Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

WP:UNDUE

According to my understanding, the consensus view among scientists and archaeologists is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. However, this article focuses on the small group of people who are trying to find evidence to refute this conclusion. Looking at the article, almost every research paper in this vein is included in the article. It is, of course, true that many people do not accept the medieval dating and this fact should be reflected in the article. But if you knew nothing about the Shroud and just read this article, you would come away thinking the provenance is still hotly debated. Things like energy beams etc are WP:FRINGE relgious views, and should be reported as such in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should be using reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources like research papers. However, no one has been motivated to WP:FIXIT so far. Sizeofint (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The primary notability of this topic is the fact that a lot of people desperately want the Shroud to be authentic, and that even today there are scientists who produce test after study claiming to have undermined the C14 dating so that the issue can be reopened. If we exclude all the fringe theories then the article will be bombarded by the fringe believers tryin to put it all back in again. However we certainly do need to ensure that all fringe theories are clearly described as such. Have you perhaps spotted any instances of current concern? Wdford (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There is more than a fringe group promoting the authenticity of the Shroud. The article in skewing all too strongly toward debunking fails to make clear the amazing mystery here. The main image is a scorch and no one has come very close at all to explaining or reproducing the full process. [Correction: By scorch I mean that the extreme surface only is affected. Some scientists say it is in no way a scorch, apparently meaning the result of a quick flash of fire or heat. I should have avoided this term.] This article makes a reference to the National Geographic article from 2015, quoting part that hints towards doubts, but it ignores the intriguing part of it that states

Looming above all other issues is what physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro calls “the question of questions”: how the image was produced, regardless of its age. Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed. Its precise hue is highly unusual, and the color’s penetration into the fabric is extremely thin, less than 0.7 micrometers (0.000028 inches), one-thirtieth the diameter of an individual fiber in a single 200-fiber linen thread.

Even if it is a forgery, it has stymied all efforts to prove it as such. The radio-carbon results on later strips of repairs at the edges are not an overwhelming slam-dunk, even if accurate. How would a forger, particularly from the 13th century, get so many historical details right (about the flagellum, for example), and why would he not follow the artistic conventions of the day? Why would he think to include the location specific kind of aragonite that the geological scientist Nitowski has written about? How would anyone think to encode a negative image in 3D? If this was accidental, it remains interesting that it seems to have happened only once in all of history. As for the desperate believers...they are on both sides. Many desperately hope it is not confirmed as authentic. The objective encyclopedia article could do justice to the mystery of the cloth, but doesn't. It skews everything up, or rather down. [Addendum: One summary answer to critics can be found here.] Pernimius (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is already very clear that the process of creating the image is still unknown. This is even mentioned in the lead section. One of the reasons why it can never be "precisely" replicated is because the image has been aged over several centuries – and has been variously baked and smoked and boiled etc along the way.

The radio-carbon results have been held valid by every radio-carbon dating expert who has expressed an opinion on the topic. Textile experts who have actually examined the actual shroud are unequivocal that there is ZERO evidence of a repair in the location of the samples. All the so-called "evidence" in favour of authenticity is capable of multiple interpretation. The forger was a soldier with Middle Eastern experience rather than an artist, and was thus probably much more familiar with a flagellum than an artist would have been. The aragonite – if it was really present at all – could easily have landed on the shroud during a more recent pilgrimage by its owner to Jerusalem, and is unlikely to have survived all the washing and boiling that the shroud was subjected to in the aftermath of its "discovery". Photographic experts have proved that any black-&-white photo can be made into a 3D image if you use an appropriate machine – and that is precisely what the VP8 was. It was probably done only once in history, probably because the forger/s achieved this type of image by accident and couldn't figure out afterwards quite how they had done it, and partly because if the forger/s ever got caught they would have been burned alive for satanism.

Your addendum is a story written by a prosecutor, not a judge, and accordingly it is heavily biased rather than neutral and objective. The author was a director of the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association (STERA), and is thus hardly a neutral observer on this topic. The author is making a movie about the shroud, and is using this very article to promote sales of his booklet. The article was published on a pro-Catholic website, which openly declares its mission as being "to explain and defend the faith". Encyclopedias use neutral and knowledgeable sources, not biased junk like this. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your bias is obvious. You say "The radio-carbon results have been held valid by every radio-carbon dating expert who has expressed an opinion on the topic." But you seem to have ignored entirely this from some years ago: "Shroud Dating May Have Been Inaccurate: BBC Interviews Radiocarbon Expert"

But stronger is "Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," by Richard B. Sorensen, which says, among other things:

But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members of the STURP team, conclusively demonstrated that the samples used for the original radiocarbon tests were taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud, and therefore did not represent the original fabric.29 The 1988 Shroud dating tests and results have thus been completely discredited.

McCrone’s claims have been convincingly refuted in several STURP technical reports (Pellicori and Evans 1980:42; Pellicori 1980:1918; Heller and Adler 1981:91-94; Schwalbe and Rogers 1982:11-24).

Pernimius (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I tried to find the name of that "radiocarbon expert" by looking at the article you linked, but failed several times. Turns out that "the Church official in charge of the Shroud, Christopher Bronk Ramsey" is just a construct of bad writing. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey, director of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator" is a separate person from "the Church official in charge of the Shroud" (Giuseppe Ghiberti), as became clear when I parsed the rest of the sentence.

So, the article says that some Catholic mufti, one whose job is to believe that the shroud is genuine, says that a scientist says something. Can you give us something that is not so much hearsay? Especially not filtered through the brain of a non-expert believer? And with a little more detail?

The rest of your assertions are just that. People calling something "conclusive" or "convincing" is just empty words when you know that the people who do the concluding and the being convinced were already convinced beforehand. We need independent scientists, without the taint of being members of the homogenous religious group STURP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The BBC report on the interview with Ramsey was published in Feb 2008. It correctly quoted Ramsey as saying that a credible scientist (Jackson) had raised a new theory, which needed to be tested. Like any competent and objective scientist, Ramsey did the extra tests. These were published immediately, in March 2008. The results were that Jackson's theory had been disproved, and that the radio-carbon dating still stands. Ramsey stated that "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." See the full report here [1]

Raymond Rogers demonstrated that the threads he tested did not match the STURP samples. However Rogers never verified that the threads he tested were actually true shroud samples to begin with – they were threads posted to him by a clergyman who was not authorised to possess shroud material to begin with, and their provenance is totally unknown. The first rule of scientific testing is to ensure that the samples are valid – while Rogers was quick to criticize the C14 team for "failing" to verify the provenance of their samples, he made absolutely zero effort to verify the provenance of his own samples. Since the C14 team went to a lot of trouble to preserve the audit trail, and Rogers had zero audit trail at all, the scientific weight lies against Rogers.

The blather from Sorensen is just a repeat of the standard shroudie straw-clutching. There is no scientific evidence that disproves the C14 dating. If you post a list of all the shroudie "evidence" on this talk page, I will give you a line by line refutation. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Bait and switch: correct radiocarbon dating for a repaired part of the Shroud that is not typical of the oldest part of the Shroud may be confirmed scientifically a million times...but it is not determinative in the way you want it to be. You have missed the point of the critique and you have not answered it. I don't have any doubts at all about the later dating for late repairs on the Shroud. That is what everyone should expect, after all. Pernimius (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, here it is in simple words:

A) In favour of the medieval dating:

1. The Damon team carefully selected the samples to ensure the material was representative of the original shroud. They were C14 experts, but the team included textile experts, and they used magnifiers etc.
2. Other textile experts have subsequently examined the actual shroud, and have confirmed that there are ZERO signs of repairs in that area.

B) Against the medieval dating:

1. Benford had never examined the actual shroud, and based her "hypothesis" on a vision wherein Jesus told her about the repair.
2. Rogers received some threads in the post. He confirmed that they did not match the STURP samples. However Rogers made no effort to verify that the threads were actual shroud material to begin with. The threads were posted to him by a clergyman who was not authorised to possess shroud material, and the provenance of the threads is totally unknown.

