Thursday, February 23, 2012

Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (3)

Continuing from my "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (2)" with this part #2 (3).

Further examples of 6th to 12th century artistic representations of Christ's face which bear the Vignon markings found on the Shroud, include:

Christ Pantocrator gold solidus coin by Emperor Justinian II (7th century) In the 7th century, the Byzantine Roman Emperor at Constantinople, Justinian II (669-711), was the first to mint coins, tremisses and solidi, bearing the face of Jesus. [1]

[Above (enlarge): Justinian II gold solidus coin, c. AD 692: Money Museum]

The faces of Jesus on these coins are of two types: an earlier "Syrian Christ" and a later more Shroud-like Jesus. [ibid] Features on the coins which are very similar to the face of the Man of the Shroud include: long wavy shoulder-length hair, a long forked beard, moustache, and a small tuft of hair on the forehead, and no ears visible. [2] As can be seen above, there are at least twelve out of fifteen Vignon markings on the Christ face of this coin that are also found on the Shroud of Turin: "... (2) three-sided `square' between brows, (3) V shape at bridge of nose, ... (6) accentuated left cheek, (7) accentuated right cheek, (8) enlarged left nostril, (9) accentuated line between nose and upper lip, (10) heavy line under lower lip, (11) hairless area between lower lip and beard, (12) forked beard, (13) transverse line across throat, (14) heavily accentuated owlish eyes, (15) two strands of hair." [3] See part #2 (1) .

Dr Alan Whanger was so struck by the similarity between the Shroud face image and that of the Christ face on this coin, that in 1978 he began experimenting with superimposing horizontal and vertical polarized projections of the Shroud face and this and other Byzantine portraits of Christ to enable the points of congruence between the two images to be precisely compared. [4] The result revealed many points of congruity, even including the matching of Christ's neckline on the coin with an crease on the Shroud, that it is evident that the Shroud itself must have served as a model for the coin. [ibid, p.110]

When the Justinian II solidus and tremisses coin images are superimposed over the Shroud face, all three images have a transverse line in the exact same spot, which is artistically represented on the coins as a wrinkle line on Jesus' garments, an unnecessary feature of itself. [5] Professor Robert M. Haralick of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, using a digital elaboration technique found that the outlines of the face of the Shroud can be superimposed on the outlines of the image of the face of Christ on these Byzantine coins. [6]

Since these coins are datable to about AD 692, and the Shroud is the original because what are physical flaws in its cloth have been meaninglessly represented [7] - see part #2 (1) - in Byzantine art works between the sixth and twelfth centuries, this means that the Shroud must have been in existence at least five centuries before the earliest AD 1260 date ascribed to it by the 1988 radiocarbon dating. [8] Therefore that "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" radiocarbon date of the Shroud [9] simply has to be wrong!

[Continued with "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!: #2 The Vignon markings (4)"]

References
[1] Scavone, D.C., 1991, "The History of the Turin Shroud to the 14th C", in Berard, A., ed., 1991, "History, Science, Theology and the Shroud," Symposium Proceedings, St. Louis Missouri, June 22-23, 1991, The Man in the Shroud Committee of Amarillo, Texas: Amarillo TX, p.187. [return]
[2] Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Publishers Enterprises Group: San Gwann, Malta, pp.193-194. [return]
[3] Wilson, 1978, "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, p.82e. [return]
[4] Wilson, I., 1986., "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, pp.107-108. [return]
[5] Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, p.128. [return]
[6] Petrosillo & Marinelli, 1996, p.194. [return]
[7] Patterson, C., 1999, "Evolution," Cornell University Press: Ithaca NY, Second edition, p.117. [return]
[8] Wilson, I., 1991, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus' True Likeness," Doubleday: London, pp.166-167. [return]
[9] Damon, P. E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp. 611-615, p.611. [return]

Posted: 23 February 2012. Updated: 16 September 2017.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm confused, i heard it was made by a Bas-relief metl sculpture heated but i'm not sure could some one elaborate because i'm on the verge of accepting authenticity but the bas-relef theory seems somewhat credible.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>I'm confused, i heard it was made by a Bas-relief metl sculpture heated but i'm not sure could some one elaborate because i'm on the verge of accepting authenticity but the bas-relef theory seems somewhat credible.

