Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Combined Review of: “The Sign” by Thomas de Wesselow and “Resurrected or Revived?” by Helmut Felzmann

Below is a combined book review of two recent books on the Shroud, by Mark Antonacci (of "Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation") and Patrick Byrne, a Shroud colleague of his. Mark emailed the review to me as a Word document attachment, asking me to post it on my blog, which I have now done, after converting it to HTML. I later discovered the review is available in PDF format on the Holy Shroud Guild website. The review includes a compelling refutation of the late Ray Rogers' Maillard reaction image formation theory.


Combined Review of: “The Sign” by Thomas de Wesselow and “Resurrected or Revived?” by Helmut Felzmann

Historical and Religious Aspects

Now that the Easter season has come and gone, the inevitable Resurrection naysayer publications have hit the bookstore shelves and online websites.

Most notably, this year we have The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection by Thomas de Wesselow and Resurrected or Revived? by Helmut Felzmann (2012).

[Right: "Resurrected or Revived - Why the Turin Shroud puts the Core of Pauline Christianity in Question," by Helmut Felzmann: Amazon.com (Kindle Edition).]

De Wesselow, an art historian, researched the Shroud for seven years to tell the reader that the image was caused by some natural process that he or no one else can adequately explain. This image then became the origin for the greatest misunderstanding in the history of mankind. The monumental confusion stems from the theory postulated by de Wesselow that the image on the Shroud is what the first disciples saw, not a physically resurrected Jesus.

According to de Wesselow, the Shroud was retrieved from the body of a dead Christ. Later, Jesus was re-wrapped in new burial garments and his body left to decompose in keeping with traditional Jewish burial customs. The bones then would have been placed in an ossuary and lost to history with the passage of time.

To the first Christians, the Shroud became the “risen Christ” according to de Wesselow. De Wesselow explains this by introducing “animism” (the attribution of life to inanimate things) and “anthropomorphism” (to credit with human-like thoughts and emotions) to his conjecture. These two concepts, coupled with the superstitions of an unsophisticated people, leave “no reason to doubt” that the Shroud figure would have been viewed “as a living presence” in the first century.

So the reader must now accept that Paul’s dramatic conversion was due to viewing the Shroud; and the 500 in Corinthians described by Paul as having seen the risen Christ was nothing but the display of a cloth. Further straining credulity, is de Wesselow’s notion that the apostles, by viewing a cloth, could have launched the teachings of Christianity in the face of extreme hardship and the most horrific deaths.

However, most implausible may be de Wesselow’s belief that thousands of Jews steeped in centuries of Jewish tradition, who took no notice of Christ’s teachings during his lifetime, now cast all that aside post Crucifixion merely by viewing an image on a cloth.

De Wesselow explains the Shroud’s disappearance in Edessa in modern day Turkey as the final step in creating the great misunderstanding. With the cloth gone from sight and the passage of time, the Shroud displays following the Crucifixion morph into a body and blood resurrection. According to de Wesselow, this myth becomes the prevailing basis for today’s Christianity.

Felzmann takes another approach and proposes that Christ survived His Crucifixion; then almost immediately set out visiting the apostles and wanting to preach again in public. All of this supposedly occurs with the aid and protection of the Essenes, a controversial group of holy men and women of which little is reliably known.

First, however it is necessary for Felzmann to prove that Christ survived the Crucifixion. He supports this theory by referring to the work of the late Prof. Wolfgang Bonte, a credentialed forensic scientist. Bonte proposed that the blood stain patterns on the Shroud and other indicators show that Christ was alive when wrapped in his burial garments. It should be noted that this conclusion is shared by only a few in the field and is contrary to all mainstream research conducted by numerous eminently qualified forensic scientists.

Felzmann asserts that Christ was alive when taken from the cross, which enhanced the possibility for natural body encoding to occur (similar to de Wesselow’s natural process causing the image) and create the unique image on the Shroud. Here Felzmann introduces an unproven methodology described as the reaction of a warm body (necessarily alive) and body enzymes acting on cloth to produce an image.

Felzmann speculates that a living Christ is rescued from the tomb by Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea because both men are Essenes and essential to this grand hoax. The Essene writings on which Felzmann relies describe a post Crucifixion Christ in a weakened state, desperately wanting to be with his disciples while being hotly pursued by Caiaphas (a Jewish high priest) and his underlings.

After several meetings with his followers, including the well-known “doubting Thomas” encounter, Christ retreats to safety at an Essene community near the Dead Sea and dies only days later. These accounts by Felzmann’s admission are in “reasonable doubt.” Most scholars disregard these texts finding it totally implausible that Jesus, ravaged by crucifixion and succumbing to death from those wounds, could have possibly inspired the apostles to go forth and spread the message of Christianity.

Felzmann also takes us through the flawed process of the Shroud carbon 14 dating. His work is thorough and uncovers many of the shortcomings surrounding the 1988 attempt by three prestigious labs to accurately date the age of the Shroud.

Unfortunately, much of this fine work is overshadowed by rather blatantly accusing the Church of perpetrating a fraud. This fraud or conspiracy surrounds the 1988 Shroud test samples being “replaced by bogus ones.” Felzmann further asserts, “the motives of the Church are to devalue the Shroud and to make it seem unauthentic,” presumably to discourage further research that would verify his theory that Christ was alive post Crucifixion. Consequently, “the magical salvation and resurrection story is thrown into the theological trash heap of history.”

After mind numbing research, both authors apparently arrive at Christ’s tomb with no clear explanations for the Easter mystery. At this point, as all confirmed nonbelievers must do, they develop a theory - no matter how dubious - that allows them to continue with their preconceived notions. They each took a different approach using the Shroud as their path to a “reasoned” answer to the Resurrection miracle. Both authors should take note of a comment from the common sense mind of G. K. Chesterton, “reason is fine until it becomes unreasonable.”

Since most of the evidence derived from the Shroud is scientific, a focus on the authors’ scientific bases is essential in understanding their overall positions.

Scientific and Contemporary Aspects

Both Felzmann and de Wesselow rely prominently on the scientific research of Raymond Rogers in formulating their respective views that either the live or decomposing body of Jesus naturally caused his images on the Shroud. Both also rely on Rogers’ scientific research to suggest that either a foreign repair piece was unwittingly carbon dated in 1988 or that foreign samples were intentionally switched with the Shroud samples by the Church and their supporters. For this reason, it is important to review some of the underlying scientific methods and findings relied upon by the authors.

According to Felzmann, Rogers claims that during the Shroud’s production its spun fibers were individually moistened with a paste of crude starch as other ancient linen supposedly received. The complete or woven Shroud was then washed in saponaria officinalis or soapwort, a soap-like solution, and then laid out to dry. De Wesselow explains that when the water thus evaporated a thin layer of carbohydrates containing starch or sugar then resulted throughout the surface of the entire Shroud. Rogers claims as Jesus’ corpse decomposed and putrefied that it gave off amines or amino acids in a gas diffusion that would have reacted with a reducing sugar as a form of non-enzymatic browning or carmelization that resulted in the unique body images on the Shroud of Turin. While such a series of events has never occurred in history, there are a number of reasons why they could not have occurred with the Shroud.

There is no evidence on the Shroud’s body images of a decomposing body, yet by definition the body in this image forming hypothesis would have been decomposing. Furthermore, there is no evidence or any decomposition stains at any location on the Shroud, nor is there any evidence of sugar on the Shroud or the distribution of starch as hypothesized by Rogers. At orifices like the mouth, the stains would be the most visible by this method; but some of the best resolution is actually found at this location on the Shroud image. The corpse’s temperatures would also vary from its dorsal to its frontal side and its extremities, yet no such correlations are found on the Shroud’s body images. The chemical reaction within the Maillard reaction will not even occur unless the corpse’s temperature is 104°F (40°C) or more. Since the dead body in the Shroud first went into rigor mortis while it was in the vertical crucifixion position, it is extremely unlikely any part of this coldblooded corpse would have been at such a high temperature when it was subsequently buried in a cool tomb, as in the case of Jesus.