C) Conclusion – the scientific evidence all supports the medieval dating, while the shroudies are left with Rogers testing unprovenanced threads. Is that clear enough? Wdford (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and detail. However I read something like this and I wonder how what you say can possibly hold up. But you might be right. Scientists seem to be differing. I tend to trust above all Barrie Schwortz, who is as familiar with STURP as anyone around...and he holds for authenticity (after hesitating for 17 years because of the color of the blood). Pernimius (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The answer to your confusion is simple - you are reading junk-science blogs on a blatantly pro-authenticity website. As I have stated repeatedly now - when Rogers writes that "I found that the radiocarbon sample was uniquely coated with a plant gum", he is referring to the unprovenanced threads which he ASSUMES were from the radiocarbon sample. However there is no evidence that the threads were indeed from the radiocarbon sample to begin with, and in fact it is highly improbable that Rogers could have received actual shroud material from his source. Scientists who have studied the actual radiocarbon samples have found no trace of any gum, and experts who have studied the actual shroud have found no trace of any repair in that area.

Barrie Schwortz is a photographer who has made a good living out of his association with the shroud. He is not a scientist, far less a radiocarbon scientist. The fact that you choose to believe his opinions over the opinions of every radiocarbon scientist who has commented on the topic, is a big clue to your confusion.

Wikipedia does not rely on junk-science blogs from biased websites, nor does Wikipedia give junk-science blogs from biased websites equal standing with actual scientific evidence. Perhaps you might read [2] for a detailed discussion of the actual scientific evidence? Wdford (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. When I read an article that starts off with this —

A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.

— I am supposed to take that as junk science?? So sorry Thermochimica Acta — you've just been terminated! Your fancy name and peer-review cannot save you!

My good man, faith-based websites can include just as much reason and science and honesty and good logic as any other ones. That is not to say that all are of equal quality or validity or depth or objectivity. I think you may just have a prejudice that overly predetermines your reading and judgment. It seems to me that there are good scientists with good credentials being cited on both sides. Schwortz is a good witness because he is an insider of STURP, a non-Christian, who withheld belief in authenticity for 17 years. He's been smart about debunking some of the debunkers, even if he is not a scientist. Dan Porter's website has also presented pro and con over the years. "Junkiness" may be partly in the eye of the beholder. It is a possibility. Thanks again for your time in explaining who you follow. Pernimius (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should read the WP article on Raymond Rogers as it includes a sentence that might explain how Rogers managed to get his article published despite all its scientific flaws: "He [i.e. Rogers] was also on the editorial board of Thermochimica Acta from the first issue of this journal in 1970 (also the very first paper published in the first issue of this journal is authored by him) until his retirement in 1988". --Lebob (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

By "junk science" I was referring to the broader swath of pro-authenticity "hypotheses", such as corona discharges and monoxide absorption and other such physically-impossible things that have been trotted out by the pro-authenticity camp in a feeble attempt to undermine the C14 dating.

Please note also the following – A) STURP had nothing to do with the C14 testing, and neither Schwortz nor Rogers is a C14 scientist nor were they involved in the C14 testing. B) Rogers' technique for comparing the unprovenanced threads against the STURP material was flawless, certainly valid and deserved peer-review approval. C) Rogers made no effort to verify the provenance of those threads, therefore he cannot (scientifically) link the threads to the shroud C14 samples, or use the threads to draw conclusions about the C14 samples.

I read the papers written by actual C14 scientists and actual textile experts who have actually worked with the actual shroud, and I don't give equal weight to psychic nuns and lapsed monks and people who think the laws of physics don't always apply. I think you may perhaps be the one with the prejudice. Wdford (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Fortunately a paper on the origin of Rogers's samples has been written. It does not support the skeptical interpretation. The C14 scientists might very well have been unimpeachable in the performance and reading of their tests of materials; but were they able to verify the similarity of the samples (in all relevant respects) to others in the Shroud? That would seem to require other kinds of specialists. Note this statement: "The results of the FTIR analysis on all three threads taken from the Raes sampling area (adjacent to the C-14 sampling corner) led to identification of the fibers as cotton and definitely not linen (flax)."

Also: the laws of physics may always apply and yet we may not know all the laws of physics. It is simply hard, or rather impossible to tell how much of reality we have access to with our given apparatus. Scientists suspect, for example, that our theories are not adequate for before the Planck epoch. Pernimius (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You cite a paper on the origins of Rogers' samples. Please note the following:

1. The laws of physics as they relate to the aging of cloth fibres are well established.
2. The shroud was almost certainly manufactured subsequent to the Planck epoch.
3. The author of your cited paper, Thibault Heimburger, is a physician, not a C14 expert or an archaeologist.
4. Per Heimburger, the Raes threads were stored carelessly, mailed around the planet and distributed at will.
5. Per Heimburger, Gonella therefore stated of the Raes threads that: “The sample has thus lost all documentary value, and cannot be used anymore for formal examinations”.
6. Notwithstanding the above, Heimburger happily concludes that "there is nothing but rumours against the authenticity of the Rogers’ Raes threads. There are many observed facts consistent with those threads being authentic shroud threads." This kind of slap-happy extrapolation is called "junk science".
7. Per Heimburger, Rogers' so-called radiocarbon samples were merely one thread about 4mm in length, and one thread about 15mm in length.
8. Per Heimburger, in 1988 Gonella and Riggi sent some threads to Alan Adler, who kept them until June 2000, when he sent some of them to Steve Mattingly in San Antonio, Texas. Mattingly sent them back at the end of 2001. In December 2003, Larry Schwalbe received the samples from Adler and delivered them to Rogers. Despite all this, Heimburger claims that "the chain of custody has been carefully maintained".
9. Gonella and Riggi were not authorised to be passing bits of the shroud around on a whim. So where did this material actually come from? Well Zugibe quotes documentarian Giorgio Tessiore as stating that a strip was trimmed off the edge of the radiocarbon sample, because it clearly was contaminated by foreign threads. This strip was retained by Riggi. {The Crucifixion of Jesus, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic Inquiry, By Frederick T. Zugibe, pg 322, at [3]} Ian Wilson also cited Riggi (the cutter) who retained the trimmed section for his own use. These fragments of contaminated material were then shared with some shroudies, including Garza-Valdez of the infamous parallel C14 dating exercise. {The Shroud, By Ian Wilson, pg 126-136. At [4]} There is also a paper from Dan the Man on your favourite blogsite, here: [5] Is it not more plausible that the unprovenanced threads in the Rogers study were actually taken from this strip, which had been discarded by the actual C14 experts SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS SEEN TO BE CONTAMINATED?

Wdford (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Well argued and researched. But to be as rigorously scientific as you want us to be: we need to be quite sure that the original tested sample itself was not "contaminated" (with medieval repair-threads). Otherwise we have non-junk science leading us to a junk conclusion. That is why some people are calling for new C14 testing under a different protocol. There may very well be absolutely no question about the C14 testing itself, only about what can be made of it in light of the history of the cloth. But we shouldn't ignore the fact that there is the whole other area of skewed C14 results. Here's just two snippets of a relevant news article:

When Dr David sent for radiocarbon-dating samples taken both from the mummy cadaver and from its wrappings, the result that came back was that the wrappings were purportedly a thousand years younger than the mummy. As she recognised, although it was just conceivable that a young woman had been rewrapped a thousand years after her first interment, it was unlikely. Yet the only alternative was that there was something about the wrappings, of linen, just like the shroud, which had interfered with the carbon-dating reading, making the wrappings appear much younger than they actually were.

...

Intrigued, in 1993 Valdes travelled to Turin where Giovanni Riggi, the microanalyst who had cut off the piece of shroud used for the carbon dating in 1988, allowed him to view under the microscope small portions that had been held back from the laboratories. To Valdes's satisfaction he saw these specimens were covered with a similar coating to that which he had observed on the Mayan jade. The coating was composed of partly still living organisms accumulated to such a thickness in proportion to the linen that it would have had a major effect on the dating.

I am indeed in favor of more rigorous science in this post-Planck epoch. Let's just be honest about our limitations. Pernimius (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You are going in circles, comrade. Ian Wilson is a pro-authenticity author, who makes his living out of keeping the "mystery" alive. He is not a scientist, and he is not objective. Garza's work was declared invalid by the Church itself, because he was not in possession of authorized shroud material (or possibly any kind of shroud material).

The bio-contamination hypothesis has been disproved by actual scientists. A) The actual C14 samples were studied under high magnification, and they showed no sign of such contamination. B) Valdes was probably looking at something that was not actual shroud material, as discussed above. C) To skew the date that far, the mass of biological material would need to be huge – heavier than the cloth itself. This was manifestly not the case. D) Bio-contamination of that nature would be "eating" the shroud material and its carbon, rather than photosynthesizing, so the C14 date would not actually be skewed at all. Gove thoroughly debunks this hypothesis – you can download the original report in pdf at [6]

Re the repair hypothesis – various actual textile experts have examined the shroud under modern magnifiers, and have reported that there is ZERO evidence of repairs. Jackson – a STURP scientist and himself heavily pro-authenticity – confirmed that the STURP photos taken under backlight conditions showed that the weaving patterns ran right through the sample area, and that there was ZERO evidence of repairs. The repair hypothesis was a valid suggestion, but it has been tested and disproved. See the Jackson report at [http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jackson.pdf See also Gove again, same report as above.