A "bas relief is a sculpture technique in which figures and/or other design elements are just barely more prominent than the (overall flat) background. Bas relief is created either by carving away material (wood, stone, ivory, jade, etc.) or adding material to the top of an otherwise smooth surface (say, strips of clay to stone). This is a technique as old as humankind's artistic explorations, and is closely related to high relief." ("bas relief," Shelley Esaak, About.com: Art History).

Here, `off the top of my head' are some problems of a bas-relief (or hot statue) being used in creating the Shroud of Turin image:

1. The medieval, or earlier, forger first had to create the statue in stone or metal, with anatomical precision which was unknown until hundreds of years later;

2. Such a statue would be the world's greatest artwork in its own right, yet there is no record of it having existed.

3. The forger could run off multiple copies of the Shroud from the stone or metal statue, and make a lot of money, but there is only one copy of the Shroud.

4. The blood was on the Shroud linen before the image. So the forger would have to place the blood-stained linen shroud over a hot sculpture or statue.

5. But the blood clots are intact on the Shroud. So the forger could not have smeared the clots as he placed the blood-stained linen shroud over a hot sculpture or statue.

6. The Shroud image is extremely superficial, only on the primary cell wall `skin' of the top most fibrils, and is only one-fifth of one thousandth of a millimetre (0.0002 mm) thick (ENEA report). Yet experiments have shown that a hot statue scorch does stop at the surface of a fibril but burns through the fibril and beyond.

7. A hot statue scorch, being a heat scorch, fluoresces under ultraviolet light (as the scorches on the Shroud from the 1532 fire do), but the image on the Shroud does not fluoresce, indicating either that the Shroud image is not a heat scorch (it could be a non-heat radiation scorch, e.g. caused by ultraviolet light radiation as the ENEA scientists recently created on linen).

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stephen E. Jones said...

8. There is a simple way to prove the bas-relief/hot statue theory:

a. Make a metal or stone statue with the anatomical precision of the Shroud image (now that we have that anatomical knowledge unavailable in the 14th century), complete with over 100 accurate whip marks from a Roman flagrum, flower images, etc;

b. Apply the blood to a linen cloth of the right dimensions (~4.3 x 1.1 m) with anatomically correct arterial and venous blood (now that we have that knowledge of blood circulation since Harvey discovered it in the 1620s);

c. Heat the statue with burning coal, wood, charcoal or oil (since electric heating was unknown in the 14th century) to the correct uniform temperature (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud);

e. Envelop the hot statue with the bloodstained ~4.3 x 1.1 m cloth, front and back, instantaneously so no part of the cloth receives more heat than the other (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud), without smearing the blood or cooking it;

f. Ensure somehow that the scorch does not fluoresce under ultraviolet light (which was unknown in the 14th century), as the Shroud's image doesn't, even though all heat scorches do fluoresce under ultraviolet light;

e. Remove the cloth from the statue instantaneously so no part of the cloth receives more heat than the other (otherwise the scorch won't be uniform as the image is on the Shroud), and before the scorch penetrates deeper than the primary cell walls of the topmost flax linen fibrils, without breaking the blood cloths adhering to both the statue and the linen cloth.

Clearly this cannot be done today, let alone by a medieval or earlier forger, and therefore the bas relief/hot statue theory is yet another failed naturalistic theory of the formation of the Shroud's image.

As I said, the above is `off the top of my head' (except for the quote on what a bas-relief is, checking that heat scorches fluoresce under ultraviolet light and when Harvey discovered the circulation of blood). Otherwise I deliberately avoided getting bogged down in links, references or quotes.

However, now I have outlined some of the problems of the bas relief/hot statue theory of Shroud image formation, I will use the above to post a separate blog post, complete with links, references and quotes.

So thanks for your comment.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

In response to the other anonymous, the bas-relief cannot work simply because of the geometric triangle on the foot of 5the Shroud-Man and the very fact that the scourge marks show the slightly depressed centers and have serum halos around them. These are characteristics of syneresis or when lymph is drained from a retracted clot of blod. Also the fact all 120 Scourge Marks show these serum halos is a huge problem for ANY forgery Hypothesis. Those two facts alone practically shoot the bas-relief theory down.
C

Anonymous said...

