to his reason and his life. The mysterious fascination of the Shroud forces questions to be raised about the sacred Linen and the historical life of Jesus. Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions.

I suppose next you'll say that the Last Supper in Milan is also "bogus".

[PVnRT]

8. That makes no sense

The "bogus" part of it is that the shroud has an actual imprint of Jesus' face, or that it caught some of his blood at the crucifiction, etc. No one is denying that it is an old piece of cloth in a box.

As for The Last Supper, I really have no clue what you're driving at. It's a painting that is documented to have been painted by Da Vinci. There is no mystical connection to it at all.

[jberryhill]

9. The point is....

No one is denying that it is an old piece of cloth in a box.

Correct. And the Vatican takes no position on its historical authenticity.

Warpy's statement was that the Catholic church presents it as historically authentic. They don't, and they are, after all, the ones who made samples available for radiocarbon dating. Warpy's assertion that the Catholic church presents it as a historically authentic artifact is wrong. The Vatican expressly disclaims competence as a scientific organization.

As for The Last Supper, I really have no clue what you're driving at. It's a painting that is documented to have been painted by Da Vinci. There is no mystical connection to it at all.

Then you agree it is not an actual depiction of the Last Supper - which is as profound a statement that the shroud of Turin is not, in some sense, "real".

Some people find Da Vinci's painting to be inspirational. There is absolutely no way that the Last Supper, or any of the attendees looked the way it does in that painting. As a representation of the Last Supper, that painting is an absolute fraud.

I find Huck Finn to be inspirational. Sure, I'll bet you don't believe that a boy named Huck sailed up the Mississippi on a raft with a slave named Jim. But it's right there in the book.

[Orrex]

15. There's a palpable difference, though

Some people find Da Vinci's painting to be inspirational. There is absolutely no way that the Last Supper, or any of the attendees looked the way it does in that painting. As a representation of the Last Supper, that painting is an absolute fraud.

No one in history has ever put forth The Last Supper as the actual event, nor even as a true representation of the actual event. Since the moment the brush hit plaster, it has been known as an artistic reenvisioning of the story of Jesus' last party with his crew.

The Shroud, in constrast, has endlessly been offered up as the actual funerary cloth of Christ, stained with His blood and miraculously imprinted with His image through means allegedly unknowable and irreproducible. If you're asserting that the Catholic church itself has never certified its miraculous nature, I'm fine with that. But countless individuals have indeed proclaimed it to the be almighty towel, and they have rejected each of the many debunkings in turn.

I'm not sure that the position of the Catholic church is even relevant here, beyond the implications of Warpy's post. It is sufficient, from a standpoint of belief vs. evidence, to acknowledge that, for many people, the Shroud is not only miraculous in itself; it is proof of the fundamental miracle of much of Christianity.

That's a lot different from deriving personal inspiration from a known work of fiction as a work of fiction.

[jberryhill]

16. Ah, but...

No one in history has ever put forth The Last Supper as the actual event

No, instead, nutcases believe it is part of a conspiracy relating to the event.

The larger point, which I don't seem to be getting across effectively is that no belief about Jesus Christ can be confirmed by a physical artifact. If the shroud were really two thousand years old and came from Israel, it still wouldn't prove any religious belief concerning Jesus Christ. That's what fascinates me about the emotional investment either way about it.

Since its first appearance in the 1200's or so, the thing has been handled extensively, it's been through at least three fires, it's been exposed to all sorts of environmental conditions and contaminants, the linen fiber itself has been food for hundreds of years of microorganisms which have been born, lived, left excrement, and died there. It's had things spilled on it, it has been burned, it has had molten metal dripped on it, it has been sewn, repaired, re-lined, and so forth. Treating as a piece of forensic evidence of something that is alleged to have happened long ago is pointless given the range of known and unknown conditions to which it has been exposed.

It is not at all like some alpine bronze age dude who's been on ice the whole time.

But as far as the statement to the effect that the Catholic church presents it as genuine, or that the Catholic church takes any official position on it as a scientific question, it seems to me that they are quite responsible in saying that is not their competence.

Personally, I believe that a piece of linen that has provided endless fascination for hundreds of years since the late 1200's is quite a remarkable work of art. And maybe this is a better take on what I was trying to say...

If it is an artwork dating from the 1200's, from which a lot of folks draw inspiration, why is that so upsetting and "bogus" relative to any other of many miraculous statues, crying Virgin Marys, bleeding hearts of Jesus, and so on. This particular artifact seems to get folks riled up in a way that nothing else does.

I'm not sure that the position of the Catholic church is even relevant here, beyond the implications of Warpy's post.

Well, it was Warpy's post to which I was responding, since he seemed to believe the Catholic church touted is as historically authentic.

