Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Shroud of Turin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Standard for "Recent Developments"

Some of the comments currently recorded under the heading "Recent Developments" are of dubious value. Sourcing is sometimes lacking, and some of them are more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia. I think we need to establish the same criteria for inclusion in this paragraph as we do for the rest of the encyclopedia. Although the article does by design include a number of the wishful comments of the shroudies, some of the comments in this paragraph are even less scientific than average. Wdford (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The section contains citations. So I think the question should be, "Does the material match the citations?" "Is all the disputable material cited?", and "are the citations WP:RS?" If not, would you list or tag them? Thanks. Student7 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think that the most important question should be "does this comment actually add value to the article, or is it just mindless blathering?" However another editor has already removed the worst of the blathering, so we are WP:OK for the time being. Wdford (talk) 07:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverse image

Is the faint image on the reverse side of the cloth really there, or is it another of those things that only some people can see, after much digital manipulation, like the flowers and the "death certificate"?? Since this was "discovered" by Fanti, I have doubts, and I have not yet seen any articles claiming that anybody else has been able to see this second image. Has it been confirmed? Wdford (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of claims out there. People see flowers and some people see boats. There is one person who is a 3D image expert who created a 3D image from this shroud but it is obvious that he is biased. Some experts are claiming there is blood but can't identify it and I found a site that says it has been identified and has been compared to the blood found on Sudarium (a face shroud of Jesus from circa 700, now located in Oviedo, Spain) and claims it is the same blood type. Some experts have said to have found iron oxide and mercury sulfide while someone else said he didn't find any pigments and that the image is cellulose fibers that have decayed from a burst of radiation coming from Jesus. You have to keep in mind that it is a matter of religion. There are all sorts of ridiculous claims coming from both amateurs and the experts of STURP. This is what my archeology book from 1990 says : "The quality of a scientific investigation, however, cannot be assessed by the tonnage of the equipment brought to bear. The STURP research ultimately was a scientific failure. Even before they began, several of those involved had already made up their minds that shroud was the result of a supernatural occurrence." Vmelkon (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Claim

I have replaced the word "claim" throughout. The idea is not to debunk believers or debunkers. Findings are findings as long as there is a WP:RS. See WP:CLAIM. Student7 (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Forhead Is Bleading

Have any experts made comments about the blood that appears on the forhead? I think that the blood on the forhead would have been dried and would not be transferred to any cloth. Another issue is that Jesus is naked and he is covering his genitals. Was it normal practice to remove the dead person's cloths and to place the hands on the genitals? Vmelkon (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen this documented anyplace explicitly, but I believe Jesus was crucified naked, as were all people who were crucified at the time. The prosecutors would not have wanted to defile clothing by having blood on it, though the primary reason was to humiliate the victim and demoralize his associates. So He had no clothing to remove! The loincloth we see in all the paintings and sculpture are like "fig leafs" on Adam and Eve. Trying not to detract from the topic.

Women were going to prepare his body, apparently a women's function? I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't "cover his genitals" if the body hadn't become rigorous. I have no idea what they would have done, if the body were rigorous, which would, of course, happen from time to time.

I think this is worth some research, but it would already have to be published, hopefully with this shroud as it's topic.

Typically head wounds bleed profusely, though they can be stopped if someone wants to allow medical aid, which they wouldn't have in this case, presumably. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

You start by saying it isn't documented anywhere and say that is what you believe. What am I suppose to do with that? I imagine that if people were crucified naked, it would be considered something to write about just like they write about the crown of thorns and that they nail people and that they put a sign over Jesus's head (INRI). The issue with the blood is that Jesus was on the cross for a long time and then he died. The blood isn't going to stay wet for a long time and blood clothing is going to seal the injured area. Another issue is blood smearing. If the blood is wet, it going to be smeared all over the fabric as the fabric is moved. Vmelkon (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, Seneca thought they were crucified naked. See Crucifixion#Details.

The only details we have about the crucifixion of Jesus are in the New Testament. If they put a sign over someone else, or pounded on a crown of thorns on someone else, we don't know about it. And the NT differs about how the sign read BTW.

And actually, no, the worst parts of ancient times still elude us. They know (for example) that (before the invention of toilet paper), that Romans wiped themselves with a sponge at the end of a stick, dipped in vinegar. What the archeologists don't know, is if they carried around a stick with them all day, or if they used a common stick, or what. Something tens of millions of people did half dozen times a day, and we don't know, because they didn't write about it, or, if they did, the medieval copyists left this out of their copies.