This theory isn't new some guy named ScienceBod/ColinB keeps blatantly saying the shroud is a heated bas-relief sculpture. To answer your question since there is a second face on the shroud even thinner than the Frontal-Dorsal image without damage to the Medullas or crystallized structures the Bas-Relief seems pretty incredulous
Joe

Stephen E. Jones said...

C

>... the bas-relief cannot work simply because of the geometric triangle on the foot of the Shroud-Man

Yes. This, if it is confirmed by others, is another fine detail that a medieval forger would have to incorporate into his bas-relief or statue.

And why would he go to the trouble? His gullible medieval audience would not be able to see it, let alone be impressed by it!

>and the very fact that the scourge marks show the slightly depressed centers and have serum halos around them. These are characteristics of syneresis or when lymph is drained from a retracted clot of blod. Also the fact all 120 Scourge Marks show these serum halos is a huge problem for ANY forgery Hypothesis.

And serum halos (like heat scorch fluorescence) are only visible under ultraviolet light, which was unknown until 1893:

"The discovery of the ultraviolet radiation below 200 nm, named vacuum ultraviolet because it is strongly absorbed by air, was made in 1893 by the German physicist Victor Schumann." ("Ultraviolet," Wikipedia, 28 February 2012).

>Those two facts alone practically shoot the bas-relief theory down.

Agreed. This and other failed naturalistic explanations for the Shroud image are only proposed because, according to the philosophy of Naturalism (i.e. nature is all there is: there is no supernatural), a false naturalistic theory is to be preferred over a true supernaturalistic one!

I am preparing a separate blog post based on my two-part reply above.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Joe

>... ScienceBod/ColinB keeps blatantly saying the shroud is a heated bas-relief sculpture.

I haven't been following his posts. But I did see Paolo Di Lazzaro's response "Colin Berry's idea is untenable, and heat cannot produce a superficial coloration" on Dan Porter's blog.

>To answer your question since there is a second face on the shroud even thinner than the Frontal-Dorsal image without damage to the Medullas or crystallized structures the Bas-Relief seems pretty incredulous

Yes. Yet another fine detail that no medieval forger would have (or could) added.

But the problem for ColinB and his naturalistic ilk has been stated by atheist and Shroud anti-authenticist Steven Schafersman - " If the shroud is authentic [i.e. not a forgery], the image is that of Jesus":

"Asks Steven Schafersman: `Is there a possible third hypothesis? No, and here's why. Both Wilson [Wilson, I., "The Shroud of Turin," 1979, pp.51-53.] and Stevenson and Habermas [Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud," 1981, pp.121-129] go to great lengths to demonstrate that the man imaged on the shroud must be Jesus Christ and not someone else. After all, the man on this shroud was flogged, crucified, wore a crown of thorns, did not have his legs broken, was nailed to the cross, had his side pierced, and so on. Stevenson and Habermas [Ibid., p.128] even calculate the odds as 1 in 83 million that the man on the shroud is not Jesus Christ (and they consider this a very conservative estimate). I agree with them on all of this. If the shroud is authentic, the image is that of Jesus.' [Schafersman, S.D., "Science, the public, and the Shroud of Turin," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp.37-56, p.42]" (Nickell, J., "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin," Prometheus Books: Buffalo NY, Revised, 1987, p.141. Emphasis original).

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

I should have added to the above:

And since the Shroud is not a forgery, the image is that of Jesus!

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

Nice Post Stephen, if you would like to see Colin's work try his two websites ColinB/ScienceBuzz or theshroudofturinwithoutallthehype. Apparantley from reading his blog and comments on Dan's blog he is convinced its a scorch from a heated bas-relief sculpture. But one main problem was that heating coal, charcoal was an intense process that could take up to 100 hours and it is not logical because there is no way the hypothetical forger could carry the sculpture when heated and press the sculpture on the front and back of the cloth insteantaneosly.( and C's points as well)
Joseph

Stephen E. Jones said...

Joseph

>... if you would like to see Colin's work try his two websites ColinB/ScienceBuzz or theshroudofturinwithoutallthehype.

Thanks, but having seen a sample of Sciencebod/ColinB's argumentation on Dan Porter's blog, I have better things to do with my scarce time.

>... he is convinced its a scorch from a heated bas-relief sculpture.

At least he does not think the Shroud is a painting!

>But one main problem was that heating coal, charcoal was an intense process that could take up to 100 hours

And how could one heat up all points on the surface a statue to the same uniform temperature, front and back (otherwise the scorch would not be uniform), and then keep it constant?