The reason why it is in Turin is itself an interesting story. Shortly after its initial appearance, it was denounced as a forgery and forbidden to be venerated by the church and, again, the church still doesn't have a position on it.

[semillama]

18. Off-topic - I actually bought that book for our office

Haven't had to use it yet, but there will come a time when I need to identify the type of wood used in some artifact...

[jberryhill]

19. The applied caption really through me off...

I thought it was about identified wood per se, and thought the title was photoshopped. It didn't occur to me until later that the book related to distinguishing one type of wood from another.

[Goblinmonger]

26. Um, Huck sailed DOWN the Mississippi

not UP it. Not trying to be a prick, but it is important to the theme. Things get worse as he and Jim get closer to the plantation south.

Sorry, being an English teacher is my day job.

[jberryhill]

27. Hmmmph....

I must have read it upside down.

I always wondered how he went upstream on a raft.

[onager]

3. Thanks. The usual cast of characters, I see...

1. An obsessed scientist working outside his field of expertise, which seems to be military weapons research. (Seems like an odd career for a guy representing Ye Olde Alleged Prince O' Peace, but I quibble. As usual.)

2. An equally obsessed Shroud fangirl with absolutely no scientific training. Unless you count her experience as a U.S. Army cook, a sort of modern alchemy which converts normal food into industrial waste.

Ignoring the golly-gee credulity of that LA TIMES writer, all I see is a couple of very narrow loopholes left by the original research. And as usual, the believers are determined to try and force a Mack truck thru those crevices.

Well, after they prove the Shroud is real, I have their next project. Here in Egypt, I have seen an actual footprint of the Prophet Mohammed!!!. It's in the Quitbay Mosque (built 1472, IIRC), in a charming part of Cairo known as The City of the Dead. Maybe they could prove that is real.

Nah, probably not. Religion doesn't have an Equal Time Provision...

[skepticscott]

4. And sadly, but not surprisingly

Every media report, interview, press release or "scientific" evaluation on the Shroud conveniently fails to address or even mention the one incontrovertible, slam-dunk piece of evidence. There are red ochre pigment particles everywhere in the image area and vermillion pigment particles everywhere in the blood areas. Any discussion of the Shroud that does not account for these facts is fatally flawed and worthless.

My own theory is that a lot of this is driven by low-level publicity seeking as much as religious fervor. Associating yourself with the Shroud as an "investigator" and claiming to be exploring something new about it is a good way to get your name in the paper or some hack TV show or magazine for the gullible. But of course, that doesn't work if all you do is confirm the (difficult to refute) facts that have already been discovered, so you have to ignore or distort them. And reporters get juice by writing about the Shroud, so they're only too glad to help.

[jberryhill]

11. What I like about the shroud - and what is fundamentally silly about investigations of it...

Are:

1. The not silly part - You can learn a lot of science by going over the various arguments. Accounting for the red ochre and vermil lion pigments is a leadpipe cinch for those that believe it to be "authentic" in some sense. Obviously someone thought it would be a good idea to "touch up" the image. Furthermore, the Savoys commissioned duplicates of it, as they had a monopoly on duplications of the shroud, which were brought into contact with the artifact in order to "sanctify" the duplicates. The arguments have no end.

2. The silly part - Suppose for argument's sake that some test (a) confirms it to be roughly 2000 years old, (b) demonstrates why other tests were flawed, and (c) demonstrates it to be of middle eastern origin. What I don't get is - What would (a), (b), and (c) prove?

Even if one "scientifically" demonstrates it to be 2000 years old and of middle eastern origin, that still wouldn't prove what it is these folks are really after.

[realisticphish]

20. true, that

but true believers lock onto any scrap of scientific-sounding nonsense to further their case, even while decrying science as an abomination before god, or the fairies, or whatever

[jberryhill]

22. And...

3. A group from Los Alamos National Labs

4. The head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit

Jackson was a member of the original STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project), which included:


Joseph S. Accetta, Lockheed Corporation*
Steven Baumgart, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
John D. German, U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories*
Ernest H. Brooks II, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Mark Evans, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Vernon D. Miller, Brooks Institute of Photography*
Robert Bucklin, Harris County,Texas, Medical Examiner's Office
Donald Devan, Oceanographic Services Inc.*
Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado*
Robert Dinegar, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Donald & Joan Janney, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
J. Ronald London, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Roger A. Morris, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Ray Rogers, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories*
Larry Schwalbe, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Diane Soran, Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories
Kenneth E. Stevenson, IBM*
Al Adler, Western Connecticut State University
Thomas F. D'Muhala, Nuclear Technology Corporation*
Jim Drusik, Los Angeles County Museum
Joseph Gambescia, St. Agnes Medical Center
Roger & Marty Gilbert, Oriel Corporation*
Thomas Haverty, Rocky Mountain Thermograph*
John Heller, New England Institute
John P. Jackson, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Eric J. Jumper, U.S. Air Force Academy*
Jean Lorre, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Donald J. Lynn, Jet Propulsion Laboratory*
Robert W. Mottern, Sandia Laboratories*
Samuel Pellicori, Santa Barbara Research Center*
Barrie M. Schwortz, Barrie Schwortz Studios*

Note: The researchers marked with an * participated directly in the 1978 Examination in Turin. All others are STURP research members who worked with the data or samples after the team returned to the United States.