I don't know about "the cloth." Student7 (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is good if there is a source that says that people were crucified naked. It is better than nothing. What I am wondering is if it was standard jewish practice to bury someone naked. It seems to me that it is something important that would be documented by the jews. It should even be written in the Bible. The Bible doesn't even mention this shroud. I would imagine a miracle would be detailed in the Bible. It is likely to be an artist's idea to have a back and front, continuous image, with no wrinkles in the cloth. Vmelkon (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The one case they found, low caste, was wrapped with pieces of material. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/16/mideast.ancient.shroud/index.html. Cases are similar to Bible (Lazarus, who was wealthy). It seems to me that the wrappings would be used, in part, to keep the spices next to the body to retard decay and reduce odor. Just my idea. Student7 (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, just a reminder that this Talk page is only for discussing changes to the article. It is not a general forum for chatting about the Shroud of Turin. Also, only reliably sourced details and theories can be included in the article. Thanks, Ashmoo (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in the Introduction

In the opening statement of the article there is a fundamental contradiction I do not understand..basicly it says there is no evidence for a forgery..then it says the material has been dated to the middle ages..this doesn`t make sense..which is it? Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The article correctly reports the carbon dating from the series of tests performed a decade or so ago.

It also correctly reports that it found no "evidence of forgery," which is also correct. This is why there is controversy. Note the previous entry above for details on the continuing discussion. How would anyone prove "forgery" at this point. We don't know how the image was created. The material in the cloth has flunked one carbon dating but passed another. The image seems correct for a burial shroud of a crucified person. They didn't normally crucify people in the era the cloth was dated to.

Negative inventories are not a good idea, generally. So saying "there was no evidence of forgery" might be dropped, even though true. Student7 (talk) 16:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Both statements are correct in their own context. The first study did not include the C14 dating, but they studied the cloth with the technology of their day, looking for evidence of paint etc. They did not find any explanation for the formation of the image, and reported accordingly. The second study was a few years later, by different people. They conducted the C14 dating, and found that the cloth was medieval. The pro-authenticity camp likes to quote the first study, but tends to ignore all the other more recent studies that contradict those early conclusions. There has never been a second carbon dating at all. Wdford (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the USAToday quote is wrong or misleading. It says "The new test, by scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy, used the same fibers from the 1988 tests but disputes the findings. The new examination dates the shroud to between 300 BC and 400 AD, which would put it in the era of Christ.

It determined that the earlier results may have been skewed by contamination from fibers used to repair the cloth when it was damaged by fire in the Middle Ages, the British newspaper reported." I would be interested in your analysis of the article or tests. Student7 (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have not read the USAToday article, so I don't know what wording they used. However the Padua tests were NOT C14 tests - they used some other ideas which they thought up themselves, the reliability of which has not been verified.

Second, there is dispute over the authenticity of the fibers tested - they were not from the C14 test, and they may or may not even be from the shroud.

Third, the so-called "repair controversy" has been debunked conclusively and by multiple specialists using actual shroud evidence - there was no repair in that section of the shroud, and thus the C14 dating is fine.

Fourth, the Padua "tests" imply that the shroud was really old, which contradicts the repair theory.

All in all, the pro-authenticity camp are undermining and contradicting each other in their separate attempts to "prove" that the shroud is authentic, while the actual scientific dating says clearly and unequivocally that its medieval. They have not yet agreed on how the image was made, but the cloth itself is clearly not an authentic 1st century artifact. Wdford (talk) 08:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "In 1978, a detailed examination carried out by a team of American scientists, called the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP), found no reliable evidence of ~~forgery~~how the image was produced" which I think is more accurate & less loaded. Johnbod (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.

Wdford, I'm just copying the USAToday pointer from the above subsection. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295. You seem to know the gist of it anyway.

All this talk takes on a life of its own after awhile. If you could furnish a citation that verifies what you've just said 08:26 13 October, that would hopefully close out this line of thinking for good! Or if we're called upon to state that the Padua examination was wanting in professional technique, we've (you've) got a footnote at your fingertips for entry. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The main criticism of Fanti's latest effort is that the fibers he tested cannot be verified to have come from the shroud - the church itself shot him down on that one - see article for details and references. Secondly he used tests of his own design, which are not yet understood far less verified. Third, he is contradicting solid tests done by solid teams with solid methodologies using solid material, and he has a serious history of non-objectivity, so nobody has thusfar taken him too seriously - apart from the believers and the media, who are always up for a story. Wdford (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Hebrews