Even assuming every undocumented reaction of this hypothesis, it would not produce uniform coloring on all the individually colored image fibers found throughout the length and width of the full-length frontal and dorsal body images. This necessarily means it could not encode the three-dimensional and vertically directional information also found throughout the full-length Shroud body image. Nor would this method produce negative images that contain highly-resolved, detailed images of a man when they are photographed. The Shroud’s body image fibers are also uniformly encoded 360° around each individual fiber. This method cannot encode individual fibers in such a manner. The same shortcomings in this paragraph, as well as others, apply to Felzmann’s live body method.

The lack of scientific understanding and rigor on the part of both authors is very apparent. They only focus on a few of the Shroud’s many features when discussing their naturalistic methods, while failing to notice the multitude of body image and blood mark features their methods fail to encode. The authors also ignore many other image forming methods that account for or duplicate far more of the Shroud’s features than their methods. They fail to recognize that all sorts of diffusion, vapograph, direct contact and various combinations of these and other naturalistic methods have been tested over the course of a hundred years, but all have noticeably failed. Millions of people have also died and been covered with burial shrouds, sheets, blankets, jackets etc. over their bodies. None have left images that approach the unique and unfakable human body images and blood marks found on the Shroud. Many millions more have been similarly covered under many circumstances while alive without leaving body images or blood stains approaching those of the Shroud. Yet, despite the repeated failures of all naturalistic methods by experiments and by natural design, both authors confidentially assert that their naturalistic methods would work.

Both authors also emphasize Rogers’ claim that the Shroud samples he studied had a different chemical composition than other Shroud samples; however, the “other” Shroud samples referenced by Rogers came from the edges of water stains, where chemicals are typically deposited by the flow of water. Moreover, when 13 threads taken from the same area as Rogers’ samples were examined by STURP using X-ray fluorescence analysis they showed the same relative concentrations of calcium, strontium and iron that were measured throughout the entire Shroud cloth. Due to physical limitations these were the only chemical elements that could be measured in 1978; however, these three elements are distributed throughout the entire Shroud linen. This chemical comparison not only makes a medieval or 16th century repair hypotheses extremely remote, but it completely outweighs the non-elemental findings in Rogers’ 2005 Thermochimica Acta publication that was clearly relied upon by the authors.

Significantly, when scientists at the University of Arizona’s radiocarbon laboratory examined samples remaining from their 1988 dating of the Shroud by UV fluorescence and photomicrographic analysis they found no evidence of any coatings or dyes as indicated by Rogers. They also found no evidence to support Rogers’ or the author’s position that their radiocarbon sample did not derive from the main part of the Shroud. When Italian scientists examined Shroud samples removed from the same area as Rogers’ samples, they too found the samples resembled those taken from the rest of the Shroud. Similarly, the detailed, close-up inspections of the front and back sides of the Shroud by textile and other experts also refute the views of Rogers, the authors and others who suggest the Shroud samples tested in 1988 came from an invisibly repaired region or were not taken from the main part of the cloth.

The authors also overlook the scientific evidence indicating that the body images on the Shroud resulted from a dehydration and oxidation process that develops over time. The Shroud’s body images were probably not visible for centuries. This simple fact, as opposed to the authors’ outrageous 1st century conspiracies, best explains why no Shroud-like image is mentioned in the first several centuries after Jesus burial. No description of an image like the one on the Shroud is found anywhere in history until the sixth century, when the image either developed or was found after having been hidden away for centuries. If Christ left his image on his burial cloth, it would have clearly been mentioned. Yet no biblical, apostolic or other writings mention such a unique image until the sixth century. The scientific, biblical and historical evidence all refute the authors’ assumption of an immediate image (as well as many of De Wesselow’s and Felzmann’s other positions).

In summary, what distinguishes the above books from most other Shroud books are the authors’ conclusions regarding

  1. How the Shroud’s images were formed,
  2. The conspiratorial actions of the Church and their colleagues regarding the Shroud’s radiocarbon samples and Jesus’ resurrection,
  3. The physical condition and actions of Jesus following his crucifixion,
  4. The actions of the apostles and Jesus’ followers following the events of Easter.

Unfortunately, all of the authors’ above contentions are based on little, if any, scientific or other credible evidence. Instead they are largely, if not completely, based on conjecture and illogical interpretations.

Felzmann and de Wesselow also erroneously claim or imply that their unsupported contentions will or should have enormous effects on the public’s religious beliefs. These conclusions are not only based on speculative and undocumented evidence, but they understate or ignore the nature and extent of the objective and independent evidence that has been documented from decades of scientific and medical examination of the Shroud. As their own failed methods confirm, most of this extensive evidence is not only unfakable, but is consistent with the Shroud’s authenticity as the burial garment of the historical Jesus Christ. Moreover, the documented evidence is actually consistent with every element of the passion, crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as these events are described in the Gospels.

The realization that Christianity has hundreds of unfakable items of scientific and medical evidence to confirm the central tenets of Christianity and the most critical events in all of history, which are contained in the most reliable and textually attested sources of antiquity, could have unprecedented consequences throughout the world. No other religion has any objective evidence to confirm the central tenets or critical events of their religion, let alone an exhaustive amount of such evidence. Overwhelming, objective evidence ― along the lines of a 150 – 0 shutout when compared to any contrary religious or other view ― would impress the listener whether agnostic, atheist or a member of any other religion.

Unfortunately, religion causes, contributes to or is an underlying element in numerous wars and conflicts that are occurring throughout the world. While such wars and conflicts have always occurred throughout history, their numbers are increasing. Furthermore, the means of destruction by the combatants have become alarming. These underlying religious differences and conflicts go back centuries. Wars and conflicts have not and cannot eliminate these differences. Worse yet, they have perpetuated and deepened the differences and hostilities among the combating religions. Overwhelming, objective, and independent evidence for one religion, with the lack of any such evidence for other religions, would allow sectarian combatants throughout the world to end these unnecessary wars and conflicts.

Mark Antonacci
Patrick Byrne


Posted 1 May 2012. Updated 4 June 2023

36 comments:

The Deuce said...

Hi Steve,
That's an interesting article, and I definitely agree regarding the nuttiness of Wesselow and Felzmann's conspiracy theories, but there's some stuff in there that conflicts with what I've heard, and I was wondering if you could comment on it:

- I had thought it was established that there was a starchy coating on the Shroud, and I've heard it asserted many times, but Antonacci says that there is no evidence for this. Which is correct?

- I had also thought it was established that the 1988 C-14 samples were all taken from a single corner of the cloth which was unrepresentative of the rest, and had a newer cotton weave in it which would have thrown off the date, but Antonacci disputes that too. If that's the case, then where were the samples taken from, and what's the explanation for the C-14 date? And why would Ray Rogers have screwed this up, since by his own account, he was trying to *disprove* the invisible reweave theory?

- Also, what's this "scientific evidence indicating that the body images on the Shroud resulted from a dehydration and oxidation process that develops over time"? Is Antonacci arguing for a "naturalistic" image formation himself (which seems unlikely since, as he earlier pointed out, no other such image has been produced in history), or a supernatural image formation that didn't become visible until later via a natural process?

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>I definitely agree regarding the nuttiness of Wesselow and Felzmann's conspiracy theories,

I hadn't heard of Felzmann before Mark sent me his review. But his `the Shroud is authentic but Jesus never died' theory is the same as the late Rodney Hoare's and it suffers from the problems: 1) Jesus would not have survived a ~100+ lashes scourging (far more than the usual), plus crucifixion by nails, plus being stabbed in the heart by a Roman lance; and he was certified dead by a Roman centurion; 2) the image on the Shroud has rigor mortis; and 3) even if Jesus had survived the crucifixion, He could not have fooled His disciples into thinking He had triumphed over death, when He would have been half-dead, and He would eventually have died of infection.

Then there is the problem of how the image was imprinted on the Shroud, if it was not a "snapshot of the resurrection."

De Wesselow's `the Shroud is authentic but Jesus did die' theory doesn't have those problems that Felzmann's has, but it does have the problem of explaining how the disciples (including St. Paul) could be so deluded as to believe that Jesus' image on the Shroud WAS His resurrected body!

>but there's some stuff in there that conflicts with what I've heard, and I was wondering if you could comment on it:
>
>- I had thought it was established that there was a starchy coating on the Shroud, and I've heard it asserted many times,

There may be some starch due to the process of making flax into linen but that is a far cry from claiming it is responsible for the image. The image at the microscopic level is ultra-sharp, not fuzzy as it would be if it was caused by a liquid or gas diffusion process.