Re Mummy 1770, there was always the possibility that it was indeed rewrapped – not unknown, especially for a wealthy person. In fact they chose this particular mummy precisely because it was badly preserved and damaged – see [7] The formal report makes it clear that there was very little soft tissue remaining, that in places bandages had been applied directly onto exposed bone, and that the skull bones showed signs of paint. This could support the theory that the mummy was wrapped (or re-wrapped) long after death. (View especially pg 89, at [8]) There is also the fact that the dating tests were done long ago – the study was published in 1979, and by 1988 the technology had improved greatly.

Re the ibis study, the authors noted that if the bird had eaten "food of marine origin or land snails", then the required correction factor would neatly account for the discrepancy. Perhaps Wilson forgot to mention this factoid? The authors concluded that: "Meanwhile, although the results of the present measurements include the possibility that the bioplastic coating observed on the cloth fibers of the wrappings of the ibis cause it to yield a radiocarbon age several hundred years younger than its true age, they are far from definitive. It would be premature to draw any conclusions about the true age of the Turin Shroud from these measurements." You can read the actual report at [9] We should also note that the ibis was much older than the date of Jesus' burial, and was less carefully stored since its mummification, and yet the maximum dating discrepancy (if caused by contamination) was still only half of what would be required to move the shroud date to a 1st century date.

There is no consensus yet for how the image was formed. Some suggestions have come very close, but none have PRECISELY replicated the image to the satisfaction of those who cling desperately to the hope that it might be authentic. This is probably because the precise cloth structures, light structures, aging conditions, baking conditions and storage conditions cannot be replicated unless 5000 different combinations are attempted, and this is unlikely to ever be done. I personally would love to see new samples taken, and modern equipment used to re-perform the dating. But until that is permitted, we need to accept that all the actual scientific evidence supports the dating being accurate, and that only supposition and straw-clutching sustain the pro-authenticity camp. Wikipedia rules preclude reliance on supposition and straw-clutching. Wdford (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

You have given me a lot to digest here certainly, but on first reading it seems that, in sum, from your perspective all the pro-authenticity science has something radically wrong about it and all the anti-authenticity science is unimpeachable. Hmmmmm.... I'd say beware of what lies behind your sentence: He is not a scientist, and he is not objective. Truth and objectivity do not all come through scientists, nor are all scientists themselves "objective." Just consider McCrone and his fanciful "The Shroud is a painting" approach. (Absurd beyond belief.) Or "There is no blood on the Shroud." (Another howler.) Prejudices can guide even what "rigorous" scientists choose to focus on, disregard, or report. They can lean toward a certain outcome in all the ways that their adversaries can.

But even granting all your points for the sake of argument, there is no harm in doing another C14 test with differently drawn samples and different protocols, with direct and open confirmation of the lack of biological coating, lack of cotton fibers.

Finally, even if the shroud is proven beyond a doubt to all reasonable parties to be medieval, we'd have to say we have one incredible (virtually miraculous) "fake" (or an astoundingly rare "accident") on our hands. The travertine aragonite, for example...who would have thought of that?! And historically accurate wounds from a crucifixion always represented differently in medieval art of the day. And just the right kinds of scourging wounds and lance wound, and a weave consistent with 1st century Palestinian weaving, ...etc., etc., etc. It might in the end be more appealing, even for objective scientists, to believe that—for whatever reason—C14 testing is an outlier for authenticity-testing techniques. Pernimius (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Generally speaking, science questions need to be answered by people with scientific skills, using scientific methods, and based on scientific evidence. Obviously nobody is perfect, and even credible scientists like Rogers fall short occasionally. However it is wrong to say that McCrone's theory is "absurd". Obviously the remaining image is not a painting in the conventional sense. However one of the best replications so far was from Garlaschelli, who painted over a bas relief, then washed the paint off, and produced a shroud-like image from the discoloration caused by the chemicals in the paint. Maybe McCrone was not that far wrong?

Considering that the shroud has been washed and boiled repeatedly in the Middle Ages, it is incredible that any rock dust could have survived on its fibres for 2,000 years. Far more likely is that a much more recent owner took it with him on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he laid it on some of the local travertine altars as part of his devotions.

A forger would have read the Bible for details, and tried to replicate them closely. However a Middle Eastern soldier in the middle of a crusade might have been very familiar with the wounds caused by lances, scourging etc, and perhaps even crucifixion. Who is to say that medieval Palestinian weaving is vastly different to 1st century Palestinian weaving? All of this "evidence" is circumstantial, and much of it is speculative to boot. The C14 testing, on the other hand, gives dates consistent with the appearance of the shroud, and there is ZERO C14 evidence to undermine the validity of the C14 dating. As well, the shroud does NOT resemble the known Jewish burial shrouds from that period, or the description in the gospels of the clothes that wrapped Jesus' body.

However I fully agree that it would be useful to do fresh tests. I don’t know if "there is no harm" in it – a conclusive and uncontestable proof of a middle ages origin could harm the Church and its revenues. But the shroud certainly is either an incredible (virtually miraculous) fake or an astoundingly rare accident. In my personal opinion, it is probably both – a technique discovered by accident, and then put to use making a fraudulent relic. Maybe the forger decided one was enough, as an assembly line was just too risky. Maybe the forger realised that there could only be one "true shroud", and that making more units would ruin the market. Maybe the forger was killed in a battle before he could make more. Wdford (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of OR here. Is there the slightest evidence that the shroud was "washed and boiled repeatedly in the Middle Ages"? It seems a wildly unlikely way to treat a relic to me. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent question. I am aware that it is mentioned in the book "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity" by Rev. Fr. Vittorio Guerrera – see here [10]. The author states that "in medieval times such treatment was considered a legitimate truth detector test." This is also mentioned in the book "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions" by Rev. Patrick O'Connell and Rev. Charles Carty. See here [11]

It is also mentioned by Wilson, a leading authenticity supporter, who cites a Savoy courtier named Antoine de Lalaing – who may have been an eye-witness. Lalaing (and Wilson) take this as proof of authenticity. See here [12] It is also mentioned by William Meacham, another vocal authenticity supporter, in a presentation to a 1986 Symposium. Meacham uses this to make a case that residues from that medieval oil could have soaked deep into the fibres and skewed the modern C14 tests. See here [13]. Neither of them discuss how the blood stains, the pollens, the rock dust etc could all have survived this treatment in pristine condition.

Steven D. Schafersman, a sceptic, also cites the boiling test in his debunking of Rogers' vanillin-in-lignin dating method. See here [14]

Hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We may be losing the thread here: arguing out the authenticity question is different from answering Ashmoo's original comment that

"According to my understanding, the consensus view among scientists and archaeologists is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. However, this article focuses on the small group of people who are trying to find evidence to refute this conclusion."

I think a survey of the web on the issues shows that there is no question of merely a fringe group promoting authenticity, but many, many reasonable people proposing reasonable bases for authenticity, that is, not TRYING to find evidence of authenticity (or reasons to be skeptical of C14 testing adequacy in this case) but actually finding such evidence. It would be desirable to have a full survey and listing, but I don't think it has been done. You have scientists and historians and theologians who have soberly weighed the pros and cons, and who have published their accounts and conducted open international conferences (and yes, of course, even theologians can be objective and intelligent!). Two very thorough and fair-minded synthesis papers are here and here, by Atle Ottesen Søvik. Intelligent people who have weighed many of the articles pro and con for years (and who are probably more informed than most contributors to this discussion) include Barry Schwortz and Dan Porter. It is unfair to reject them because they don't limit themselves to a positive acceptance of the C14 findings of 1988 and base their whole response on it as the definitive element. So...for the question "fringe or not"—definitely NOT. I would feel better about a truly objective account for an article such as this for Wikipedia. It seems weighted so heavily toward the debunkers, as I mentioned above. It could be much more balanced. Pernimius (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Atle Ottesen Søvik is a Professor of Systematic Theology, not a scientist or a historian, and certainly he is not a C14 expert. He published this article in a journal of theology. When it suits his case he makes judgements based on the level of the peer-review of the sources, but at the same time he seems to get much of his information from Barrie Schwortz and internet blogs. Søvik is quick to dismiss counter-arguments because they are not written by experts in the field in question, but he ignores the fact that most shroudies – including himself – are not experts either.