Why do you believe that it is incongruous for organizations or individuals with expertise in nuclear science to undertake a project with the objective of determining the age of an artifact?

[Lisa0825]

23. I actually participated in a project at the Air Force Academy...

I was at a summer science seminar as a high school senior in 1985. They were trying to make a 3 dimensional image from the shroud, and our job was to cut thin cardboard pieces that would be cross-sections stuck together to build the image in 3D. At the time I thought it was cool, now I think it's silly. But it's kind of fun to see "my project" mentioned after all these years :)

[PVnRT]

5. There was a thriving market for fake relics in the Middle Ages

This is just one that survived and got a lot of attention.

[mr blur]

6. There still is, sadly.

[onager]

10. Still hanging out there somewhere: the Holy Foreskin...

I remember reading somewhere that at one point in the Middle Ages, no less than 47 churches in Europe all claimed to possess the foreskin of Jesus.

The Wikipedia article on it is fascinating:

The abbey of Charroux claimed the Holy Foreskin was presented to the monks by Charlemagne. In the early 12th century, it was taken in procession to Rome where it was presented before Pope Innocent III, who was asked to rule on its authenticity. The Pope declined the opportunity.

At some point, however, the relic went missing, and remained lost until 1856...

The rediscovery, however, led to a theological clash with the established Holy Prepuce of Calcata, which had been officially venerated by the Church for hundreds of years; in 1900, the Church solved the dilemma by ruling that anyone thenceforward writing or speaking of the Holy Prepuce would be excommunicated...

The Holy Prepuce of Calcata is worthy of special mention, as the reliquary containing the Holy Foreskin was paraded through the streets of this Italian village as recently as 1983 on the Feast of the Circumcision, which was formerly marked by the Roman Catholic Church around the world on January 1 each year. The practice ended, however, when thieves stole the jewel-encrusted case, contents and all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

[moggie]

13. "The Feast of the Circumcision"?

Somehow, I'm suddenly not hungry.

[TZ]

14. ...

Okay I had an evil thought..Considering what GD gets like with circumcision threads..maybe you should post THAT little factoid in there...Holy mutiliation, Onager!:rofl:

[cosmik debris]

12. It's like a rerun of Myth Busters

I've seen that episode before. Change the channel.

[beam me up scottie]

17. They're just doing this to one-up teh new Bigfoot evidence.

There's lots of moola to be made from woo.

[jberryhill]

21. Los Alamos National Labs - "scientists"?

There have been three primary questions since the radiocarbon tests in the 1980s -

Did the samples include fibers from later repairs made to the linen?

Did the several known fires since its first appearance in the 1200s produce enough carbon monoxide contamination to alter the apparent date?

Would microorganisms living in and on the linen produce enough modern carbon to alter the apparent date?

I know folks get all excited over the shroud stuff one way or the other. The basic problem is that it is by no means a pristine piece of forensic evidence. There is a lot of interesting peer-reviewed work that's been done on it over the years. My understanding is that, as a whole, the shroud is probably of medieval origin. To say that an ancient origin has been "debunked", though, is a caricature of both the degree of certainty to which any scientific conclusion is held, and an unfair rejection of remaining legitimate hypotheses.

Jackson's hypothesis is here: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf

In any event, the OP seems to be related to the more detailed information here:

--

COLUMBUS, Ohio, August 15 — In his presentation today at The Ohio State University’s Blackwell Center, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) chemist, Robert Villarreal, disclosed startling new findings proving that the sample of material used in 1988 to Carbon-14 (C-14) date the Shroud of Turin, which categorized the cloth as a medieval fake, could not have been from the original linen cloth because it was cotton. According to Villarreal, who lead the LANL team working on the project, thread samples they examined from directly adjacent to the C-14 sampling area were “definitely not linen” and, instead, matched cotton. Villarreal pointed out that “the <1988> age-dating process failed to recognize one of the first rules of analytical chemistry that any sample taken for characterization of an area or population must necessarily be representative of the whole. The part must be representative of the whole. Our analyses of the three thread samples taken from the Raes and C-14 sampling corner showed that this was not the case.” Villarreal also revealed that, during testing, one of the threads came apart in the middle forming two separate pieces. A surface resin, that may have been holding the two pieces together, fell off and was analyzed. Surprisingly, the two ends of the thread had different chemical compositions, lending credence to the theory that the threads were spliced together during a repair.