As the photomicrograph of the Shroud face image area I posted in my blog post, `De Wesselow fails to answer the reasons why rational people accept the Shroud is a fake', the image is a yellowing of the surface of some of the topmost fibrils, and not others.

>but Antonacci says that there is no evidence for this. Which is correct?

There is no need to deny there may be some starch on the flax fibrils. But no chemical process could produce all the major features of the Shroud image (including x-ray images of the teeth and finger bones, as well as flower and coin images), which best fits the characteristics of a non-heat radiation scorch.

>- I had also thought it was established that the 1988 C-14 samples were all taken from a single corner of the cloth which was unrepresentative of the rest, and had a newer cotton weave in it which would have thrown off the date, but Antonacci disputes that too.

If he does, then he is wrong. Oxford lab actually found cotton (which presumably the other labs missed) that appeared to have been dyed yellow to make it look like old linen. See my post, "My response to: `The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it,' by Tom Chivers, The Telegraph, 20 December 2011."

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>If that's the case, then where were the samples taken from, and what's the explanation for the C-14 date?

The tiny `postage-stamp size' (~1.2 cm x 8 cm = ~0.47 inch x 3.15 inch) sample was taken from the much damaged bottom left-hand corner of the Shroud (frontal image upright) - what is called "the Raes corner."

>And why would Ray Rogers have screwed this up, since by his own account, he was trying to *disprove* the invisible reweave theory?

Agreed. But Rogers, although he was a Christian, wanted to find a naturalistic (non-miraculous) explanation for the Shroud image. He was a leading figure on the Naturalistic Evolution side in the Intelligent Design-Evolution struggle in New Mexico schools.

>- Also, what's this "scientific evidence indicating that the body images on the Shroud resulted from a dehydration and oxidation process that develops over time"?

That's what STURP found. Again you can see it for yourself on the photomicrograph I posted.

>Is Antonacci arguing for a "naturalistic" image formation himself (which seems unlikely since, as he earlier pointed out, no other such image has been produced in history), or a supernatural image formation that didn't become visible until later via a natural process?

Mark has his own theory, but I don't want to say what it is because: 1) I would have to re-read his book "Resurrection of the Shroud" to refresh my memory; and 2) I don't want to spark a debate with him down here in comments. Besides, you can read check out his "Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation" website and his "Reply to Ray Rogers" for yourself.

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

To Deuce; Dan won't answer it but I will. I've read Mark's book and his thinking of the image formation sides with Dr Jackson's theory exclusively, he pushes it pretty hard in his book. I tend to agree with Jackson's theory as it seems to cover all the attributes we find on the Shroud. But I'm at a loss to as why Mark could believe the image appeared over time, it really seems to contradict Jackson's theory. I would think the image would have appeared instantaneuosly, oh well. I'm really disappointed in some of Mark's remarks toward's Rogers findings when it comes to the 'patch' findings vs. others remarks as Rogers 'looked' into this far deeper then the others (thru a microscope) the others just eye-balled it! I think Rogers was right and the others, through maybe embarressment of being found wanting in their skill/ lack of knowledge, i.e;(Invisible reweaving)find it easier to just refute his work. I haven't seen any indepth research on thier part actually , just words.


_3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>To Deuce; Dan won't answer it but I will.

Did you mean "Stephen won't answer"? If so, I don't see it as my role to answer every question I get asked about the Shroud, especially if I don't know the answer off the top of my head and would have to spend time that I don't have researching it.

>I've read Mark's book and his thinking of the image formation sides with Dr Jackson's theory exclusively, he pushes it pretty hard in his book.

Thanks. I read Antonacci's book, "The Resurrection of the Shroud" a long time ago and I couldn't remember what his image formation theory was. I will re-read that part of it when I get time.

>I tend to agree with Jackson's theory as it seems to cover all the attributes we find on the Shroud.

Agreed. See my post "John P. Jackson, "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image" (1991)."

>But I'm at a loss to as why Mark could believe the image appeared over time, it really seems to contradict Jackson's theory.

It wouldn't contradict Jackson's theory if the image did appear over time. The ENEA report stated that at one setting of the excimer laser it obtained a latent image that appeared over time.

But I personally consider it less likely, unless it was a matter of only days. Everyone seems forget that the risen Jesus appeared to His disciples for "forty days" after His resurrection (Acts 1:3). If they hadn't already noticed the image, then surely Jesus would have pointed it out to them and given them approval to keep it?

>I would think the image would have appeared instantaneuosly, oh well.

I agree. It is the simplest theory.

>I'm really disappointed in some of Mark's remarks toward's Rogers findings when it comes to the 'patch' findings vs. others remarks as Rogers 'looked' into this far deeper then the others (thru a microscope) the others just eye-balled it!

Agreed. Benford and Marino also showed by STURP's "blue quad mosaic" photo of the Shroud that the area of the Shroud where the sample was taken from has a different chemical composition (i.e is comprised of different fibres) than the rest of the Shroud.

>I think Rogers was right and the others, through maybe embarressment of being found wanting in their skill/ lack of knowledge, i.e;(Invisible reweaving)find it easier to just refute his work. I haven't seen any indepth research on thier part actually , just words.

Agreed. Those who deny Benford & Marino's "invisible reweaving theory" need to explain: 1) why does the blue quad mosaic photo show the sample area is different? 2) why did Oxford lab did find dyed cotton in their sample (which presumably was also in the other labs' sample but they did not detect it)? and 3) what is their alternative explanation of the 14th century C14 date?

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.

Flagrum3 said...

Sorry Steve didn't mean anything by the statement, just figured exactly what you said; that you didn't have it at the top of your head. Plus I just recently finished reading Mark's book, for the second time, so it was fresh in my mind. Anyways as for the the Blue quad mosaic, that information was available to them prior to 1988when they chose the 'sample' from the Shroud and it is very clear even to a novice, that the area is definately different from the rest of the Shroud...It just makes you wonder even more about the legitimacy of the c14 dating fiasco. Anyways about the image formation over time, I read one researcher describe the image in laymens terms as "like the fibrels simply aged instantly and exponentially" ...can't remember who described it that way but to me that makes sense, and sure it may have gotten darken over several days but one would think the majority of the image was there instantly. Myself I don't take the c14 dating of 1988 with a grain of salt, not after researching deeply into the many issues and basically non adherence to basic protocols by those involved.

Thanks,

_3

Stephen E. Jones said...

>I read Antonacci's book, "The Resurrection of the Shroud" a long time ago and I couldn't remember what his image formation theory was. I will re-read that part of it when I get time.

Curiousity got the better of me! I re-read pp.215-232 of Antonacci's book. As I understand it, he accepts elements of Rinaudo's "Protonic Model" (pp.216-218) and Jackson's "Cloth Collapse Theory" (pp.218-222), but proposes his own "Historically Consistent Method" (pp.222-232) combining elements of both.

That is, Antonacci proposes that as the Shroud cloth collapsed into the space where Jesus' body had been, protons and alpha particles emitted caused both the body and other images, including some of the blood marks.

Jackson, in the video "What is Missing?" of his presentation of his theory at the 1991 St. Louis Symposium, had a problem with his theory accounting for fine details such as the letters on one of the coins over the eyes, but Antonacci's cloth collapse-alpha particle and proton radiation theory can account for that and more.

My own view is that in the "moment" (1Cor 15:52) [Gk. atome = atom of time, i.e. Planck time ~10^-43 seconds?] of Jesus' resurrection, as His body changed state and dimension from "perishable" to "imperishable" (1Cor 15:50-52); "lowly" to "glorious" (Php 3:21); it would probably have emitted a range of radiation, including nuclear (gamma, proton, neutron and alpha particles) and electromagnetic (x-rays, ultraviolet).

Only its extreme brevity of time in this dimension, and also that all the atoms in Jesus' body were not necessarily converted to energy in that His body was "changed", would prevent it from being a multi-megaton nuclear explosion according to E=mc^2, where the energy released E would be equivalent to the mass m of Jesus' (~75 kg?) body multiplied by the square of c, the velocity of light ~3.0 x 10^8 m/s!

So my position is that the image on the Shroud was probably the combined result of all those radiation types that could interact with and change the physical structure of the surface of the Shroud's topmost flax fibrils, doing so, in an extremely brief (even the briefest, 10^-43 seconds) period of time.