I seek consensus on this as I believe it should be in the article The Gospel according to the Hebrews ...records after the resurrection of the Savior: And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it is added: He took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep. (Jerome, De viris inlustribus 2) Oxford Clarendon Press Early Christian Writings Gospel of the Hebrews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not belong in the introduction of the article. However, it may be worth mentioning in the section #Religious perspective. I've cut down the quotation and boldly added it there. If there's opposition, editors are free to remove it, but I'd appreciate a comment here on why they think it's not worth including. —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted - are you kidding? It has been removed by 3 different editors. Only a a WP:PRIMARY ref is given, and there is absolutely nothing from any WP:RS even hinting a connection between this passage and the Shroud - nor have I ever seen such a suggestion. Even by the dubious stantards of Shroud "scholarship" this is highly improbable OR. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with CFRED this has to be placed in the section he changed it to, this is too important a fact and a connection is clearly stated therwise I am afraid wikipedia will be seen as a joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod has a point. Was Jerome aware of the existence of the Shroud, to where he could say that the "linen cloth" mentioned is the Shoud? Further, it would be better if a secondary source, such as a Biblical scholar, made the connection between the cloth in that passage and the Shroud. —C.Fred (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What other cloth is there oh maybe its a hankerchief that Jesus blew His nose into and thats what he gave. Early Christian Writings where the Cameron translation came from is a scholar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no apparent connection between this linen cloth and the burial shroud. The canonical gospels say the burial clothes were left in the tomb when Jesus departed it, so where from did Jesus get his burial shroud thereafter - did he go back to fetch it? Did somebody else fetch it for him? I don't have this work available to read myself - please can you also quote the preceding verses as well that make it clear that this is actually the burial cloth they are talking about? Wdford (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You do not understand the great controversy is that the Apostles saw strips of linen and the linen cloth is vague or missing in the gospels. The Hebrew Gospel which is the Q source of Mathew Mark and Luke has given us the answer that Jesus gave the priests servant the linen cloth . When John and Peter entered the tomb all they saw was the strips that tied the Shroud around the body. This needs to be presented here as people have a right to read this and make up their own minds, it would be totally iresponsible not to give people a chance to read it, those 2 lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be totally irresponsible to violate basic policy. This needs to be discussed by sources that meet WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. Dougweller (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Another secondary source scholar M R James wrote This is a famous passage. One interesting clause is apt to escape notice, about the giving of the shroad to the servent of the (high) priest, which implies that priests must have been apprised of the resurrection as soon as the apostles. Was the servant of the priest Malchus? Presumably the servant was at the sepulchre: if so, it was being guarded by the Jews as well as the Roman soldiers (as in the Gospel of Peter). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.175.202.96 (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Where did James write this, so we can verify it and take the full context of the surrounding text? —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This paper, by I think a strong Shroud proponent, deals with the passage, but concludes it has no relevance for the Shroud of Turin. Note the passage say absolutely nothing about the cloth having an image on it. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

John 19:40 says: “Taking Jesus’ body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs.” John 20:5-7 says the disciples entered the tomb and saw the “strips of linen”. There is never any mention of shrouds. Second, I question why Jesus would have given his burial shroud to the Jewish priests, who had just conspired to murder him. Third, the canonical gospels do not mention any meeting with James, nor that any significance should be attached to the shroud. Fourth, the so-called "Gospel of the Hebrews" no longer exists, and all we have of it are excerpts written by non-objective people quoted in excerpts written by other non-objective people. I still don't see any linkage to the shroud. Perhaps there is a different interpretation to the passage, which is obscured now because so much of it is lost? Wdford (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The James scholarly translations comes from a reputable site called Early Christian Writings, I agree with original advocate this is important and fits into the Religios opinions paragraph perhaps we can state it as A manuscript called the Gospel of the Jews which is not extant other than a dozen lines documented by Origen, Jerome and Eusibious states that a linen cloth was given to the servant of the priest unknown preceding his appearance to James I am fascinated that this is the first time I have come across this paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I could live with a paragraph that says "A manuscript called the Gospel of the Hebrews which is not extant other than a dozen lines quoted by Origen, Jerome and Eusibious, states that Jesus gave a linen cloth to the servant of the priest preceding his appearance to James. There is no clarity offered as to the nature of the linen cloth or the reasons why Jesus would have done so, but some people think the cloth may have been the burial shroud. The sources do not state that the linen had any images on it." How about that perhaps? Wdford (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it should not be in, or near, the lead. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we would have to create a sub-section under "Religious perspective". Wdford (talk) 10:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would we need a sub-section for one small paragraph? —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.130.212 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that the "story" or legend or whatever it is, provides a basis for the use of the corporal (liturgy) and pall (funeral) as altar cloths. (I'm not suggesting any connection with the specific Shroud of the article). Student7 (talk) 15:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Needs Update - New Tests Confirm

Shroud dates to Christ era, old radiocarbon debunked

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/03/30/shroud-turin-display/2038295/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.174.145 (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

How exactly do you propose that? Where's the citation exactly? Certainly not the article you linked yes (because that would be an abomination to all that knowledge seeking people hold dear)? -- 67.182.14.249 (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Beleif" to "Claim"?

