Thursday, December 27, 2018

Dirt #30: Other marks and images: The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!

DIRT #30
Copyright © Stephen E. Jones[1]

This is part #30, "Other marks and images: Dirt," of my series, "The evidence is overwhelming that the Turin Shroud is authentic!" For more information about this series, see the "Main index #1" and "Other marks and images #26." See also, "The Shroud of Turin: 2.6. The other marks (3): Dirt ." Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated. To save time I had trialed in this post progressively updating the whole post in each installment and as it grew longer, using temporary number-letter footnotes which I converted to sequential numbers near the final installment. I will continue doing that in future long posts.

[Main index #1] [Previous: `Poker holes' #29] [Next: Flower & plant images #31]


    Other marks and images #26
    1. Dirt #30

Introduction There is dirt on the nose, left knee and feet of the man on the Shroud[2].

[Above (enlarge): Bloodstained images of the feet, on the dorsal (back) side of the Shroud[3]. The dorsal image is upside down (see Shroud Scope). The man's right foot (apparent left foot because of mirror reversal)[4] is on our left. The imprint and bloodstain of His left foot is smaller due to it having not fully touched the cloth[5]. This was because it was forced over his right foot and both feet were transfixed by a single nail[6]. Then at the man's death on a cross, his legs and feet were fixed by rigor mortis in that crucifixion position[7]. There are also microscopic traces of dirt in this feet area of the Shroud, but they are not readily seen with the unaided eye (see below).]

Dirt on the nose There are traces of dirt on the tip of the nose of the man on the Shroud[8]. This and the dirt on the left knee (below) indicate that the man fell forward onto a hard, dusty surface with his hands unable to break his fall[9]. This is consistent with the Gospel accounts that Jesus went out from Jerusalem bearing his own cross (Jn 19:17), but on the way to the site of crucifixion, Golgotha (Mt 27:33; Mk 15:22; Jn 19:17) [which still exists - see 08May18], a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, was compelled by the Romans to carry Jesus' cross for Him (Mt 27:32; Mk 15:21; Lk 23:26)[10].

Dirt on the left knee The Shroudman also has traces of dirt on his left knee[11]. Experiments have shown that a right-handed man carrying a crossbeam over his shoulder, with both hands tied to it, if he stumbles, will fall on his left knee[12]. This and the dirt on his nose (above), is consistent with the man on the Shroud being Jesus, who started out carrying His cross, was unable to continue, so the Romans compelled a passerby, Simon of Cyrene, to carry Jesus' crossbeam for him (see above). This would have been only necessary if Jesus, carrying a heavy crossbeam on His shoulders, tied to His hands, and weakened by a severe scourging (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15) [see 15Jul13], stumbled, fell on His left knee and then face[13], and was unable to continue[14].

Dirt on the feet There are microscopic traces of dirt on the soles of the feet of the dorsal image of the man on the Shroud[15]. During STURP's 1978 investigation of the Shroud, husband and wife team Roger and Marty Gilbert discovered using reflectance spectroscopy [right[16]] that there was a markedly different light spectra in the feet area than the rest of the Shroud[17]. When STURP optical engineer Sam Pellicori examined the heel area under a microscope at 500 times magnification[18], he found there was dirt there unlike anywhere else on the Shroud[19]. It was likely transferred to the Shroud from the feet of a barefoot man[20].

In 1986 optical crystallographer Dr Joseph Kohlbeck of the Hercules Aerospace Laboratory in Salt Lake City, Utah, with the assistance of Dr Riccardo Levi-Setti (1927–2018) of the University of Chicago, using a scanning ion microprobe[21], reported that dirt on a fibre from the Shroud's heel area contained travertine aragonite, a comparatively rare form of limestone[22]. And travertine aragonite is the type of the limestone in the Jerusalem rock tombs[23]! Moreover, Kohlbeck and Levi-Setti

[Above: Dr Ricardo Levi-Setti's scanning ion microprobe comparisons of Jerusalem limestone (black) and limestone on Shroud (red)[24]. The Jerusalem limestone came from near the Damascus Gate, which is the gate closest to Golgotha[25]. The Shroud sample analysed was from the same foot area of the Shroud where Roger and Marty Gilbert had found the abovementioned dirt[26]. As can be seen above, from their spectral patterns it was clear that the Shroud and Jerusalem tomb limestone samples were a very close match[27]. Both the Shroud and the Jerusalem samples contained small amounts of iron and strontium, but no lead[28]. They would have been an even closer match but for a slight organic variation due to particles of flax which could not be separated from the Shroud's calcium[29].]

found that the spectral signature of the travertine aragonite limestone dust on the heel of the man on the Shroud, very closely matched that of the samples from Jerusalem tombs (see above)[30]!

Problem for the forgery theory. (see previous three: #27, #28 and #29). The dirt on the feet is subliminal[31] (i.e. it is just above the threshold of human perception[32], so it can be seen with the unaided eye only if one knows where to look for it[41]). So it cannot reasonably be ascribed to a hypothetical artist-forger because he himself would have barely seen it, so there was no reason for him to put it there, since others viewing his work would not have seen it[34]. It was only by reflectance spectroscopy and a microscope that the dirt on the foot was identified[35]. That there are microscopic traces of limestone dust on the feet of the man on the Shroud, that limestone is the comparatively rare travertine aragonite found in Jerusalem rock tombs, and the spectral signal of the limestone on the feet of the Shroudman very closely matches that of Jerusalem tombs, is evidence that rather than being merely a painting, or a statue, the Shroud really had once wrapped the body of a scourged [15Jul13] and crucified[02Dec13] man, who had been entombed in the environs of Jerusalem[36]!