And also those types of radiation that could and did interact with teeth and finger bones, coins and flowers, and possibly some blood images which Antonacci claims are too sharp for it to have been caused by seeping into linen.

The parable of the blind men feeling different parts of an elephant and claiming that the part they focused on must be the whole, applies!

Therefore, on my eclectic view, Antonacci's "Historically Consistent Method" theory would be the closest approximation of the truth, without necessarily actually being the truth. Which is usually the case in science with other unique and unrepeatable historical events-we probably can never know for certain.

So thanks to F3 for prodding me to re-read Antonacci's theory!

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>Sorry Steve didn't mean anything by the statement, just figured exactly what you said; that you didn't have it at the top of your head.

And I am sorry that I took it the wrong way.

>Plus I just recently finished reading Mark's book, for the second time, so it was fresh in my mind.

Its a great book, with an awesome amount of detail. Definitely recommended as an essential part of any Shroud library.

>Anyways as for the the Blue quad mosaic, that information was available to them prior to 1988 when they chose the 'sample' from the Shroud

The leader of the C14 labs, and inventor of the AMS method, Prof. Harry Gove, had STURP eliminated from the C14 dating on the grounds that they were biased in that they were "convinced it was Christ's shroud":

"I believed STURP's members to be so convinced it was Christ's shroud that I was determined to prevent their involvement in its carbon dating, if that were ever to come about. I feared the most important measurement that could be made on the shroud would be rendered less credible by their participation. Fortunately in this I was successful." (Gove, H.E., "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud,", 1996, pp.6-7).

But that left only those to do the C14 dating who were biased in that they were convinced it was NOT Christ's shroud!

But in my experience of over a decade (1994-2005) debating Creation-Evolution and also doing a Biology degree (2000-2004), Philosophical Naturalists, which dominates science, are not even aware that they are biased!

Wearing my other blog, "Jesus is Jehovah!" `hat' in which I research and post against Jehovah's Witnessism, I am reading a book, "Captives of a Concept" by a former JW, Doug Cameron. Cameron's main point is that all JWs (including its leadership) are captives of the concept that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is "God's visible organization," His sole channel of communication to mankind. Therefore, once that concept is firmly in place in a JW's mind, he/she cannot question it, because to do so would be to question God.

The Bible in Col 2:8 even warns against allowing our minds to become "captive" to a "philosophy" which is "not according to Christ":

"See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ."

What Cameron writes is equally true of Philosophical Naturalists (e.g. Dawkins, Colin Berry, et al.) in that they are captives of the concept of Naturalism, that `nature is all there is: there is no supernatural.' Once that concept is in place in a Naturalist's mind, he/she cannot question it, because to do so would be to question their equivalent of God.

That is why Naturalists will always prefer a least worst naturalistic theory for a better supernaturalistic theory of the Shroud's image formation. They actually cannot think that the Shroud image could be a `snapshot' of Jesus resurrection.

That is why the agnostic art historian de Wesselow can become convinced that the Shroud is authentic on art history grounds, yet espouse the `Monty Pythonesque' theory that the image on the Shroud was Jesus' resurrection!

>and it is very clear even to a novice, that the area is definately different from the rest of the Shroud...

Agreed. But even some Shroud pro-authenticists, e.g. textile expert Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, and historian Ian Wilson, apparently do not see that.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>It just makes you wonder even more about the legitimacy of the c14 dating fiasco.

I don't "wonder" about. I firmly believe that the C14 date was illegitimate! In fact, since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud dates from at least the 6th century, that the C14 labs arrived at a combined average date of 1325 +/- 65, just ~30 years before the Shroud appeared in the undisputed historical record in Lirey, France in ~1355, it is almost inescapable that the labs' "medieval ... AD 1260-1390" date was the result of scientific fraud.

Not necessarily "the wholesale invention of data" but at least " selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case":

"The term `scientific fraud' is often assumed to mean the wholesale invention of data. But this is almost certainly the rarest kind of fabrication. Those who falsify scientific data probably start and succeed with the much lesser crime of improving upon existing results. Minor and seemingly trivial instances of data manipulation-such as making results appear just a little crisper or more definitive than they really are, or selecting just the `best' data for publication and ignoring those that don't fit the case-are probably far from unusual in science. But there is only a difference in degree between `cooking' the data and inventing a whole experiment out of thin air." (Broad, W.A. & Wade, N.J., "Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science," 1982, p.20).

After all, the C14 labs trump card, `if the Shroud is authentic, how come its C14 date `just happened' to be in "the fourteenth century, the earliest to which the shroud can be historically traced with any certainty":

"Hall's assistant, Dr Hedges ... dismissing suggestions that the shroud's radiocarbon content might have been altered by a burst of radiation from Christ's resurrection, [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud irradiated with neutrons?" _Nature_, 16 February 1989, p.594] added with some confidence that it was surely odd that this hypothetical burst should have been so precisely tuned to give a date of the fourteenth century, the earliest to which the shroud can be historically traced with any certainty. [Hedges, Ibid., p.594] (Wilson, I., "Holy Faces, Secret Places," 1991, p.12).

cuts both ways. Since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud is authentic then it is indeed "odd" that its C14 date `just happened" to be " a date of the fourteenth century, the earliest to which the shroud can be historically traced with any certainty"!

Since the Arizona and Zurich labs who did their dating months before Oxford (which itself makes it almost certain that the three labs would have communicated their results to each other), they presumably did not notice the yellow-dyed cotton that Oxford found, which would have meant that Arizona and Zurich's ~1350 dates would have been younger than Oxford's with the cotton removed.

But given the high profile of the test, and the struggle that the then new AMS method was in with its non-AMS rivals (as Gove's book states), it would have created a huge dilemma for them to admit they got it wrong. Oxford's Hall had funded his lab from his inherited private wealth and he received a million pounds from wealthy donors for his `success' in proving the Shroud was a fake.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

So what probably happened is that the labs agreed amongst each other to select "just the `best' data for publication" (i.e. those that were closest to the 14th century, with the cotton included) while "ignoring those that don't fit the case" (i.e. those that dated back to the earliest centuries - not necessarily 1st century because of contamination), dismissing those as anomalous outliers.

The labs shared prejudice that it was NOT "Christ's shroud" would have made it easier, if not inevitable, for a "group think" to operate which saw any very early dates as anomalies to be disregarded, and any 14th century dates to be selected as correct.

Given their shared Naturalistic blinders they may not even have seen this to be fraud, but merely exercising correct judgement in `selecting the wheat from the chaff'.

>Anyways about the image formation over time, I read one researcher describe the image in laymens terms as "like the fibrels simply aged instantly and exponentially" ...can't remember who described it that way but to me that makes sense, and sure it may have gotten darken over several days but one would think the majority of the image was there instantly.

That the Shroud's topmost flax fibrils prematurely aged due to the effects of radiation from Christ's resurrection, does not necessarily mean it had to be "instantly" but that seems more likely. Especially if there were multiple forms of radiation, i.e. ultraviolet light, alpha particles, etc.

>Myself I don't take the c14 dating of 1988 with a grain of salt, not after researching deeply into the many issues and basically non adherence to basic protocols by those involved.

To be fair, most (if not all) of the non-adherence to agreed protocols was the fault of the Vatican. It seems that the then Pope John Paul II, to minimise damage to the Shroud, ordered that the number of labs be reduced from 7 to 3 and that only one sample be taken from the most damaged site.

Gove says that the labs should have refused to do the dating but by they then had too much at stake. And when they did threaten to not do the dating after the reduction down to only 3 AMS labs, Turin threatened to carry out their own C14 test!

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the 'complete' reply to my post, it's much appreciated. Anyhow thru reading your comments it dawns on me you could probably right a whole blog on the C14 fiasco. There was alot of funky stuff going on back then!
I'm in the process of reading "The rape of the Shroud" by Meacham, actually just started it but I have read extensively on the matter before; many of the papers found on www.shroud.com for instance etc; and when one does read more into it, one wonders how people so easily excepted the results, but especially the scientific community?..It was a shameful example of science community/ naturalists bias as you say really.