I am asking if the first half of this sentence is too strong (as appears in first paragraph):

"It is believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, despite radiocarbon dating placing its origins in the Medieval period."

I am not sure there is strict evidence that it is "believed by some to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth". Further what is meant by "some"?

Is it therefore more accurate (and thus also less in danger of perpetuating/corroborating a belief/pseudoscience system), to state that

"Through the years, it has been claimed ~~is believed by some~~ to be the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, despite radiocarbon dating placing its origins in the Medieval period

I do not like the word "belief" as it is subjective (what is "belief" in this context, subjective, objective etc.?), evocative and, of itself, capable of influencing the belief systems of others. I do not think an encyclopedia should ever do this.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 08:42, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

"Belief" here has its normal English meaning - related to its general usage around issues of religion - some people believe it to be so without any supporting scientific evidence. "Some" means "a very small and shrinking minority". They might be a vocal minority, but they are few indeed. I am reluctant to follow your suggested rewording because it doesn't emphasize that the people making the claim are so few, and that the vast majority accept the radiocarbon dating - i.e. WP:UNDUE. Wdford (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If you "claim" something you presumably believe it. But I think some softening here might be due, as the number of people who are attracted to the hypothesis but recognise the severe lack of evidence must, one would think, be larger than those who just straightforwardly "believe" it, though one could hardly verify that. Most "shroud enthusiast" arguments are, in my limited experience, on the face of it posited on conventional scientific or historical terms. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not think a "claim" is the same as "belief" (to "believe") or "a belief" (to "have a belief") on several levels, but can see where you are coming from. My point was simple one: that the word "belief" in terms of "believing a fact" is one thing, but when "belief" pertains to religious aspects (i.e. as an analogue to "faith"), then it is a word to be used with caution.

Here, because of the subject matter, what I understood to be the usage of "belief" to be a "fact" is in danger of being transmogrified into an aspect of "faith" because of the subject matter, which is why I urged caution. I hope this makes sense.

I think precision and careful word usage is better in a Global encyclopedia, especially for foreigners like me where we are taught precision in our native languages (and for our English) and not "general sloppiness". In Britain I think written English standards regarding grammar have slipped yes, from what I have heard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.81.80 (talk) 09:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

More from Ruello

Hello members its July 2013 and a reminder of the discovery I made in 2011 when I processed the Vatican Veronica Veil using AFM. The face I processed from the Vatican Veronica is identical to the Shroud face. The Vatican Veronica legend has been authenticated and is not a myth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KegbRMCfBA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.124.213.79 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

For info to all respected members here this week after days verifying my work on the second face from the Shroud back I have uncovered from a different angle of processing the holographic image of the face of a lion superimposed on the alive face of Christ with His eyes open. I have now called this the authorised signature of Christ as He was known as the lion of Judah Interestingly enough is the extraordinary fact that this incredible image resembles the mysterious face symbols found in Egypt of a Spynx God, half man half lion. This new discovery can be seen here http://www.gloria.tv/?media=444844 Thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.161 (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for this small section respected members. 3 days ago I processed the highest resolution images of the obeject on the right eye ever seen http://gloria.tv/?media=450080 thankyou Vincenzo Giovanni Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.127.234 (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

28th May 2013 Graphic clear image of womans face processed from coin on right eye Ruello http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5OnQe200V0

One word: Pareidolia.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To respected members here the race is over stage 4 processing of the right eye is here http://gloria.tv/?media=459060 the face of the emperor is now visible and any numismatic expert will soon be able to find and date this coin. I consider this will end the mystery once and for all once the coin is identified

World wide conspiracy theory ignited against latest discovery by Ruello in the Vatican Veronica Veil http://gloria.tv/?media=501410 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.38.172 (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

October 27th 2013 Ruello publishes images of strange dark matter energy aura surrounding carbon electron http://gloria.tv/?media=517421 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.144.201 (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

28th October 2013 Ruello claims to be first person in history to reveal Jesus Christ alive in Vatican Veronica Veil and Shroud back Second face http://gloria.tv/?media=517783 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.229.144.201 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 27 October 2013‎ (UTC)