LANL’s work confirms the research published in Thermochimica Acta (Jan. 2005) by the late Raymond Rogers, a chemist who had studied actual C-14 samples and concluded the sample was not part of the original cloth possibly due to the area having been repaired. This hypothesis was presented by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino in Orvieto, Italy in 2000. Benford and Marino proposed that a 16th Century patch of cotton/linen material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original Shroud cloth in the region ultimately used for dating. The intermixed threads combined to give the dates found by the labs ranging between 1260 and 1390 AD. Benford and Marino contend that this expert repair was necessary to disguise an unauthorized relic taken from the corner of the cloth. A paper presented today at the conference by Benford and Marino, and to be published in the July/August issue of the international journal Chemistry Today, provided additional corroborating evidence for the repair theory.

--

And, once more with feeling. IMHO the age of this artifact does not "prove" any religious proposition. Given the treatment to which the artifact has been exposed during its known history, saying "radiocarbon dating showed it to be of medieval origin" is pretty simplistic. This thing was not just dug up or rushed from a crime scene for analysis.

Even if one established an ancient date for the linen, one would not have established a date for the image on it which, for all anyone knows, may have been "retouched" at some point in time. For example, the best forgeries (like the various Mormon documents some years ago) are made on paper that is as old as what the forgery purported to be.

[skepticscott]

24. Of course, all of these new arguments

directly contradict the arguments that Shroud believers used to make. They used to claim that C-14 dating was fraught with errors and completely unreliable, but now they seem to think it's just fine, as long as they can use it to explain an earlier origin for the Shroud. The retouching argument doesn't hold much water either. Some Shroud believers claimed that the image was a miraculous one, created by the energy burst at the moment of resurrection. Why a miracle would fade over time is a complete mystery. And for those who believed that the image was blood, there are no blood particles in the image areas, and in any case, dried blood darkens rather than fades over time. In any case, the image would have to have been much more than "retouched", since there are pigments everywhere in the image areas.

[jberryhill]

25. Here's the other weird thing that I don't get about the "believers"

(defining believers as in "the artifact was subject to a miraculous event")

Some Shroud believers claimed that the image was a miraculous one, created by the energy burst at the moment of resurrection.

Precisely. Which renders their reliance on any scientific analysis to be misplaced. For example, not only was the resurrection an event which was accompanied by some kind of energetic event, but if it was a miraculous energetic event, then all bets are off. Perhaps a side effect of the perfect risen being is also a complete alteration of the C14/C12 isotope ratio.

You want another hypothetical miracle? The image of the crucified Christ miraculously burned itself into a piece of linen in the 1300s. This explains why the linen dates from that time.

Seeking scientific confirmation of anything "miraculous" is a losing game either way. But I like that kind of argument, and that's why my avatar is what it is.

I don't see a problem with fading. The event is alleged to be miraculous. Even a photograph of a miraculous event is not itself a miracle, and will fade. Likewise, while dried blood darkens over a reasonable time scale, this artifact is - even if a forgery - hundreds of years old. It would be a poor forger who would not have used real human or even animal blood for the blood stains.

They used to have nuns launder the thing. It's easy for us to think in terms of care instructions for precious artifacts, but folks have had different ideas about "proper care". It doesn't have a "hand wash only" tag on it, and if you wash a cloth with blood on it, you get a faded blood stain.

Whether or not the ensconced front teeth of St. Whatever in the reliquary of Our Lady of Perpetual Motion is or is not the front teeth of St. Whatever - they are somebody's front teeth. I love checking out the relics in old churches. The various anatomical bits on display run the gamut. One of the best ones I ever saw were the middle ear bones from some holy roller in a tiny little glass ampoule surrounded by gems at the apex of an elaborate gold cross.

All that said... if the guy who runs the accelerator lab at Oxford where the 1988 test was done, agrees that there is something worth a double-check, then I'll take his word for it. But I'm not going to hold my breath either. The fact that the radiocarbon dates correspond to the historical appearance of the artifact is a strong one.

[mr blur]

28. It still looks like Jerry Garcia to me

albeit after a particularly bad trip.

[dropkickpa]

29. I can barely make anything out

Of course, I have never been able to so those magic eye paintings and my answer to rorschach blotches is always "A blob!" or something completely outlandish that no one else ever sees.

[semillama]

30. I personally like the idea that it's actually Leonardo Da Vinci

It is more plausible than it being magic messiah markings. Not a whole LOT more plausible, but fun to consider.

[Wilber_Stool]

31. What a

coincidence. I was just looking through my ImageShack pics when I stumbled on to this thread, This is what I found:


Shot at 2006-06-04

Can't remember where it was taken. I thought it was Sheffield.England but google turns up nothing.