Anyways, other then the choice of sample there is alot more to the adherence problems, as I am sure you are aware and more precisely in the labs procedures themselfs. I have mentioned before to you about the writings of Remi Van Haelst on the Nature paper and such, you did mention you would do a blog on the c14 dating in the future and I await patiently for it, but within Remi's investigation into the c14 tests he mentions a very important fact; that the actual samples the labs tested were actually 'under-weight' and did not meet the minimum weight required for 'proper' testing!!. Now if this is true and he seems to have pretty good evidence of it, how is it possible no one has mentioned this extremely important point?! ...Again one just wonders how no one questioned the quality of Nature paper results or it's 'supposed' peer-review.

Thanks,

_3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>... you could probably right a whole blog on the C14 fiasco.

I have already replied that I would when I finish my current series: "Four proofs that the AD 1260-1390 radiocarbon date for the Shroud has to be wrong!"

>.... when one does read more into it, one wonders how people so easily excepted the results, but especially the scientific community?..

The "scientific community" has no choice but to accept what it written in science journals.

>It was a shameful example of science community/ naturalists bias as you say really.

Actually it is not "shameful" from their Naturalistic perspective. Like the JWs they really believe they are right and we Christians are poor deluded fools.

I meant to add in my comment comparing the JWs and Naturalists being `captives to a concept' that we should pity them (as I do).

>... within Remi's investigation into the c14 tests he mentions a very important fact; that the actual samples the labs tested were actually 'under-weight' and did not meet the minimum weight required for 'proper' testing!!.

Yes, I have read that somewhere. Probably in the BSTS Newsletters I have scanned and Barrie Schwortz is adding to Shroud.com. See below.

>Now if this is true and he seems to have pretty good evidence of it, how is it possible no one has mentioned this extremely important point?!

It has been mentioned. For example in BSST Newsletter 29 which I have sent to Barrie and should be online in his next Shroud.com update in June:

"Episode 7. Bourcier de Carbon (1990) and Van Haelst (1990) re-worked the Nature statistical analysis, coming to the same conclusions as those evident in the body of the article: that the spread of the C14 measurements was greater than that allowed by the statistical analysis, the mediaeval mean thereby having no significance. Somewhere there was a variable which the statistical analysis had not taken into account, and which it was important to identify. (Van Haelst 1990). Episode 8. The laboratories persistently refused to produce their raw data or to carry out the control experiments requested. All objections were ignored, the carbon dating experts seeming interested only in the image and the identity of the forger. Episode 9. It became learned that the British Museum statistician, (who went un-named) agreed with the conclusions of the statistical analysis as re-worked by Van Haelst (letter of Dr. Tite to Van Haelst of Dec. 4th 1989 ...). Tite specifically wrote 'However the conclusions reached are essentially the same as ours, namely that the variation among the results of the Shroud was greater than that predicted on the quoted errors'." (Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, M.C., "The Dating of the Shroud to the Middle Ages: Episodes in a game of technological bluff," BSTS Newsletter, 29, September 1991, pp.10-11).

...Again one just wonders how no one questioned the quality of Nature paper results or it's 'supposed' peer-review.

Not everything in Nature is peer-reviewed. And I doubt the 1989 C14 dating of the Shroud paper was. Who could do it? The world's leading experts in AMS C14 dating were involved in that dating.

Besides, peer-review breaks down when the peers all share the same Naturalistic philosophy and what they are reviewing contradicts that philosophy.

E.g. in the Origin of Life the evidence is overwhelming that non-living chemicals could never spontaneously form the first living organism. But a peer-reviewed scientific journal would never publish that because it contradicts Naturalism.

Similarly, a peer-reviewed scientific journal would never publish a paper that concluded that the image on the Shroud was the result of Jesus' resurrection, even though the evidence overwehelmingly points to that being the truth!

The problem is that to a mind taken captive by the concept of Naturalism, it is the Truth!

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Steve I wasn't talking about the statistical analysis, that is common knowledge, but in one of his papers Van Haelst shows how when the labs actually cut thier samples down even furthur, the samples did not adhere to the minimum weight required for proper AMS testing...by several milligrams! This little known fact 'alone' is enough to disqualify the C14 tests done and I don't think there can be any dispute by anyone on that...as it is clear-cut.

"The science community has no choice but to accept" well I don't see them accepting R.Rogers paper of 2005!...funny how that works lol.
Although they will argue the Nature report was peer-reviewed, I agree, I think it highly unlikely it was and several papers written, which point out some very basic scientific errors in the report I think proves it.

I look forward to your C14 fiasco blog :-)

Thanks,

_3

The Deuce said...

So in the picture here (http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm), that blue-green area in the lower left is the corner that the C-14 samples were all taken from, right? And that picture was taken before the C-14 tests, right?!

That corner isn't just different from the rest of the Shroud. The difference is dramatic, with a very clear rectangular shape with straight edges to it! I had no idea the unrepresentative nature of the Raels corner was so blindingly obvious before you showed me that!

Were the researchers simply unaware of this picture when they ran the C-14 tests? Or were they aware of it and they just pretended it didn't exist?! Even apart from the invisible reweave theory, the photo makes it obvious that there's something wrong with that corner. And the crisp straight edges should've been an indication that it was due to some sort of human tampering!

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>... in one of his papers Van Haelst shows how when the labs actually cut thier samples down even furthur, the samples did not adhere to the minimum weight required for proper AMS testing...by several milligrams!

As I said, I have seen that somewhere, but I can't remember where. It might be in one of the old BSTS Newsletters I have scanned and sent to Barrie Schwortz for converting to PDF and posting to the BSTS part of Shroud.com.

>This little known fact 'alone' is enough to disqualify the C14 tests done and I don't think there can be any dispute by anyone on that...as it is clear-cut.

The problem is that there was some skullduggery by Turin's Giovanni Riggi who cut the sample from the Shroud, and subdivided the sample in three parts for each lab, and weighed each sub-sample. But it later transpired that he kept back some parts of the Shroud for himself, as revealed in Garza- Valdes' "DNA of God" (1999).

There is also a problem in that one of more of the three labs botched their measurements and weighing as well.

>"The science community has no choice but to accept" well I don't see them accepting R.Rogers paper of 2005!...funny how that works lol.

I meant the wider "science community" who read the 1988 C14 _Nature_ paper. I had to delete because of space, "A scientist outside his field is just another layman." What I meant was that the 1260-1390 C14 date would be accepted by the wider science community because few scientists are not C14 specialists and even fewer know anything to the contrary about the Shroud.

>Although they will argue the Nature report was peer-reviewed, I agree, I think it highly unlikely it was and several papers written, which point out some very basic scientific errors in the report I think proves it.

Even on its published data in _Nature_ the C14 dating of the Shroud was a shambles. Three C14 specialist labs, all dating the same tiny 8cm x 1.2cm piece of linen, subdivided into three approximately equal parts, using the same AMS method, dated the Shroud from a minimum of 615 years old to a maximum of 780 years old: a range of 165 years, or a variance of 26.8%!

And that is only their *best* results. Clearly something *major* was wrong. Like the labs were unwittingly dating a combination of 1st century linen plus 16th century cotton that had been invisibly rewoven into the Shroud in the area from where the C14 sample was taken.

>I look forward to your C14 fiasco blog :-)

Don't hold your breath. I'll get there in the end, but at my snail's pace it might not be for a year or so!

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Hi Steve, I know you have a policy here about answering to many posts but; One of the papers in which I got the information about the sample weights is on the shroud.com site, but you must look under; Scientific Papers and Articles...One paper that mentions the sample cutting, sizes, weights etc; quite well, is called; Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Hull. by Mark Oxley.There are several other excellent papers you will find there on the topic, some recent ones too.

Thanks for the great blog Steve ;-)

_3

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>So in the picture here (http://www.shroud.com/group/bluemosaic.htm), that blue-green area in the lower left is the corner that the C-14 samples were all taken from, right?

Not exactly. The blue-green left-hand corner, truncated triangular shape is the Holland cloth backing where there is no Shroud at all.

The Raes sample that had already been taken in 1973 is the small bright blue-white triangular shape point upwards. The C14 sample was taken from the greenish area to the right of the Raes sample.

See Dan Porter's Raes corner page.

It can be seen that the C14 sample is a different colour (green-red) of the red-yellow colour of the Shroud.

The green-red colour corresponds *exactly* with what it would be if the C14 sample was comprised of both linen and another material, e.g. starched cotton, which is what Oxford found.