Without commenting too pointedly, I would not be in favor of using this material until confirmed by an outside source. Student7 (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Am following this researcher finally have a photograph of him.Ruello launches blistering attack against Shroud experts making money perpetuating the Shroud mystery and attacks Romes Bishops appeals to Pope Francis in message http://gloria.tv/?media=521010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 06:10, 3 November 2013 (UTC) 6th November 2013 Ruello confirms Shroud of Turin is a Hologram http://gloria.tv/?media=522107 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC) 6th November 2013 Ruello reveals digital DNA structure claims building block of 3D encoded and photographic imaginghttp://gloria.tv/?media=522258

People calling the cloth's 2D image a "quantum hologram" are just throwing around words to try to sound sciencey. You won't find a RS to back up such gibberish. It even unrealistically lacks wraparound distortions you would expect of a cloth wrapped around a human body. (One apologist tried to explain that away by speculating that the image was made while the cloth was levitating.) ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Any 2D gray-scale image can be made into a 3D image with the right software and a bit of twiddling. When photos of the shroud image were put into a NASA machine which was designed to make 3D images out of 2D images, it made a 3D image out of a 2D image. Amazing! More interesting by far, was that the burn marks at the shoulders of shroud-man appear as dark blotches on the photo, and when the machine forced a 3D image out of the shroud-man image it turned the burn-blotches into little 3D pyramids. What's up with that? Were they divine hologram burn marks? Was that a divine hologram fire? Or was it just the natural consequence of using a machine that is designed to make 3D images out of 2D photos? The shroudies make a great deal out of these 3D images, but actually they prove nothing - that's why they always carefully crop away the pyramids from any VP-8 image they propose to display in public. See for instance [1] for an unadulterated VP-8 image. If Ruello was a scientist he would know all this already. Wdford (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we include as a consensus a paragraph bottom of article Prominant Fringe Shroud Researchers Ruello has made some discoveries which need to be documented. Id'e wouldn't include the coins or the digital DNA structure but the link to the Shroud from his work on the Vatican Veronica is interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

"Interesting" is not the same as "notable". Unless his works meets WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE, and I see no evidence of that, then no, he may not be in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

He's been added to a couple of other articles (i turned links into refs). is it worth going and stripping him back out? I was thinking I should originally. Jtowler (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually went back and checked the video against the claims. The removed the claim. Jtowler (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ruello reveals writing on coins and Roman Emperor in right eye of Shroud 11th Nov 2013 http://gloria.tv/?media=523268 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC) 10th November 2013 Secret Filming Technique revealed to the world by Ruello http://gloria.tv/?media=524164 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

12th November 2013 Ruello broadcasts clip detailing How God Made The Shroud of Turin ' http://gloria.tv/?media=524896 States the second face is reversed though unprocessed and at a slightly fifferent angle identical to stereo camera 3D Hollywood movies which when processed creates depth and parralax — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.125.189 (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is all one source: gloria.tv. Nobody reputable is picking this up. Apparently he will come out with something "new" every few days, that no one WP:RS will pick up. I'd rather not even read it here in the talk page, much less the article! Student7 (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Researcher has several sites student7 was first published in 2011 in the Australian Inner West Courier an affiliate of Cumberland news papers,a reporter did take interest and his work was published. Has also been permanently included in the New World Encyclopedia article Veil of Veronica for the discovery of the image in the Vatican Veronica — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

16th November 2013 Dr Dan Porter prominant Shroud researcher publishes Vincenzo Giovanni Ruellos work on Shroud Story.com http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/15/vinny-the-mystery-of-the-shroud-of-turin-has-been-solved/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.176 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Artifact or Object?

The final sentence of the introduction identifies the TS as 'one of the most studied and controversial artifacts in human history.' My attempt to correct this sentence has been repeatedly reverted. There are two reasons the correction is needed. First, use of the term 'artifact' is not NPOV, as the article goes on to state the image -- the thing that makes it controversial -- was formed by unknown means and is the subject of debate.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'artifact' as: An object made or modified by human workmanship, as opposed to one formed by natural processes.

Merriam-Webster is even more definitive:

1.a : something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially : an object remaining from a particular period <caves containing prehistoric artifacts>

1.b : something characteristic of or resulting from a particular human institution, period, trend, or individual <self-consciousness … turns out to be an artifact of our education system — Times Literary Supplement>

2 : a product of artificial character (as in a scientific test) due usually to extraneous (as human) agency

This exludes a) natural processes and b) acheiropoieta. Thus, the use of 'artifact' represents editorial opinion. This would seem to be confirmed by the revision comment: artifact is correct (this shroud was made by someone), don't change words in quotations)

The words are not part of a quotation; if they are, they are quoted inaccurately. The reference included for this sentence states: According to LLoyd A. Currie, it is "widely accepted" that "the Shroud of Turin is the single, most studied object in human history" in Lloyd A. Currie, "The Remarkable Metrological History of Radiocarbon Dating Journal of the National Institute of Standards and Technology 109, 2004, p. 200.