The C14 dating is a cast iron death-knell to the pro-authenticity argument. All arguments against the C14 dating have been demolished based on scientific evidence. Søvik published his paper in 2013, so he should be aware of all that scientific detail. However Søvik's main comment is that the C14 tests may have been skewed by a medieval repair, even though a number of actual experts who have studied the actual shroud with magnifiers have proved that there was no such repair in that area. He blindly accepts that Rogers tested valid C14 sample material, even though there was never any verification of provenance. So much for "fair-minded" and "truly objective". Søvik is not even vaguely objective – in fact he bends over backwards to support the pro-authenticity camp – as one would perhaps expect from a theologian.

At the scientific level he is clearly all at sea. In addition to his blind acceptance of Rogers' unverified opinions, in his Excususes document he comments at the end of page 17 that the condition of the blood in the stains (the presence of bilirubin) indicates that the source must have "died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates." There is no way that Jesus' body was wrapped in his burial shroud a mere 20 minutes after he died – it was hours before the cloth came into contact with the body. On page 21 Søvik even speaks of breaking joints to overcome rigor mortis. These two assertions are diametrically contradictory - how is this paper scientifically credible?

Even at the theology level the paper is nonsense. On page 15 Søvik remarks that "so many details fit exactly with the gospels". However he neglects to mention the only gospel detail relevant to the shroud itself – that the burial wrappings were not a single long shroud, but rather "strips of linen". John 20:6-7 speaks of "strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." Bit of a howler from a theology professor, yes?

Predictably he comes to the conclusion that the shroud is probably authentic, and predictably you therefore seize upon this as "evidence" that the pro-authenticity group are not "fringe". In actual fact the shroudies have ZERO actual evidence – just a mountain of supposition and wishful thinking, some parts of which contradict other parts thereof. The Wikipedia article is not weighted inappropriately – it states the actual scientific position based on actual scientific evidence, and it also offers a discussion of all the pro-authenticity arguments, along with explanations of why those arguments don't stand up. That is what proper encyclopaedias do. Wdford (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wdford, are you a C14 expert? If not, why should anyone listen to you, by your own criteria?

I would guess that you believe that though you are not an expert you are intelligent enough to weigh evidence presented by experts and make a valid judgment, and then listen to critiques of that research and make intelligent judgments about that too. This is what Schwortz, Porter, Søvik do, most likely with far more knowledge than you have of far more research than you have done.

The debunking of the shroud is not a certainty. Too many things speak against it, as Søvik makes clear. Schwortz, Porter, Søvik all started out as skeptics and they all tend to believe the authenticity of the shroud after intensive study. This does not speak of agenda-drive conclusions but a fair evaluation of much research. There are scientists on both sides. The "fringe" labelling is entirely out of place.

You rest everything on C14 tests done on a particular section of the cloth, one that is controversial. You can dogmatically claim that people "proved" that there was no repair in a given area, but you have no reference, nor anything near a consensus attestation of this proof. Furthermore there is evidence already given and easily available that C14 testing is not without the persistent shadow of its own flakiness.

Søvik proves that many things suggest authenticity while some things speak against it. He has the honesty to present both. That is all I ask of the Wikipedia article. It is not a closed question in the minds of many experts with credentials.

As for the issue of the strips of linen, a scholar, not a fringe enthusiast, has studied this carefully and finds no contradiction. And in any case a demand for exact ultra-faithful detailed correspondence to the biblical accounts is too high a bar. People remember events differently and the details can conflict without justifying fundamental skepticism about the witness. Pernimius (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Skimming over the article again, I do not find it so bad as I did before. It does have a lot of content, even from the pro-authenticity camp. My main objections would be against any suggestion that the shroud has been "proven" to date from the middle ages (implying that it is a "done deal") or that all questions raised against the debunking are baseless or easily dismissed. Say rather that some scientists have come to one conclusion, while others remain seriously hesitant about or outright resistant to that conclusion. I have nothing at all against people coming to those conclusions, but an encyclopedia article should not take too strong a stance in a still controversial issue. And I would continue to say that it is clearly not just a fringe group that supports authenticity. Thanks for the discussion that has led to some refinements and new learning. Pernimius (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is currently still impossible to say HOW the image was created, which is thus still an open question. However the AGE is settled conclusively by the C14 dating. See also the article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin for a full discussion of the various objections to the dating, and the scientific rebuttals thereof. All the other pro-authenticity arguments can also be answered. It is true that some scientists have remained seriously hesitant about or outright resistant to that conclusion. However none of those are C14 experts, and they are very much fringe on this topic. Most scientists no longer argue the issue of the dating, because they do indeed consider it to be a done deal. That said, I personally would welcome further C14 testing, using the much more modern techniques currently available, and I do not anticipate that the result will be much different. Wdford (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Distortion-warning! Wdford claims that Søvik "comments at the end of page 17 that the condition of the blood in the stains (the presence of bilirubin) indicates that the source must have 'died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates.' " What Søvik actually wrote is as follows:

If it was painted, the blood stains were painted first, and the image around them afterwards. This is also impossible to accomplish. Due to the blood’s condition the detailed blood stains must have been painted with blood from a human or animal that died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates.

As the words here make very clear, Søvik was not necessarily claiming that the body on the shroud died only 20 minutes before the shroud was employed, but that IF the blood was used for painting, then the time of death would have probably had to have been 20 minutes earlier. It seems to me that there may be a question of a difference between blood seeping out of corpse's wound and extracted blood exposed to the air. This example is enough for me to distrust Wdford's accuracy in representing any arguments made by others. Pernimius (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If anybody actually read the text, they will see that the key issue is "died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates". Despite your melodrama, I quoted Søvik exactly. Please retract your distortion warning, and the attendant insult. You, on the other hand, have misquoted Søvik substantially, and have invented a "not necessarily" etc as well. Yet somehow I am the bad guy here?

However if you read the original Adler paper (see here [15]), you will note that Adler is confident that the "blood marks" were not made by whole blood, but "that the blood marks are derived from contact of the cloth with clotted wound exudates". In this extra article here [16], Adler states (last paragraph) that the artist "would need to take the substance within a 20 minute period after the clotting had begun". Søvik has thus slightly misquoted Adler – possibly due to a language difference.

This doesn't mean the donor was necessarily dead – although Adler assumes that to be the case – it merely means that the wounds were clotting, which could obviously happen while still alive as well. Dabbing wound exudate onto cloth would have exactly the same effect as a contact of a cloth on a wound, although Adler avoids that obvious fact, and makes a fuss about painting accurately with serum. I wonder why? Adler emphasises that the marks are caused by blood clot exudate, from a contact of cloth with a wound. This is probably true, but it doesn't preclude a forgery.

Per the gospels, Jesus was dead for hours before being wrapped, and his body was first washed and anointed. The clots would have dried, and then been washed off. In fact, the scourge marks are clear imprints rather than a smudge of clotted blood, so those wounds must have been perfectly clean – yet blood stains from more substantial wounds such as on the wrists and face were seemingly unwashed. Strange. If fluid "seeped" out of the dead arms after death during the handling process, the fluids would not have run down the arms as they would during the crucifixion process. And there would not have been that much seepage from head and arms to begin with, since the body hung vertically for hours after death, allowing all fluids to drain to the feet, and away from the head and upraised arms.

Whichever way, this argument doesn't preclude a forgery, whatever Søvik claims. This is obvious to any informed and objective reader. It is also a hallmark of the Søvik articles - he assumes one side is correct over the other, always favoring the authenticity argument.

Søvik also brushes off the C14 dating with the assumption that the dating was performed on a repair, despite all the compelling scientific evidence to the contrary. Since this is the strongest argument against authenticity - and is by far the strongest scientific argument overall - this brushing-off is suspicious to say the least. Read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, and see for yourself how overwhelming the evidence is. That is why we cite references in Wikipedia articles. Wdford (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Could you point out exactly how I misquoted, and how you correctly quoted the article in context? (Place my words and then the article's words in parallel.) I think I gave the exact words and the issue was not just death in (under) 20 minutes but painting with coagulated blood. My intention was not at all to insult, just to warn people of a tendentious reading of texts and possible distortion of arguments. You may not even realize that you are doing this. Pernimius (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Wdford, you are doing a great job here. Everybody can see: this is how it always looks when somebody who understands a subject discusses somebody who has read on it, but does not get it, and who holds a completely untenable position. I am thoroughly enjoying this. User:Pernimius has been clutching at straws for days, and you burn them all to ashes. I am ashamed of my feeble attempt above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, here you go:

1. Adler: "An artist would therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon, and he would need to take the substance within a 20 minute period after the clotting had begun."
2. Søvik: "Due to the blood’s condition the detailed blood stains must have been painted with blood from a human or animal that died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates."
3. Pernimius: "If the blood was used for painting, then the time of death would have probably had to have been 20 minutes earlier. "

Spot the difference. Neither Adler nor Søvik used words like "probably". Neither of them included the phrase "not necessarily" anywhere either.