>and it is not logical because there is no way the hypothetical forger could carry the sculpture when heated and press the sculpture on the front and back of the cloth insteantaneosly.( and C's points as well)

To be fair, one could imagine the forger using a block and tackle crane (which at least was in existence well before the 14th century):

"A block and tackle is a system of two or more pulleys with a rope or cable threaded between them, usually used to lift or pull heavy loads. The pulleys are assembled together to form blocks so that one is fixed and one moves with the load. The rope is threaded, or reeved, through the pulleys to provide mechanical advantage that amplifies that force applied to the rope. Hero of Alexandria [c. 10–70 AD] described cranes formed from assemblies of pulleys. Illustrated versions of Hero's "book on raising heavy weights" show early block and tackle systems." ("Block and tackle," Wikipedia, 24 January 2012).

to lift and deposit a heated statue onto one half of a ready ~4.4 x 1.1. metre linen cloth. And then the forger could conceivably fold the other half of the cloth over the heated statue, almost instantaneously. So I will withdraw my "instantaneous" objection.

But there is yet another "showstopper" problem for the "hot statue method" namely "inevitable ... hot spots ... where the statue touched the cloth":

"Another objection to the hot statue method lies in the inevitable creation of `hot spots' or well-defined regions of enhanced image density at points where the statue touched the cloth. Such spots would necessarily result from thermal conduction yet no such regions are present on the Shroud body image." (Antonacci, M., "The Resurrection of the Shroud," 2000, p.79).

Stephen E. Jones

The Deuce said...

I read ColinB's stuff for a little while, just to hear him out, even though he simply ignored a lot of fatal problems with his theory and his argumentation was consistently terrible. But eventually his flailings and contortions got so ridiculous and blatant, especially after Paolo Di Lazzaro's response, that I just started skipping over his posts.

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>I read ColinB's stuff for a little while ... he simply ignored a lot of fatal problems with his theory and his argumentation was consistently terrible. But eventually his flailings and contortions got so ridiculous and blatant, especially after Paolo Di Lazzaro's response, that I just started skipping over his posts.

Another of my specialties is Jehovah's Witness doctrine and arguments (see my Jesus is Jehovah! blog). Devout philosophical naturalists' arguments against the Shroud are very similar to those of Jehovah's Witnesses', i.e. variations on the theme: "my mind is already made up-don't confuse me with facts"!

Philosophical naturalism (i.e. nature is all there is - there is no supernatural) is like a cult. It starts and finishes with that dogmatic assumption that there can be no supernatural, and so when confronted with evidence of it (like JWs being confronted with evidence from the Bible that Jesus is God) they respond with denials, changes of subject, evasions, self-contradictions, untruths and "shooting the messenger".

Another area where PNs are similar to JWs is that the latter are forbidden to read the arguments of the other side. While they are not forbidden to do so, Shroud anti-authenticists typically don't own and/or haven't read many (if any) Shroud pro-authenticity books. To the extent they read arguments for the other side at all, it is usually just web pages, which cannot really give in-depth evidence and arguments.

The problem for PNs is that (probably subconsciously) they realise that if they accept the Shroud is authentic, they would have to become Christians (although there are some Shroud pro-authenticists like Barrie Schwortz who are not). But for a PN to become a Christian would be a huge personal upheaval, especially if they have anti-Christian family and friends.

So (like a JW denying Jesus is God) it is easier for a PN to deny the Shroud is authentic, even if that means denying evidence that, if it was anyone else but Jesus, they would accept. As the late agnostic Prof. Yves Delage observed when the French Academy of Science attacked him for presenting a paper arguing that, on the basis of the evidence, the Shroud was authentic, "If, instead of Christ ... no one would have thought of making any objection":

"... a religious question has been needlessly injected into a problem which in itself is purely scientific, with the result that feelings have run high, and reason has been led astray. If, instead of Christ, there were a question of some person like a Sargon, an Achilles or one of the Pharaohs, no one would have thought of making any objection ... I have been faithful to the true spirit of science in treating this question, intent only on the truth ... I recognize Christ as a historical personage and I see no reason why anyone should be scandalized that there still exist material traces of his earthly life.'" (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," 1963, p.107).

Stephen E. Jones