Currie says 'object,' not 'artifact.'

Monupics (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely the cloth is either

The burial cloth of jesus - and thus manmade

OR

a medieval fake - and thus manmade

Either way, it would be manmade, no? (However, I'm not actually that upset which word is used, I suspect most people don't discern between the two, and realise it is a manmade article) Jtowler (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is sort of correct but: a) artefact does somewhat imply the image is also man-made, b) as a never-buried piece, the usual museum word, "object", is more appropriate than the usual archaeology word "artefact", c) object has no ENGVAR issues, & is a far more widely understood term. In general "arte/ifact" is overused in WP imo, perhaps because people think it sounds more impressive. Johnbod (talk) 10:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference really, but I'm happy to use "object" for the sake of simplicity. Wdford (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Kind of like the Via Dolorosa which, as it turned out, is in the wrong place (winds up nearly in the correct place). But everyone follows the old path because pilgrims have been doing it for 1600 years or so. (There are practical reasons which are superfluous here)

This "object" (shroud) or whatever is at least 500 years old. Even if it were fake, it is unusual and ancient in its own right. Student7 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The word object or artifact is not accurate, we need to be clear and precise and I propose this The Shroud of Turin is a man made piece of linen cloth bearing an image of a crucified man that has not been scientifically provan how it was created Your thoughts are welcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.176 (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How it was created is not that mysterious. Luigi Garlaschelli even made a similar cloth using materials available during the 14th century (which is when the cloth was radiometrically dated to), by taking a paint rubbing of someone wearing a Jesus mask. Everything we know about it is consistent with being a Middle Ages artwork. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Robin you obviously have no in depth knowledge of the Shroud of Turin, the Garaschelli copy is not even comparable in its elements its crude lacking detail and 3D holography can we stick to the problem at hand thanks my proposal is above — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.176 (talk) 15:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a basic contradiction there: we can't say it's "man-made" and that it "has not been scientifically proven how it was created" at the same time. Calling it man-made inherently says we know how it was created. —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous poster, a 2D stain is not a hologram. Garlaschelli's copy is more detailed than the Shroud it simulates. Unlike the actual Shroud, it's anatomically accurate, and has wraparound distortions a cloth wrapped around a human model should. The undersized head and lack of depth of the actual Shroud's figure make it seem more like a rubbing taken off a bas relief. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cfred read carefully the proposal I wrote the linen cloth is man made not the image where is the contradiction, it is perfect. Robin Garlaschellis Shroud is like a 5 year old painting compared to Leonardo DaVinci painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.176 (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the Shroud is a cruder fake than Garlaschelli's reproduction, I would not call it so primitive as a kindergartener's fingerpaint. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

As I recall from a Discovery Channel documentary, the Garlaschelli attempt DID have 3D properties? The difference in sharpness could be due to a difference in the rubbing technique, the fineness of the bas-relief that was used, a different type of paint used, or even just mellowing over 500 years of smoke, UV and simple deterioration of the linen fibers. Another factor could be that the photo used in the VP-8 was made from old-fashioned film which had aged a lot by that time, whereas Garlaschelli used modern high-def film.

Also, the burn marks on the shroud have 3D properties too - they appear as pyramids in 3D whereas in real life they are obviously just holes in the cloth - see [2]. The 3D effect is thus clearly a simple optical illusion whereby the VP-8 machine converts greyscale contrasts into apparent 3D shapes, regardless of the true origins on the greyscale. Wdford (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Lastly Garlaschelis Shroud is wrapped around a body, its what you would expect crude distirted images, the element that he failed to recreate is the pefect as if floating between the sheets effect. Now I wish to include my proposal I am not hear to talk about other issues that are not included in main article The Shroud of Turin is a man made piece of linen cloth bearing an image of a crucified man that has not been scientifically provan how it was created — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.108.176 (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Ruellos Veronica Veil face discovery disproves Garlaschellis and other medieval theorists as fasle. Object Artifact does it matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.11.114 (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added a sentence that the process of creating the image is still uncertain. We don't have to say "man-made" - there is no claim that the cloth was made by non-humans. Ruello's work does not prove anything yet - it needs to be tested a lot further before it can claim to have "proved" that the radiocarbon dating was unreliable. Wdford (talk) 14:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you mean "there is no claim that the cloth was made by non-humans" because clearly this is claimed by many regarding the image. But I thought the addition ok. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 121, Garlaschelli's reproduction does not reproduce the unrealistic inches-deep shallowness of the Shroud's image which you call a "floating between the sheets effect", perhaps because he used a actual human body with the thickness of a human body, not a flat bas-relief. You're basically complaining that Garlaschelli's copy is more realistic than the actual fake.