Søvik also writes: "If it was painted, the blood stains were painted first, and the image around them afterwards." Adler actually wrote: "This interesting observation suggests that the blood marks were on the cloth before the image producing process took place and protected the blood mark areas from this process." That is not quite the same either, is it? Note Adler's scientifically-appropriate use of the word "suggests", which Søvik seems to have missed completely.

Of course, there are other possible interpretations for this as well, such as:

1. Adler misinterpreted the data. He was after all looking at isolated damaged fibres on sticky-tape.
2. Perhaps the image was a chemical burn caused by chemicals in the paint, which was thereafter washed off. If the blood exudate was daubed on while the paint was still wet, then perhaps the blood chemicals protected the fibres from the paint chemicals and prevented those particular fibres from being affected.
3. Perhaps the image was a photograph. If the blood exudate was daubed on before the fixing chemicals had done their job, then perhaps the blood chemicals interfered with the fixing chemicals on those areas and prevented the photo from being fixed to those fibres.
4. Perhaps the image was made by UV light (presumably from the sun, not a laser cannon) dehydrating the shroud fibres unevenly, due to a mask of paint or etched glass etc. In that case, if the blood exudate was daubed on soon after the UV treatment completed, perhaps the moisture in the exudate restored those particular fibres before the dehydration process became irreversible.
5. Etc Etc

Assuming a supernatural process is really not the easiest or most likely explanation for this particular "phenomenon", now is it?

Your sentence "just to warn people of a tendentious reading of texts and possible distortion of arguments", is a blatant insult. This often happens when a shroudie is confronted with unpalatable scientific evidence - they play the man instead.

Did you read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, to see for yourself how overwhelming the C14 evidence is? Wdford (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice how you did not quote the exact citation I reproduced, one which gave more of a context than your citation did to the issue of painting with coagulated blood, and how you chose to quote my words, that is, the commentary that I made after that exact citation. Do you see how this kind of distortion makes you lose all credibility? The dialogue becomes quite worthless. This is nothing to enjoy. It is just sad. And a waste of time. Signing off... Pernimius (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

What I am noticing, very clearly, is that you are clinging desperately to a distorted interpretation by a biased non-scientist, who happens to share your POV. Adler is not necessarily correct in his interpretations, and Søvik is not taking too much trouble to be objective in his reproductions of Adler's interpretations. Søvik is also very casual about dismissing the C14 dating, despite the mountain of proper scientific evidence which supports it – another clear sign of bias. I understand that you are disappointed that your relic has been proven to be fake, but we need to adhere to solid science here, not supposition, wishful thinking and straw-clutching. Please read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, to see for yourself how overwhelming the C14 evidence is. The subject of the image formation is still an open question, but the subject of the age is not. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927020556/http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29146 to http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29146
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011051743/http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/inchieste-ed-interviste/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/sindone-23653/ to http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/inchieste-ed-interviste/dettaglio-articolo/articolo/sindone-23653
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130416225452/http://www.enea.it/it/produzione-scientifica/EAI/anno-2012/knowledge-diagnostics-and-preservation-of-cultural-heritage/the-conservation-of-the-shroud-of-turin-optical-studies to http://www.enea.it/it/produzione-scientifica/EAI/anno-2012/knowledge-diagnostics-and-preservation-of-cultural-heritage/the-conservation-of-the-shroud-of-turin-optical-studies

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Points to make about Shroud of Turin

I know we don't want to create debates about this, and that's not what I'm doing. I just want to make some points about the Shroud which should probably be mentioned in the article, if they're not already: - According to gotquestions.org, the Bible says that Jesus had "wounds in his hands". In the Shroud of Turin, the wound is in the wrist. - The same website also quotes Biblical texts stating that long hair is only for women. In the Shroud of Turin, the person had long hair. SelfieCity (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

From a bible dictionary: "The hand included the wrist, as will be seen from all passages in which bracelets are mentioned as ornaments of the hand..."

From a Jewish encyclopedia: "The most prominent outward mark of the Nazarite was long, flowing hair, which was cut at the expiration of the vow and offered as a sacrifice (Num. l.c.; Jer. vii. 29)."

See also this page: "A medieval forger would certainly have placed the hand nail wound in Jesus' palm, as he would have had to conform to traditional norms, if he wanted his false shroud to have been accepted."

Pernimius (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Cotton fibers in the repair section

I suspect there is all too easy a dismissal of things like the cotton fibers talked about here. Even if the cotton fibers were EXCLUDED from the C14 testing, as mentioned on this page, the fact that those cotton fibers were there (and presumably not elsewhere) to begin with suggests some kind of repair, does it not? And if the flap was a later repair....of course it won't be dated as early as the original fabric.

If people talk about the lack of establishing provenance of these samples, that uncertainty still does not in any way scientifically prove that the fibers were not taken exactly from where they were claimed to have been taken. We have still have some possibility of validity in the questions raised about the samples. The existing results may not be accepted for the sake of scientific rigor (or just maybe because of a bias against anything pointing to authenticity), but the proof of inauthenticity is not thereby necessarily validated.

Just so, it is said that "There is no possible way that they could have repaired a cloth 600 years ago without it being detectable today with modern instruments – as Flury-Lemberg makes clear." This is rather different from saying that modern instrumentation has in fact been used and has actually proven that there is no repair. (Of course one would also have to be sure what was examined was not entirely just from the repair section, which could be presumed to be "of a piece.") — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pernimius (talk • contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Finally, the "grasping at straws" idea doesn't seem to me to apply so much to the authenticity camp, which has many lines of support (as with the type of weave and the historical verisimilitude of the wounds and the travertine aragonite, for example) as it does to the anti-authenticity camp, which mainly has the C14 testings of a single, possibly very dubious border section of the cloth.

I just wish the article had been written and managed by neither "camp." A truly neutral POV. That is supposed to be the Wikipedia way, after all. The shroud is a fascinating mystery whether authentic or not. Claims of duplicability (in all major respects) are definitely debunkable.

Pernimius (talk) 05:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the few cotton threads were noted and removed, indicates that the C14 tests were conducted only on original shroud material. The presence of a few cotton threads suggests only that a backing cloth was stitched onto the shroud at one time, which is well known and non-controversial. The scientific evidence (examination under microscopes, infra-red photos etc) proves that the flap was NOT a repair, it is original shroud material. There is zero proof of authenticity, just a bunch of wishful thinking – what Taylor and Bar-Yosef call "heroic conjectures" (Pg 165). "Scientific rigor" insists that you need to verify the provenance of your samples before you can draw conclusions from them. The Damon team did so, very carefully, and Rogers failed to do so entirely. Therefore "scientific rigor" holds that the results of the Damon C14 tests are reliable and the results from Rogers' tests are not. Simple, really. Flury-Lemberg did actually make clear that modern instruments had in fact been used and has actually proven that there is no repair. She states that "The infrared pictures show a diffuse discoloration at the corner in question, i.e. a discoloration without the definite outlines of an allegedly mended area." The authenticity camp has no lines of support whatsoever, only wishful supposition. All the ACTUAL evidence - the carbon dating, and the fact that the shroud only appeared at the time the C14 says it was made – support a medieval date of manufacture. Wdford (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems that historically we know that repairs took place. Cited from here:

William Meacham is a professional archaeologist who has followed Shroud research since 1981 and was involved in some of the planning for the 1988 radiocarbon tests. In his new book, The Rape of the Turin Shroud, he concludes: “...reweaving is the scenario best supported by the data” to explain the 1988 test results (Meacham, 2005:137). He and Rogers used it as part of a request made to Shroud custodian Cardinal Poletto for a new C-14 test. However, he still has serious reservations. Meacham agrees (in this instance) with Flury-Lemberg that any patched area ought to have been identified by trained textile specialists. He also wonders whether ancient weaving wouldn’t produce the changes in weave pattern and thread size to be seen in the C-14 sample.