>And that picture was taken before the C-14 tests, right?!

Yes, in 1978 as part of STURP's 5-day examination of the Shroud.

>That corner isn't just different from the rest of the Shroud. The difference is dramatic, with a very clear rectangular shape with straight edges to it!

That's the Holland cloth backing (see above) where there is no linen, to make a corner that can be held, without further damaging the Shroud itself, which had been damaged over the centuries by it being held by that corner.

>I had no idea the unrepresentative nature of the Raels corner was so blindingly obvious before you showed me that!

Ignoring the actual corner which is Holland cloth, the Raes corner of the Shroud itself was the *worst* possible site to take a representative sample of the Shroud from.

But to be fair to the C14 labs, the Pope (who is the Owner of the Shroud) apparently overrode everyone at the last minute, to make Turin give the labs a single sample (subdivided into three) only from that site, where it already was damaged, to minimise any further damage to the Shroud. Obtaining the best C14 date was apparently a lesser priority for the Vatican!

>Were the researchers simply unaware of this picture when they ran the C-14 tests?

As I previously commented, the C14 labs denied STURP any involvement in the C14 dating, so they probably would not have known about that photo. Indeed STURP may not have been aware of its significance until after the 1988 C14 dating. Marino and Benford may have been the first to realise its significance as supporting their invisible reweaving theory.

>Or were they aware of it and they just pretended it didn't exist?!

The C14 labs staff were all physicists with little knowledge of the Shroud, and biased to believe it was merely a 14th century fake. They were going to pretreat the linen to remove any carbon contamination from it, so they presumably assumed that it wouldn't matter that the sample they were given came from the most contaminated part of the Shroud.

>Even apart from the invisible reweave theory, the photo makes it obvious that there's something wrong with that corner. And the crisp straight edges should've been an indication that it was due to some sort of human tampering!

See above that you presumably are confusing the Holland cloth backing corner, where there is no linen, with the Shroud itself. Check out Dan's Raes corner page and also a full-length photo of the Shroud (e.g. ShroudScope's) to orient yourself where the C14 sample came from.

Stephen E. Jones

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>... One of the papers in which I got the information about the sample weights is ... Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Hull. by Mark Oxley. ...

Thanks. I had read that paper, so that is probably where I read about the Shroud samples weight mismatches.

Stephen E. Jones

The Deuce said...

Thanks Steve, I think that clears it up. Just to make sure I get it now, the big square is the missing lower left corner of the Shroud. The Raes piece and all of the C-14 samples were taken from the greenish area surrounding the missing corner.

*Before* the C-14 tests were done, Raes noticed that this area contained cotton threads, though he didn't realize that they were stitched into the Shroud, or that they were only in that area of the Shroud.

Also, *before* the C-14 tests were done, the Blue Quad Mosaic photos showed that area was chemically different from the rest of the Shroud.

The researchers who did the C-14 tests ignored those findings, either knowingly or out of culpable negligence (ie, they purposely ignored anyone who might have told them about them).

*After* the tests were done, Raes and Rogers both *independently* observed that the cotton threads were spliced into the the linen threads. Rogers also discovered various dyes in the cotton threads. It was also confirmed after the C-14 tests that the rest of the Shroud does *not* contain cotton or dyes, which explains why only this area has a greenish tint in the Blue Quad Mosaic photos.

Do I have all that right?

Stephen E. Jones said...

The Deuce

>Just to make sure I get it now, the big square is the missing lower left corner of the Shroud.

Yes, looking at the "blue quad mosaic" photo, the large four-sided green area on the left is the Holland cloth backing where the Shroud linen is missing.

>The Raes piece and all of the C-14 samples were taken from the greenish area surrounding the missing corner.

No. As Dan Porter's caption under his top right hand diagram on his page "The Raes Corner was an early indicator that something was wrong with the carbon 14 dating," states, "Raes Corner is small white area. The large white
area is a missing section of the Shroud."

On the blue quad mosaic photo, the C14 sample was taken from the green-red area to the right of the Holland cloth area and from an imaginary line between half and a quarter down it. Compare Dan Porter's diagram and the blue quad mosaic photo and you will get it.

In fact, all the photos are in Benford & Marino's online 2008 Ohio Shroud Conference paper, "Discrepancies in the Radiocarbon Dating Area of the Turin Shroud" so have a good long look at that.

>*Before* the C-14 tests were done, Raes noticed that this area contained cotton threads, though he didn't realize that they were stitched into the Shroud, or that they were only in that area of the Shroud.

Yes. From the traces of cotton Raes found in 1973 he assumed that the whole Shroud must have been woven on a loom which had also been used to weave cotton.

>Also, *before* the C-14 tests were done, the Blue Quad Mosaic photos showed that area was chemically different from the rest of the Shroud.

Yes, although no one took much notice of that in 1978 because they were not to know that in 1988 a C14 sample was going to be taken from that area.

>The researchers who did the C-14 tests ignored those findings, either knowingly or out of culpable negligence (ie, they purposely ignored anyone who might have told them about them).

Again, to be fair to the C14 labs, they had no part in the decision to take the sample from that area. It was a decision made entirely by the Church at the last minute.

But if the C14 labs had not sidelined STURP, they might have been able to alert the labs of the potential problems of taking the sample from that particular corner.

And it wasn't until long after the 1988 C14 dating of AD 1260-1390 that Benford and Marino in 2008 proposed their invisible reweave theory using the blue quad mosaic photo as evidence for it.

>*After* the tests were done, Raes and Rogers both *independently* observed that the cotton threads were spliced into the the linen threads.

Yes for Rogers but no for Raes who observed the cotton in his sample in ~1973.

>Rogers also discovered various dyes in the cotton threads.

Yes.

>It was also confirmed after the C-14 tests that the rest of the Shroud does *not* contain cotton or dyes, which explains why only this area has a greenish tint in the Blue Quad Mosaic photos.

Actually, looking at Benford & Marino's full blue quad mosaic photo in their Discrepencies paper, the greenish tinge is elsewhere, where it is unlikely that it was repaired with cotton in all those areas. So the green might be the absence of linen density, rather than the presence of cotton.

I.e. cotton would cause the lower linen density, but so could other things, e.g. the linen being thinner in some areas and the Holland cloth showing through it. This is supported by the Holland cloth, which is very dense linen, showing as being very green on the blue quad mosaic photo.

>Do I have all that right?

Yes and no. See above.

Stephen E. Jones

Flagrum3 said...

Actually Steve I think the Deuce is right; The Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area. The drawing of the sectioned cut-out areas on Dan's page is not accurate. The c14samples were taken from the area immediately beside the Raes cut-out. There should be no piece or border in between as shown in the drawing. This can be seen clearly if one views the actual video taken that day and from the cutout drawings found in the Oxley paper.The strip was devided into 6 pieces, one large piece kept by the diocese and then 5 pieces were individually cut as one was in a triagle shape. But the whole sample was adjacent to the Rae's sample taken and completely in what we view as the 'Green' area.

_3

Stephen E. Jones said...

Flagrum3

>Actually Steve I think the Deuce is right; The Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area.

Agreed that the the Raes sample and the c14 samples were all taken from the 'Green' area

But when Riggi cut part of the green area (as shown on the blue quad mosaic photo) from the Shroud, he kept back a "significant-size portion ... under Cardinal Ballestrero’s control as ‘reserve’" which also included "three fragments that he had trimmed away":

"Ten years after the STURP examination, Riggi again became a key player in Shroud matters when on April 21, 1988 the Shroud was secretly taken out of its storage container for samples to be cut from it for carbon dating purposes. Besides Riggi’s arranging the only videotaping of the event – at his own personal expense – it was he who throughout much of that day was in direct charge of everything that required some direct handling of the Shroud. Closely watched by the representatives of the three appointed carbon dating laboratories, he personally cut from one corner the agreed 7 x 1 cm sliver, then divided this into the portions already agreed as sufficient for each laboratory’s needs. This left over one significant-size portion kept back under Cardinal Ballestrero’s control as ‘reserve’, and also three fragments that he had trimmed away as unsuitable for, and superfluous to, the needs of the C14 testing." ("Professor Giovanni Riggi di Numana 1935-2008," BSTS Newsletter No. 67).

>The drawing of the sectioned cut-out areas on Dan's page is not accurate.