203, I'm reminded of John Calvin writing how no abbey was too poor to have a piece of the True Cross, and if they were all put together, they'd fill a large ship. Medieval churches made fake relics to profitably attract pilgrims. Pointing out the Shroud is not unique isn't a point in its favor. The Sudarium of Oveido is another alleged burial cloth of Christ. The multiplicity of such relics makes this one's authenticity less likely, not more. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Ruellos just published a blue light filter showing the Veronicas cross of blood which appears as the 3 mark on the Shroud forehead http://gloria.tv/?media=542367

Rogers' threads

I have long been puzzled by the “mystery threads” that people like Rogers have used in their unauthorised tests. Rogers says “On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.” ^[1] However where did Gonella get these threads from? The cutting was apparently done by Riggi, and the packaging of the samples was apparently done by Ballestrero and Tite. Gonella should never have had a chance to palm any threads, and if any threads were floating around as souvenirs then this would surely have been recorded. The origin of these threads directly affects the results of the Rogers tests, and of any other tests conducted on mystery threads. Does anybody know if there is any record anywhere of where these threads actually came from? I see in the Riani report that from the sampled strip an “approximately 5mm portion was trimmed, thus removing the stitching and remnants.” What happened to that portion – did it end up in a rubbish bin, or did Gonella take it home as a personal relic? Is it possible that the Rogers study was performed on this material that was discarded by Damon et al because it was known to include later material? Does anybody have any sources that clarify this issue perhaps? Wdford (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Rogers was a member of the STURP team. He had face time on the cloth and used materials from the cloth for testing. As such, common sense tells us he had leftover samples.Historical2013 (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Rogers himself claimed that he got the threads from Gonella, who should not have had access to the shroud to be donating threads about randomly without authorization from the church. Common sense says Gonella did not have access to the shroud, which is kept securely locked up these days, and therefore the threads Gonella sent to Rogers are not actual shroud material. Wdford (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting comment. According to Rogers, Gonella as Scientific Advisor to the Archbishop had access to the C14 samples before they were distributed to the labs. Rogers, himslef, also had left overs from 1979. So it would appear that his age tests utilized actual C14 test samples as well as other samples from other areas.

Quotes from http://shroudstory.com/2013/03/30/res-ipsa-loquitur-the-facts-speak-for-themselves/: “[I] received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments have been preserved.” Thermochimica Acta Volume 425, Issues 1-2 , 20 January 2005, Pages 189-194

At that time, Gonella was the duly appointed Scientific Adviser to the Archbishop of Turin. In the same paper, Rogers further reported:

“On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample.”

Gonella was a Vatican representative who was present at the 1988 sampling as an observer. He did not cut the sample not package the sample, and should not have had an opportunity to take some threads as souvenirs. See also from Schafersman at [3] on that subject. Rogers' test was done on threads which are not connected to the shroud, and whose outcomes are refuted by radiocarbon experts who have access to genuine shroud material. Wdford (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What you said is that Gonella was present. So you confirm his ability to get access. He was a Science Advisor for the Archbishop. You state that Gonella "shouldn't" have access, yet by your own admission Gonella was present. And Rogers says he got the stuff from Gonella who was present. Obviously Gonella handled stuff. Without a statement from one of the witnesses, yours is a skeptical theory that lacks substantiation. Not a mystery. Historical2013 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To bring to an end this merry go round could someone please show me factual evidence where the C14 sample was taken and I mean real evidence, was it from the bottom corner,the top,the centre,is this too much to ask or is this special hidden information only for the chosen few thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.147.205.150 (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

AB blood group

Hello,

« Working independently, forensic pathologist Pier Luigi Baima Bollone concurred with Heller and Adler's findings and identified the blood as the AB blood group.[96] »

This sentence is sourced with « P. L. Baima Bollone,Indagini identificative su fili della Sindone, Giornale della Accademia di Medicina di Torino, n° 1-12, 1982, pp. 228–239. »

Does this mean that Bollone says in his article that Heller and Adler identified the blood as the AB blood group ?

If anyone has access to « Heller, J.H. and Adler, A.D.: Blood on the Shroud of Turin, Applied Optics 19:2742–4 (1980) », it would be nice to confirm that Heller and Adler mentions the blood group in their article or at least give the citation from Bollone's article.