Nevertheless, he finds Rogers’ chemical work supporting the Benford-Marino theory to be very strong (Meacham, 2005:138). His own historical research on Shroud repairs turned up two 19th century books documenting the work of the Venerable Sebastiano Valfre (1650 – 1718), known to have made repairs on the cloth. Valfre spent “many hours” in his work and specifically “...near the edges of the cloth certain areas were unraveling … Valfre repaired the unravellings between the border and the cloth of the Shroud” (Meacham, 2005:137-138). This is a fair description of the area where the C-14 sample was taken.

Pernimius (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So here we have a blog posting by the "past president of the Holy Shroud Task Force", published on a blog operated by "a Christian apologetics ministry dedicated to demonstrating the historical reliability of the Bible". He claims that a non-C14 expert, who is also a well-known pro-authenticity activist, "agrees (in this instance) with Flury-Lemberg that any patched area ought to have been identified by trained textile specialists", but still this non-C14 expert quotes from books that only he knows about, apparently written by some ye olde cleric who claims to have done some stuff which may or may not even be relevant, and Meacham thinks this is evidence enough to challenge C14 tests done by multiple C14 experts on a sample that has been attested to be valid shroud material by multiple textile experts. Seriously???? Wdford (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

And what is the weight of "valid shroud material" when we know historically that the "shroud material" that we have has incorporated repairs? "Scientists" do not have a monopoly on objectivity, by the way. Consider McCrone, who foolishly though the TS image a painting. Pernimius (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So you believe it is not a painting? What gives you that idea? And since when is "foolishness" defined as "disagreeing with Pernimius' opinion"? Also, what is the logical connection with "monopolies" and "objectivity"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) In the list of all the things that should be non-controversial about the shroud, the fact that it is not a painting should be near the top. Google "shroud" "not a painting" and you'll get sites that help you, like this. The image is non-directional (very hard to do with a medieval painting--is there a single parallel?), it is extremely super shallow (beyond what any painting could achieve), it is non-pigmental, the blood was first then the image, etc. Just research serious intelligent people who are not overly affected by anti-religious zealotry. (2) Foolishness is not seeing the obvious when one should be able to. (3) The monopoly on objectivity is what some scientists seem to assume: the fallacy that "scientific thinking" is purely objective and stands far above all others, particularly that done by religious believers. Read Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge for more on that. Pernimius (talk) 14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Also worth reading is this page. Pernimius (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

(1) Wow, so there are sites on the internet which claim it is not a painting, and you take their content at face value. What a surprise. One of them starts by claiming it is authentic. The other has the same bias. As I suspected, you are begging the question by first assuming the very thing that this is about, then concluding McCrone is foolish because he disagrees, and that you can ignore him. I am not impressed. Actually, I am the opposite of impressed. "Seeing the obvious"? That is not a reason. Accusations of "zealotry"? Not helping. Everybody can see you are bluffing.

(2) Blah. See above.

(3) Your reasoning is just confused. I am a scientist, and I never assumed or claimed that scientists are "objective", nor that they should be. You were trying to reason for the statement "Scientists do not have a monopoly on objectivity". Aside from the fact that nobody said they did, nor that they should have, nor that objectivity is important, you could have done that by giving an example of an objective non-scientist. Instead you gave an example of a scientist who is, in your opinion, "foolish" - which is a completely different concept from objectivity. This "line" of "reasoning" does not make sense.

Your last answer does not make sense either. It looks to me as if you are just trying to apply what you have read somewhere (Polanyi), even though it does not remotely fit here. Maybe you should concentrate on the matter at hand, instead of this free association game you were playing. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

So you are not going to deal with the many specifics that cast significant (I think overwhelming) doubt on the painting thesis? I'm not interested in your bad attitude or poor misinterpretive pleading. Deal with the data and the arguments. Pernimius (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That is not what this thread is about. This is about your bullshit above. Calling someone "foolish" because they do not agree with you, then trying to justify it two links to articles without saying where exactly the alleged foolishness can be found. So, to find your reason, one has to dig into lots of detail, then try to guess where it may be.

This is typical for you pro-pseudoscience types. You proudly make a claim, then, when asked to justify it, present walls of text that only have a remote connection with the claim you made, hoping that your opponent gets lost in details, wastes a lot of time on irrelevancies, and forgets what it was about. This is related to the Gish gallop, and I am not falling for it.

Also, you ignored my analysis of your bad logic, again. This is also typical for pseudoscience proponents: not admitting mistakes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, your analysis is so bad, so far off the mark that is simply not worth the time to unravel it, nor does anyone really care. Just one example so you can't say I ignored your words: you say I am begging the question, and in context you are implying that I am starting off with the assumption of authenticity because some of the websites I refer to are by people who have (presumably conscientiously) come to the decision that the TS is authentic. Now really!!! I am focusing not on authenticity but on the question of whether the TS image can reasonably be called a painting. (Intelligent experts agree it can't.) Authenticity is not immediately the topic. To claim I am begging the question because I present sites whose hosts have another conclusion about authenticity than you do is just too ridiculous and tedious to have to deal with. Logic??? I don't think you have it. I do very much have responses for the rest of what you wrote, but it is not to the point at hand: painting or not? The talk page is not for your therapy but for the argument. Pernimius (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You are huffing and puffing, another tactic typical of pseudoscience advocates. From the beginning, I just took umbrage with your "logic" in calling someone "foolish" because he had a different opinion from you. (Also, other parts of your "logic"). You tried to convince me that your opinion is right, but that was beside the point. My point was that it is legitimate, and not "foolish", to disagree with you. If you had had legitimate information that was available to McCrone when he was alive, listed that legitimate information, and showed how McCrone actively ignored that or responded to it in a foolish way, you would have had a point. But just giving links to two pages, then assuming I would work through those, extract exactly the information you wanted me to extract, accept exactly that information as true, discard my prior knowledge of the matter, and thus come to the same conclusion as you, is disingenious to the extreme. Defining "intelligent experts" as those who agree with you is the same stupid trick as calling those who disagree "foolish".

"Authenticity is not immediately the topic" - Since one cannot believe at the same time that the thing is authentic and that it is a painting, it is still relevant. BTW, anybody who believes in authenticity must also believe that the C14 test was botched, that the account from the Middle Ages of the bishop and the artist is fake, and a lot of other implausible things. The science side of the conflict actually has evidence, while those people have only excuses for ignoring the contrary evidence. C14 test disagrees with you? Faked, or contaminated, or something. Source disagrees with you? Faked, or something. McCrone disagrees with you? Foolish, or something.

Regarding your claim "I do very much have responses", I will just pull the same stunt: I also very much have responses to everything you say, but the point is something else. I win. (See how silly that approach is?) --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, the sentence that caused your volcanic eruption was this: "Consider McCrone, who foolishly though the TS image a painting." How from this, do you understand that I am saying he is foolish because he disagrees with me?? You can't get there from here. You illogically imposed your own connections.

And as for expecting you to read material, yes, if you want to know the counter-arguments you have to read. Finally, I gave clear up-front indications of why it is unlikely to be painting: I said, "The image is non-directional (very hard to do with a medieval painting--is there a single parallel?), it is extremely super shallow (beyond what any painting could achieve), it is non-pigmental, the blood was first then the image, etc." To miss all that you'd have to be pretty foolish...or pretty blinded by bias.

Pernimius (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Addendum: More debunking of McCrone (with little text to read) is available here. Pernimius (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Second Addendum: For more on the unreliability of McCrone, see this page. What a train wreck! Pernimius (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you did not give any valid reason for calling him foolish, it is pretty obvious that that was your reason. You need to smear McCrone because you need people to ignore what he wrote. A tactic very, very commonly used by pseudoscience defenders like you.

"as for expecting you to read material"? You are a liar by omission. That was not what I said. I said you wanted me to "work through those, extract exactly the information you wanted me to extract, accept exactly that information as true, discard my prior knowledge of the matter, and thus come to the same conclusion as you". That is what was wrong with your demand. Reading it is just a small part.

Since you keep not getting it and obviously your self-image depends on not getting it, I will just ignore what you write on this, from now on. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The C14 scientists were well aware of the need to first ensure that their samples were "valid shroud material" which was not affected by repairs. They spent a lot of time checking the material before they made their sample selection, and various experts since then have concurred that the samples were not affected by repairs. We note that you are continuing to clutch frantically at the repair-straw, but this hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked by numerous actual scientists using actual shroud evidence.