It is accurate. Check it out also on Benford & Marino's "Discrepancies" paper.

>The c14samples were taken from the area immediately beside the Raes cut-out. There should be no piece or border in between as shown in the drawing.

There is a border piece, kept as part of the a "reserve" by Riggi, between the Raes cut out and the Holland cloth gap, and the C14 sample.

>This can be seen clearly if one views the actual video taken that day and from the cutout drawings found in the Oxley paper.

Oxley's paper, "Evidence is not proof: A Response to Timothy Jull" shows Riggi's sketches with the areas kept by him as "reserve" shaded dark. The top dark area in his sketch is the side area between the Holland cloth and Raes sample gaps and the C14 sample.

>The strip was devided into 6 pieces, one large piece kept by the diocese and then 5 pieces were individually cut as one was in a triagle shape.

Yes: "one large piece kept by the diocese" as well as "three fragments that he had trimmed away".

>But the whole sample was adjacent to the Rae's sample taken and completely in what we view as the 'Green' area.

Agreed if by "whole sample" you mean the total of what Riggi cut from the Shroud. It was "adjacent to the Rae's sample taken" as well as the Holland cloth missing area of the Shroud.

But disagreed if by "whole sample" you mean the C14 sample, which was cut from the "whole sample" and then subdivided into 4 sub-samples: Arizona #1, Zurich, Oxford and Arizona #2, as well as the "reserve" sample pieces kept back by Riggi.

In fact Riggi cut the Arizona #2 part from his "reserve" when he found that Arizona's #1 C14 sub-sample was smaller than the other two lab's sub-samples.

Stephen E. Jones

Ayla said...

Hi Stephen,
I recently heard an interview with Thomas de Wesselow on the radio here in New Zealand (search www.radionz.co.nz to listen) and I found him very impressive. As an agnostic, I would have thought someone who spent 7 years scientific study to come up with the conclusion that the shroud was from Jerusalem in the 1st century and therefore probably that of Jesus, would please Christians. The personal theory regarding the resurrection which he follows this study up with is interesting. I can relate to it as I know someone even in this millenium who, as a result of belonging to a traditional Indian religion, does believe that an image contains God.
As the gospels were not written until after the time of the appearances, I can well imagine the image containing God and the resurrected body would be viewed as one and the same. Yes I did read Mark's review and most of the discussion above and I understand there is much challenge to de Wesselow's theory of how the image was produced. But for those of us trained in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation, and I find your explanation extremely way out!
Ayla.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Ayla

Thanks for your comment. After I clicked the Moderate link on my email notification, I could not find it on my Blogger Awaiting Moderation page. Then I checked my Spam Blogger page and there were both of your presumably identical messages. So after marking them both Not Spam, I deleted the first copy and published this second copy. I have no idea why Blogger put your comments in Spam. It wasn't my doing since as far as I know these are the only two comments I have had from you.

>I recently heard an interview with Thomas de Wesselow on the radio here in New Zealand (search www.radionz.co.nz to listen) and I found him very impressive.

I have never heard de Wesselow speak (I have ordered his book) but I have no doubt that to those who know little about the Shroud and/or Christianity, he could appear to be "very impressive."

But presumably he was not "very impressive" enough even for you, as you don't say that you now accept that the Shroud of Turin is authentic?

>As an agnostic, I would have thought someone who spent 7 years scientific study to come up with the conclusion that the shroud was from Jerusalem in the 1st century and therefore probably that of Jesus, would please Christians.

Most Christians in my experience don't know or care about the Shroud. Therefore they would have taken little or no notice of de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic, but Jesus was not bodily resurrected, the image on the Shroud being Jesus' `resurrection'.

Speaking for those Christians like me who are persuaded by the evidence that the Shroud is authentic, I would expect that like me they are: 1) pleased that an agnostic art historian has, on art history grounds alone, come to the conclusion that the Shroud cannot be a medieval or earlier forgery and therefore it must be authentic; but (2) bemused by de Wesselow's absurd claim that the earliest Christians mistook the appearances of the resurrected Jesus recorded in the Gospels and Acts for Jesus' image on the Shroud.

See my two-part critique of de Wesselow's theory beginning with "My comments on a Telegraph article about Thomas de Wesselow's claim that the Shroud is authentic but Jesus was not resurrected #1".

>The personal theory regarding the resurrection which he follows this study up with is interesting. I can relate to it as I know someone even in this millenium who, as a result of belonging to a traditional Indian religion, does believe that an image contains God.

You contradict yourself. You claim to be an "agnostic", in which case you should believe that we can have no knowledge of God. Yet you are quoting approvingly against me "someone" who believes "that an image contains God".

I am well-used to this tactic employed against me by atheists/agnostics in the ~11 years (1994-2005) that I debated Creation/Evolution/Design on the Internet. They would often quote another religions' claim as evidence against Christianity. My standard answer to them was (and to you is): "Why should I accept as true an argument from you that you don't even accept as true?"

Your (and de Wesselow's) problem is that as agnostics, who believe that we cannot even know that God exists, you cannot accept that Jesus really was bodily resurrected by God from the dead, and that the image on the Shroud is tangible evidence of that, without you having to abandon your agnostic position and becoming Christians. So you must find some alternative explanation for the image on the Shroud.

Most atheist/agnostic simply dismiss the Shroud as not authentic (as presumably you do) but to de Wesselow's credit, as an art historian,he could not do that.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

So the only alternative left for de Wesselow was to somehow explain away the resurrection of Jesus, and that the image on the Shroud was Jesus' resurrection was de Wesselow's personal resolution of his conflict.

>As the gospels were not written until after the time of the appearances, I can well imagine the image containing God and the resurrected body would be viewed as one and the same.

You are confusing the first Christian eye-witnesses of Jesus' resurrection with the final writing of the Gospels in their current form.

But that there were proto-Gospels from the beginning, composed by some of those eye-witnesses is evident in: 1) The Apostle Peter's embedded speech in Acts 2:14-41 delivered only 50 days after Jesus' resurrection and proclaiming it (referring to Jesus empty tomb as proof which de Wesselow claims had Jesus' body, not Jesus' image on the Shroud); and

2) the Apostle Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth (AD 53-55), in which he refers to him having told them previously, and in which he uses the technical scribal language of receiving a written tradition ("delivered ... received"), and which contains within it (a Greek document) an old Aramaic name for the Apostle Peter "Cephas," indicating it originated in the earliest Jerusalem church probably within a decade of Jesus' resurrection in AD 30-33:

1 Corinthian 15:1-9 "15 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you- unless you believed in vain. 3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God."

Note that that same earliest written Christian record also details the names and numbers of the earliest Christians who were eyewitnesses to Jesus' resurrection. Two of them, James and Paul himself were opposed to Christianity; indeed Paul "persecuted the church of God."

That they are all really referring to Jesus image on the Shroud when they claimed, "that Christ died .... he was buried, that he was raised on the third day ... and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive ..." is simply absurd!

It is on a par with the absurd claim by an scholar of yesteryear who claimed that Christianity was based on the the worship of a "sacred mushroom"!

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>Yes I did read Mark's review and most of the discussion above and I understand there is much challenge to de Wesselow's theory of how the image was produced.

Indeed there is. As I pointed out in my abovementioned two-part critique of de Wesselow's theory: 1) Why would there even be an image on the Shroud if Jesus was not resurrected? There aren't any other similar images on the thousands of burial shrouds known to archaeology;

2) Even if there was an image imprinted on Jesus' shroud, it would be on the inside next to Jesus' body and the disciples, being devout Jews for whom to touch a dead body was "unclean" would have no reason to remove the shroud from Jesus' body to see if there was an image on its inside surface;

3) The disciples could not remove the Shroud from Jesus' bloodstained body without breaking the blood clots adhering to both His body and the Shroud, yet the blood clots on the Shroud are unbroken.

>But for those of us trained in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation, and I find your explanation extremely way out!

Your attempt at a scientific put-down is noted, but it is misplaced. I am "trained in science" also, having a B.Sc. (Biological Sciences) degree and am a part-time Science/Maths teacher.

You are also misstating "in science the truth is usually the simplest explanation," i.e. Ockham's Razor. That is only a tie-breaker to be used to decide between two or more theories equally well-supported by the evidence. But it is the scientific evidence that in fact is a major part of the support for the Shroud's authenticity!