Thanks,

--Question bis (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake hypothesis

The article itself is here.[4]. They need to make quite a few assumptions. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Mmmmm. First off they are assuming there was an earthquake in Jerusalem at that time. No such earthquake is recorded in any secular source that I have found thusfar. The sources quoted by the authors are basically the NT (and Dante). They also cite an 1853 Report by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, which quotes as its authority for a 33AD earthquake - the NT! It seems that they are talking about the earthquake mentioned in Matthew 28, which was caused by an angel rolling the stone from the mouth of the tomb. This would suppose that Jesus was resurrected only after the angel opened the tomb, and since the women entered the tomb shortly after the angel opened the tomb, there would not have been much time for any radiation special-effects. In any case a huge earthquake would have given those ladies something more important to worry about, although none of the other gospels mentions this huge earthquake at all, so perhaps it's just a bit more "Matthew Myth-Making". Second, the authors are assuming it was at least a Magnitude 8 quake. An earthquake of that size would have flattened Jerusalem and killed thousands, but again no source makes any mention of such an event - not even the Bible. Third, they are assuming that piezoelectricity would generate that kind of radiation. Piezoelectricity only works with quartz, i.e. rocks such as granite and basalt - it doesn't work with limestone, and we know that the tomb was tunneled into limestone. Fourth, they are assuming the hypothetical radiation would have created new C14 in the dead fibers of the shroud. This is unlikely, but in any case the C14 in the fibers would only have been a few years old at that time, so the difference would be minimal. Fifth, if an earthquake in a limestone area could print things on cloth, the rubble of Jerusalem would have been hip-deep in mysteriously-printed images on clothes of every description, and somebody would have noticed them all. Sixth, if earthquakes could generate new C14, we would have noticed by now. Seventh, and quite telling, the scientific community have rejected Carpinteri's entire premise, and based on their petition the Italian government has withdrawn funding for this research pending a detailed peer review.^[2] This is straw-clutching at a level that is ridiculous even by shroudie-standards. Wdford (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum... WP:FORUM Thucyd (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

But these comments seem to be a good reason to wait until there are academic responses before using this material. I'd say it should not be in the article as it isn't significant (WP:WEIGHT) until there are such responses. Dougweller (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we do need to include this earthquake BS in the article, because shroudies would have heard of it and they will be constantly putting it back in. However we need to present the full facts, for context, balance and NPOV. Specifically, Carpinteri claims in his paper that "Phillips and Hedges suggested, in the scientific magazine Nature (1989), that neutron radiation could be liable of a wrong radiocarbon dating." In that article (see [5]) Phillips is largely non-committal, stating that IF there was neutron radiation present then some isotopes may have been created, including possibly C14. However Hedges states that "the likelihood that [this process] influenced the date in the way proposed is in my view so exceedingly remote that it beggars scientific credulity." Carpinteri is thus seriously misquoting Hedges, and is not really quoting Phillips accurately either. Also, in light of Carpinteri's blatant misquoting of sources and his current standing in the eyes of his fellow scientists, perhaps we should reconsider his WP:RS as well? Wdford (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake nonsense

This seems to be fringe nonsense. The original article on the earthquake is at[6]. What I can view there says "This article examines a report in the 27th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament that an earthquake was felt in Jerusalem on the day of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Wfc have tabulated a varved chronology from a core from Win Gedi on the western shore of the Dead Sea between deformed sediments due to a widespread earthquake in 31 BC and deformed sediments due to an early first-century earthquake. The early first-century seismic event has been tentatively assigned a date of 31 AD with an accuracy of ±5 years. Plausible candidates include the earthquake reported in the Gospel of Matthew, an earthquake that occurred sometime before or after the crucifixion and was in effect 'borrowed' by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, and a local earthquake between 26 and 36 AD that was sufficiently energetic to deform the sediments at Ivin Gedi but not energetic enough to produce a still extant and extra-biblical historical record. If the last possibility is true, this would mean that the report of an earthquake in the Gospel of Matthew is a type of allegory." Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Carpentiri claimed originally that a magnitude 8.2 would be needed to crunch out the amount of neutrons that he thought might do the job. There is no evidence for such a Mag 8.2 earthquake in that region in that time-slot. Jerusalem has regular small earthquakes, but nothing of that size. Also no other gospel mentions it, nor any secular source. And mainstream physics does not accept that neutrons could be released by crushing rock - any type of rock, far less limestone. Wdford (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

It Needs To Be Included That Another Radiocarbon Test Was Conducted In 2013 and

^ Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, Raymond N. Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, pg 2
^ http://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823

[1] Studies on the radiocarbon sample from the shroud of Turin, Raymond N. Rogers, Thermochimica Acta, pg 2

[2] ttp://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823

[1]

[2]