The best reproduction technique so far is that by Prof Luigi Garlaschelli, who rubbed on an acidic paint, baked it in an oven and then washed the paint off. The results are also compatible with McCrone's analysis. Mmmmm? Perhaps you could share that factoid with shroudies like Jones?

The "fact" that the image does not exist underneath the blood was "determined" by examining one single fiber of a thread, which had been ripped off the shroud with adhesive tape, and this conclusion may not be correct for the rest of the shroud. It can also have other possible explanations, such as that the blood was added on top while the paint-photo-etc was still wet, and that the blood chemicals caused the image to not bind to the fiber in that area. Both explanations are much simpler than assuming that the C14 tests are invalid, when all scientific evidence says that they are valid.

The sentence in dispute states that "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been SCIENTIFICALLY refuted." We therefore stick to science here. If the sentence had read "However, all of the hypotheses challenging the radiocarbon dating have been refuted by baseless religious conjecture," then you might perhaps have a point. Wdford (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of distortive anti-religious bigotry that seems to lie behind Wdford's posts, here's part of a refutation of Luigi Garlaschelli:

CONCLUSION:

L.G. concluded: “We have also shown that pigments containing traces of acidic compounds can be artificially aged after the rubbing step (…) in such a way that, when the pigment is washed away, an image is obtained having the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin. In particular the image is pseudonegative, is fuzzy with half-tones, resides on the top-most fibers of the cloth, has some 3D embedded properties and does not fluoresce”.

I think to the contrary that the image has none of these characteristics (except negativity and nonfluorescence). L.G. used a sophisticated method and a new interesting hypothesis, and he got the best Shroud-like image today. It is interesting to notice that even so, the properties of his image remain in fact very far from the fundamental properties of the Shroud image.

For the moment, the Shroud image remains unfakable.

That seems to be the reasonable conclusion that honest and intelligent and informed people come to. McCrone is an outlier. Garlaschelli is very far from proving reproducibility.

Pernimius (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

1) Thibault Heimburger is a medical doctor, not a textile expert or a C14 expert.

2) This so-called paper is published on shroud.com which is a leading pro-authenticity blogsite - not renown for objectivity or scientific rigor.

3) In this so-called paper, Heimburger merely states that he disagrees with the conclusions of Garlaschelli. So Garlaschelli is doing scientific experiments and is producing things very similar to the shroud, while Heimburger is expressing a personal (and biased) opinion.

4) It is unlikely that Garlaschelli will ever produce an exact copy of the shroud, partly because the original shroud was a product of a random combination of many variables, including:

1. The process used to prepare the linen cloth;
2. The specific acidity of the pigment used;
3. The moistness of the slurry used;
4. The pressure of the rubbing;
5. The choice of applicator, eg rag or sponge or brush etc;
6. The firmness of the model used;
7. The time elapsed while the acidic pigment did its work before being removed;
8. The conditions under which the shroud was subsequently aged, including temperature and humidity;
9. The impact of the many times it was washed and boiled;
10. The impact of the fires it endured.

Since each of these variables has numerous possible values, the number of attempts needed to test every possible combination will be in the thousands.

The aging is probably the most difficult to duplicate - a slow aging process produces a different outcome to forced aging, as every wine-drinker knows.

Thus the shroudies will forever cower behind their shrinking handful of remaining straws, whining "but it isn't an EXACT copy, so the shroud could still be REAL." Wdford (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that certain features have not been duplicated. True or not? It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate, but it must reproduce the main aspects, and then (I think obviously) it would have to be in such a way that a medieval forger could conceivably have stumbled upon or devised the process. Your demeaning use of "shroudies" is offensive. Should you and your cohorts be called "carbon-heads"? Pernimius (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The point was about cotton fibers, which has been comprehensively answered. Your new point is about the claim that the shroud image cannot be duplicated. However Garlaschelli produced an image that had "the expected characteristics as the Shroud of Turin." The image was pseudo-negative, fuzzy with half-tones, resided on the top-most fibers of the cloth, had some 3D embedded properties and did not fluoresce. Ergo, he managed to reproduce the "main aspects", and he specifically did so using chemicals and methods that were available to medieval forgers. Heimburger, writing on a pro-authenticity blog, merely denied. Garlaschelli could probably produce much better versions if he spent valuable hours experimenting with various combinations of variables, but thus far he has proved how it could have been done - and he used PAINT. Heimburger and his fellow travelers will probably continue to resist until somebody produces an utterly identical copy, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this article. Wdford (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You do not have anywhere near a consensus for Garlaschelli. This page has data that will inform you further. You will probably use the same old fallacy..."but this data is on a page run by a believer." Not a valid counter-argument. Pernimius (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually it IS a valid counter-argument - please read WP:RS. That page is not a "page run by a believer", that page is a Christian propaganda website. The "arguments" are so poor, they don't even accurately represent Garlaschelli's work - they just rushed blindly to deny and deny, so as to preserve the fiction that their shroud might still be real. Wdford (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The page you refer to says "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Schwortz fits those criteria. His analysis is cited on the page. You make it quite easy for yourself by not considering any site with pro-Christian connections. Valid thoughts do occur outside the atheistic void. And such sites can provide valid links to such valid thoughts. Use your common sense and deal with the data and the arguments. McCrone for all his lack of faith is not a whit more reliable because of that deficiency. Pernimius (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It think it's weird to read that someone asks his interlocutor to use his common sense and in the next sentence disqualifies McCrone because of "his lack of faith". This seems inconsistent to say the least. By the way, the fact that Schwortz has published on the shroud does not make hm reliable or qualified as he is a photograph and not a scientist. He is in fact much less qualified than McCrone. --Lebob (talk) 22:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is that lack of faith does not make one more reliable, not to attack anyone for a lack of faith. Common sense should tell you that. Schwortz has proven himself through years of research, study, presentations, and withstanding of scrutiny. He knows a heck of a lot more about the Shroud than most people who are spouting off in these discussion pages. Pernimius (talk) 23:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

"Schwortz has proven himself through years of research, study, presentations, and withstanding of scrutiny". However he has none of the skills or qualifications required to be able to issue a relevant opinion or analysis of the shroud. We are still left with an unsustainable (and crank) theory which tries to make us believe that the C14 tests have been made on a piece of cloth that has been attached to the shroud thanks to an invisible mending although it has been repeated by tissues specialists that such a technique does in fact not exist. --Lebob (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Already answered in the discussions on these pages. No need to recycle. Invisible mending not only exists, but photographic evidence has been adduced. Pernimius (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes sure, invisible mending exists. The only problem is that nobody has ever seen it (because it is invisible, of course) but even to prove that it exists. This has been discussed at length and all the reliable specialist have clearly stated 1) that invisible mending does not exist and 2) that there is not trace of mending of the area of the shroud where the tissue for C14 tests has been removed. Try harder with much better arguments than "invisible mending" which sounds very much as the Emperor's New Clothes. --Lebob (talk) 15:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh, Lebob, but you really need to read more: "However, notice that the area adjoining the patch (where the c14 sample was taken from, and ostensibly part of the actual Shroud) is also mostly the same color of green. This is further convincing, supportive, scientific evidence that this area is inherently different in composition than the rest of the Shroud." SOME DETAILS ABOUT THE STURP QUAD MOSAIC IMAGES. (c) 2003-2011 Barrie Schwortz. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/quad.pdf March 6, 2018. Emphasis added. Pernimius (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Schwortz is only an expert at saying that the shroud is clearly authentic. He is not a C14 expert, nor a textile expert, nor a historian, and not even an archaeologist. He merely took photos for STURP, and then made bank for the next 40 years as the guru telling the believers what they wanted to hear.

Schwortz makes a few serious errors in this editorial about Garlaschelli's work, which he openly admits is "expressing my own personal opinions on this topic." He criticises LG for using a press release, while happily accepting all the pro-authenticity people who publish their nonsense on pro-authenticity blogsites – including himself. He insists that anybody making anti-authenticity claims "must submit their work for careful scrutiny and comparative analysis before drawing such dramatic conclusions." However those who claim that the image is a divine relic of a resurrection are free of this requirement to provide rigorous scientific evidence.

Schwortz berates LG for thinking the image consists of ochre, and he engages in many happy lines of rant to assure his audience that STURP found no ochre in the image. However Schwortz seemingly misses the point that the original ochre was washed off, and that the surviving image is actually a discolouration caused by acid in the original pigment. This is a blatant misrepresentation of LG's work.