But your problem is not "science" but your prior philosophical/theological position of "agnostic" which biases you against giving weight to, and accepting the overwhelming evidence for, that Christianity is true and that the Shroud of Turin bears the image of the Founder of Christianity's crucified and resurrected body!

Stephen E. Jones, B.Sc., Grad. Dip. Ed.
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.

Ayla said...

Good reply, thanks.
I apologise for the putdown, but I really can't get my head around the radiation/Xray theory.
The reason I have become interested in this is that as a result of hearing the interview with de Wesselow, I do now believe that the shroud is that of Jesus. Why else would such a thing have been kept?
As to why it might have been taken off the dead body, apparently that is explained in the book as follows:
A very hurried burial was done on the Friday night, as this activity was not permitted on the Sabbath. There had been no time to do the traditional practices of annointing the body. This was what the women returned to the tomb to do, necessitating the removal of the shroud.
I don't have an agenda, I really just wanted to express that this man is "spreading the word" that the shroud is real, and it is reaching people like me. We can tell the difference between the 2 parts of his book - scientific and theoretical.
I do think it is a possibility though, as de Wesselow suggests, that there is a huge difference in the way the minds of unsophisticated people from those times operated and the way ours do today, we who are so used to seeing visual representations everywhere. That was my point in highlighting the parallel with traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship. How those present day practitioners who also live in our modern world manage the internal conflict I do not know. But the world was very different 2000 years ago.
Ayla.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Ayla

>Good reply, thanks.

You're welcome.

>I apologise for the putdown,

Apology accepted.

>but I really can't get my head around the radiation/Xray theory.

If a physical body changes state, it emits radiation, which can include xrays. Paul tells us (indirectly) that Jesus' resurrected body changed state, from "perishable" to "imperishable":

1Cor 15:42,50-53. "42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ... 50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality."

While Paul is talking about the resurrection of Christians, elsewhere he makes it clear that the resurrection body of Christians is going to be the same as that of Jesus:

Php 3:20-21. "20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself."

>"The reason I have become interested in this is that as a result of hearing the interview with de Wesselow, I do now believe that the shroud is that of Jesus.

Great!

>Why else would such a thing have been kept?

Agreed! Why would the disciples leave behind for grave robbers, Jesus' Shroud in the now open tomb? The Shroud through which He had been resurrected!

>As to why it might have been taken off the dead body, apparently that is explained in the book as follows:
>A very hurried burial was done on the Friday night, as this activity was not permitted on the Sabbath.
>
>There had been no time to do the traditional practices of annointing the body. This was what the women returned to the tomb to do, necessitating the removal of the shroud.

De Wesselow is using `cafeteria theology'. Selecting those parts of the Bible he likes and rejecting those he doesn't.

All four Gospels (Mt 28:2-8; Mk 16:2-8; Lk 24:1-11; Jn 20:1-2) state that when the women got to the tomb to do the anointing, the stone had been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb, Jesus' body was not there, and in His place there was an angel telling them that Jesus had risen.

Here is Mark's account:

Mk 16:2-8. 2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to one another, `Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?' 4 And looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled back- it was very large. 5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, `Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

And both Luke's (Lk 24:12) and John's Gospels records that Jesus' linen burial clothes were left behind in the tomb. Here is John's account:

Jn 20:6-8. "6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed;"

If de Wesselow conceals that from his readers then he is deliberately misleading them.

>I don't have an agenda, I really just wanted to express that this man is "spreading the word" that the shroud is real, and it is reaching people like me. We can tell the difference between the 2 parts of his book - scientific and theoretical.

As I said, "great" that people like yourself who otherwise would not believe the Shroud was authentic, do so after reading de Wesselow's book.

But not "great" if they also believe de Wesselow's claim in the second part of his book, that Jesus' resurrection was the Shroud.

>I do think it is a possibility though, as de Wesselow suggests, that there is a huge difference in the way the minds of unsophisticated people from those times operated and the way ours do today, we who are so used to seeing visual representations everywhere.

The Jewish, Greek and Roman people in those great civilisations of Jesus' day were not "unsophisticated." They just didn't have our technology.

And they were more used to "seeing visual representations everywhere" than we are. As I pointed out in my two part critique of de Wesselow's theory, Acts 17:16 records that Athens was "full of idols."

"Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.

And the disciples would not have needed to be sophisticated to tell the difference between a faint, monochrome image on linen, and the real, resurrected Jesus who appears in a locked room, speaks to them and invites one of their number to feel His wounds:

Jn 20:26-30 "26 Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them. Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, `Peace be with you.' 27 Then he said to Thomas, `Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.' 28 Thomas answered him, `My Lord and my God!' 29 Jesus said to him, `Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.'

The fact is that de Wesselow is deceiving both himself and his readers. It would be more honest of him to come right out and state what he is really saying, that the accounts of Jesus' resurrection in the New Testament are just a pack of lies, told by a bunch of unsophisticates who removed the burial cloth off their crucified leader's body, noticed his image on it, and then imagined that the image on the burial cloth was him resurrected!

[continued]

Stephen E. Jones said...

[continued]

>That was my point in highlighting the parallel with traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship. How those present day practitioners who also live in our modern world manage the internal conflict I do not know. But the world was very different 2000 years ago.

It is a false comparison between "traditional Indian religions which practice idol worship" and the inhabitants of the great Jewish, Greek and Roman cities "2000 years ago" and their surrounding civilisations.

That world wasn't as different from ours as you think. In our universities students still study the great classical authors of that period for insights into our modern world. And every Sunday in Christian churches around the world the "2000 years ago" writings of the New Testament are expounded and applied to hundreds of millions of modern lives.

And again, even an Indian who practices idol worship can tell the difference between a real person, standing before him, speaking to him, and asking him to feel his body, and the faint, monochrome dead image of that person on a linen sheet!

Ayla, see above my policy that to avoid me becoming entangled in endless Internet debates, which in my experience usually go nowhere and are therefore a waste of time, I usually only allow each person one comment under each of my post. So you have had your last comment under this post. But if you want to comment further under my other posts about de Wesselow's theory you may.

Stephen E. Jones

Anonymous said...

" the Man on the Shroud has only a faint beard and moustache. But this is hardly a "significant difference"! Indeed this faint `negative' image is what the PM's artist would have seen, only fainter because photography tends to enhance the Shroud's image. So far from it being a problem, the lightness of the PM's beard and no moustache is actually more evidence that the PM was copied directly from the Shroud!"

No, you get it wrong. The shroud's image was all but faint in medieval times.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>>" the Man on the Shroud has only a faint beard and moustache. But this is hardly a "significant difference"! Indeed this faint `negative' image is what the PM's artist would have seen, only fainter because photography tends to enhance the Shroud's image. So far from it being a problem, the lightness of the PM's beard and no moustache is actually more evidence that the PM was copied directly from the Shroud!"

>No, you get it wrong. The shroud's image was all but faint in medieval times.

Please cite the evidence for your assertion. Thanks.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Anonymous said...

Here's a link

http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/assets/docs/qs58p30.pdf

It's in french, I can translate the parts where the author writes about the image being very less pale in the past if you wish.

Anonymous said...

I forgot to tell you, although I don't agree with what you say, I do appreciate your blog.

Patrick

Stephen E. Jones said...

Anonymous

>Here's a link
>
>http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/assets/docs/qs58p30.pdf

Sorry, but I don't accept bare links as a substitute for argument. Although I haven't yet made this an explicit policy, it was my long-standing policy on my now closed Yahoo discussion group.

I have in the past deleted comments here as "substandard" when they were basically a bare link and I nearly deleted yours for the same reason.

One reason is that I want those who comment to state THEIR argument even if it is a quote.

Another is both I and my readers should not all have to go off and look at a third-party site because a commenter is too lazy (or whatever) to state here the point he is actually making.

>It's in french,

Especially if it's in a foreign language! Do you expect all of US who don't speak French to have to, in addition, use Google translate to help you make YOUR argument?

>I can translate the parts where the author writes about the image being very less pale in the past if you wish.

Please yourself. It's YOUR argument, not mine.

Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. I reserve the right to respond to any comment as a separate blog post.

Stephen E. Jones said...

Patrick

>I forgot to tell you, although I don't agree with what you say, I do appreciate your blog.

Thanks.

Stephen E. Jones