Schwortz claims that "It has been demonstrated scientifically that the bloodstains on the Shroud came from direct contact with a body and are all forensically accurate." Actually it was demonstrated that the blood came from a clotting wound. There was never any evidence to prove that the blood could not have been daubed on or dripped on from a source that was starting to coagulate. Schwortz also repeats the claim that the bloodstains were on the Shroud BEFORE the image was formed since the blood and serum acted to inhibit the image formation mechanism. As I have frequently pointed out, this conclusion is based on a single damaged fiber, and cannot be held to be representative of the entire cloth. Since LG used a live body for his rubbing, it is also possible that the blood was daubed onto the body of the model before the cloth as applied - no miracle needed. Also, it is possible that the blood was added after the image was initiated but before the acid had time to do the full job – blood is after all slightly alkaline. Once again, the pro-authenticity camp leaps to a dramatic conclusion on the most flimsy of conjectures.

As regards the latest twaddle from Schwortz about the "green patch", Flury-Lemburg has rebutted this heroic conjecture extensively and thoroughly in her paper at [17], To quote a few excerpts:

• "There is no method to make a hole of 1 square centimetre disappear in this type of delicate fabric. It is of course feasible to restore the missing part, imitating exactly the weaving structure of the original, as has been described for the first example. This method is called today invisible mending, and threads from the original are used in the process. But even the most successful execution can ultimately not conceal the operation completely to the trained eye, and it will always be unequivocally visible on the reverse of the fabric."

• "The late Raymond Rogers examined the surrounding areas where the sample had been taken, by means of infrared pictures of the shroud. The pictures show discolorations in these areas. This has been the inducement for the hypothesis of the mending in medieval times. The infrared pictures show a diffuse discoloration at the corner in question, i.e. a discoloration without the definite outlines of an allegedly mended area. A darn would have to appear in the picture as clearly defined. The UV-fluorescent picture of a comparable woven material containing darns allows for the repairs to be recognized by the route of the threads used, fig.8! Furthermore the discoloured spot in the infrared picture is so big that it could not possibly be the location of a darn which had not previously been detected by the naked eye. If looked at without a magnifying glass - an “unscientific” way according to Rogers - the area around the removed sample and the preserved corners display discolorations as big as human palms: blackish deposits under which the fibres appear to be sticking together. These coatings - obvious to the naked eye - are clearly in contrast to the surface of the rest of the shroud, fig.15. But they do not have their origins in added yarns used in darning or inweaving, as has been postulated, they are simply greasy dirt. This is a plausible explanation in view of the fact that innumerable unwashed hands have handled the shroud whenever it was shown in the past."

In other words, the difference in "chemical composition" was caused by dirt on original fibers, not by replacement fibers. This is the conclusion reached by a genuine textile expert, who has examined the shroud personally. Schwortz is not a textile expert, and his "credentials" do not match her credentials in the slightest. He is however a professional photographer, he saw the shroud himself as he photographed it, and he really should have known that the discolorations were caused by clearly visible dirt. This dirt was obviously noticed by the C14 experts, and was thoroughly cleaned off before the tests were done – as per standard practice. I have been trying to deal with the data and the arguments, but some people keep insisting that we disregard the data and instead concentrate on the heroic conjectures of the believers. Wdford (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Well let's just go with your hero, then (emphasis added):

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the textile expert and supervisor of the 2002 major restoration of the Shroud, recently wrote an informative article related to the C14 radiocarbon dating. The article argues against the reweaving hypothesis proposed by Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, but I think that its most important aspect is her definitive statement that the radiocarbon dating of 1988 is very doubtful given the amount of greasy material readily visible at the sample area. The article can be found on Barrie Schwortz's Web site: The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality, by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, 2007. I think the major positive point of this article is very informative and very often forgotten or never mentioned: the location of the linen sample for the 1988 C14 radiocarbon dating is heavily contaminated, and this can be readily seen with the naked eye. Flury-Lemberg reports that the location shows thread stuck together. I quote from her article:

"The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, ..." (The emphases are from the article.)

Well,I guess she's not your hero any more. Pernimius (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Flury-Lemberg certainly did note that the sampled corner was heavily contaminated. So did the C14 experts – which is why they carefully cleaned the samples first, as they always do. All C14 samples suffer from some degree of contamination, and therefore thorough cleaning is a standard part of the C14 process.

A number of experts have also stated that, in order to swing the dating of an authentic 30AD textile to a 1360AD date, the amount of contamination present would need to be more than double the amount of actual cloth. One of them was Jackson, himself a believer. (See [18], para 2). The experts have concurred that the cloth was made very clean, so while we can perhaps still expect a few decades of fluctuation due to missed contaminants, the origin would still be medieval, and the chances of the shroud being authentic are absolute zero.

I think the major positive point of this discussion is that you now see that there was NO REWEAVING at that spot, or probably anywhere else on the shroud. Wdford (talk) 07:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Another important point arises from this discussion. You have claimed that Schwortz is a shroud expert, and a credible source. Flury-Lemburg wrote this paper long before Schwortz, who updated it and recirculated it in 2011. As a knowledgeable expert on the subject, he should certainly have been aware of her expert conclusions. However he nonetheless went ahead and repeated the cant about different chemical compositions equals different yarn. What does that tell us about the credibility and objectivity of Schwortz? Wdford (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

We have to accept that we will disagree. I read something like "It is well known and documented that the Shroud has been repaired several times in its history, including in the area from which the C-14 sample was taken" (from here) and I have to rest not just with ahistorical C14 technicians but with the record. Also there is a question about how well the cloth could have been cleaned of all contaminants. "It was cleaned adequately." raises the question "Says who?" The textile expert did not seem to suggests adequate cleaning was a possibility that might be able to ensure that the C14 tests could be valid. So many aspects of the Shroud point to authenticity that those things alone suggest (in my opinion) that we have very good grounds on which to be skeptical about the Shroud-debunkers. Let us each hold to our own researched beliefs, with openness to new discoveries and understandings. I will sign off for now. Thank you for your efforts and your passion. Pernimius (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You are citing here a 16 year old paper by Benford and Marino. Neither is a C14 expert, and neither is a textile expert, and neither has ever touched the shroud itself. There is a reason why Wikipedia requires the use of reliable sources.

There is no actual record of the shroud being rewoven in that corner - if there was, I assure you the pro-authenticity people would scream about it daily, and it would not be buried in a obscure paper by obscure non-experts. Meanwhile, actual experts who have actually examined the actual shroud have all agreed that there is zero evidence of a repair in that corner.

Since it would take a weight of contamination in excess of double the weight of the cloth to skew an authentic shroud to a medieval date, we can be confident that the shroud could not possibly have been authentic. Many photos of the actual samples have been published, and they do not show much visible dirt - far less an encrustation weighing double that of the cloth itself.

The textile expert (Lemburg) did NOT suggest that adequate cleaning was impossible, merely that the cloth in it's unclean state would provide a false result. Once again, you are really stretching a semantic.

The cleaning was done to the extent deemed appropriate by three different expert labs, each using a different combination of cleaning methods. The end results were very similar, and the control tests all gave acceptable results, so presumably the experts knew what they were doing.

In conclusion, you obviously have the right to cling to your own beliefs. However if you want to know how things really are, as opposed to how you perhaps wish them to be, then you need to consider the scientific evidence. Science is not perfect by any means, but its more reliable than wishful thinking and "heroic conjecture". See you again soon :) Wdford (talk)

Article needs to be updated with new archaeology findings in 2013.

This article has stated the 1988 radiocarbon tests that indicate the Shroud is from the Middle Ages. However, scientists of the University of Padua in 2013 have tested the Shroud again and confirmed that the Shroud was likely made somewhere between 280 BC and AD 220. This dates the cloth in the time of Jesus. Whether or not it was His burial cloth is not my point here, just that it dates back to His time which makes it all the more possible that it was His. These findings are more recent and prove that the fabric pieces tested in 1988 could be attributed to repair material from the Middle Ages as they attempted to repair and restore the cloth.

Here is an article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/9958678/Turin-Shroud-is-not-a-medieval-forgery.html

And another: https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2017/March-2017/9-archaeology-finds-that-confirm-the-New-Testament

ElenaBee (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Elena

References

Do you not find it weird that the two articles contradict each other? One says "the Padua scientists" (Fanti) used spectroscopy to arrive at the desired result, the other says they used the radiocarbon method. Unsurprisingly, the Telegraph article is closer to the truth while the religious site tosses the facts completely on their head and can be dismissed as completely unreliable. But still, the Telegraph author just uncritically swallows what Fanti says. We have better, more reliable sources which list the mistakes Fanti makes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)