Conclusion According to the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud," 1260-1390[37], i.e. 1325 ±65 years, was "the time when the flax used to make the shroud's linen was harvested"[38]. So the hypothetical 13th-14th century forger would have had to obtain limestone dust from around Jerusalem's tombs, not knowing that it was the comparatively rare travertine aragonite limestone, since aragonite was only named in 1797[39]. Let alone him knowing that Jerusalem limestone had a very special spectral signal. The sceptical alternative that the forger obtained the Shroud as a linen sheet from Jerusalem, which just happened to have Jerusalem limestone dirt at exactly the right places on the nose, left knee and soles of the feet, is clearly effectively impossible. But then why would the forger go to so much trouble, when: 1) he applied the Jerusalem limestone dirt so faintly that his viewers could not see it; and 2) they would have been satisfied with much less:

"Also is it not rather incredible that this unknown individual [medieval forger] should have gone to so much trouble and effort to deceive in an age in which, as twentieth-century journalists have reminded us, a large proportion of the populace would have been very easily duped by a feather of the Archangel Gabriel or a phial of the last breath of St Joseph?"[40]
After all, as Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory's Director, Professor Edward Hall (1924-2001) pointed out, all that a 13th-14th century forger would have needed to do was, `get a bit of linen, fake it up and flog [sell] it':
"There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it"[41].
So again (see #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #14, #28 & #29) the evidence is overwhelming that the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud was WRONG!

To be continued in the next part #31 of this series.

Notes
1. This post is copyright. I grant permission to quote from any part of this post (but not the whole post), provided it includes a reference citing my name, its subject heading, its date and a hyperlink back to this page. [return]
2. Heller, J.H., 1983, "Report on the Shroud of Turin," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, p.152; Iannone, J.C., 1998, "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, pp.59, 71; Antonacci, M., 2000, "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, pp.32, 109, 120; Guerrera, V., 2001, "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity," TAN: Rockford IL, p.65. [return]
3. Extract from Latendresse, M., 2010, "Shroud Scope: Durante 2002 Vertical," Sindonology.org. [return]
4. Bucklin, R., 1970, "The Legal and Medical Aspects of the Trial and Death of Christ," Medicine, Science and the Law, January; Wilson, I., 1979, "The Shroud of Turin: The Burial Cloth of Jesus?," [1978], Image Books: New York NY, Revised edition, p.30; Case, T.W., 1996, "The Shroud of Turin and the C-14 Dating Fiasco," White Horse Press: Cincinnati OH, p.23; Tribbe, F.C., 2006, "Portrait of Jesus: The Illustrated Story of the Shroud of Turin," Paragon House Publishers: St. Paul MN, Second edition, p.267. [return]
5. Barnes, A.S., 1934, "The Holy Shroud of Turin," Burns Oates & Washbourne: London, pp.64-65; de Wesselow, T., 2012, "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, p.144. [return]
6. Bucklin, R., 1982, "The Shroud of Turin: Viewpoint of a Forensic Pathologist," Shroud Spectrum International, No. 5, December, pp.3-10; Heller, 1983, p.216. [return]
7. Wuenschel, E.A., 1954, "Self-Portrait of Christ: The Holy Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Esopus NY, Third printing, 1961, pp.46-47; Bucklin, 1970; Zugibe, F.T., 1988, "The Cross and the Shroud: A Medical Enquiry into the Crucifixion," [1982], Paragon House: New York NY, Revised edition, p.132; Petrosillo, O. & Marinelli, E., 1996, "The Enigma of the Shroud: A Challenge to Science," Scerri, L.J., transl., Publishers Enterprises Group: Malta, pp.166, 196; Bucklin, R., 1997, "An Autopsy on the Man of the Shroud," Third International Scientific Symposium on the Shroud of Turin, Nice, France, 12 May; Ruffin, C.B., 1999, "The Shroud of Turin: The Most Up-To-Date Analysis of All the Facts Regarding the Church's Controversial Relic," Our Sunday Visitor: Huntington IN, pp.25, 111; Antonacci, 2000, p.32; Tribbe, 2006, pp.234-235.; de Wesselow, 2012, pp.144-145. [return]
8. Bucklin, 1982; Iannone, 1998, pp.56, 59; Antonacci, 2000, p.32; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
9. Heller, 1983, p.152; Bucklin, R, 1998, "The Shroud of Turin: A Pathologist's Viewpoint," in Minor, M., Adler, A.D. & Piczek, I., eds., 2002, "The Shroud of Turin: Unraveling the Mystery: Proceedings of the 1998 Dallas Symposium," Alexander Books: Alexander NC, pp.271-279, 274; Antonacci, 2000, pp.32-33; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
10. Antonacci, 2000, p120. [return]
11. Heller, 1983, p.152; Iannone, 1998, pp.56, 59; Antonacci, 2000, p.32; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
12. Wilson, I., 1986, "The Evidence of the Shroud," Guild Publishing: London, p.22; Iannone, 1998, p.56. [return]
13. Antonacci, 2000, pp.32-33, 120; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
14. Ricci, G., "Historical, Medical and Physical Study of the Holy Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., 1977, "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, p.69; Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., 1981, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, pp.44-45; Iannone, 1998, p.55; Ruffin, 1999, p.43; Oxley, M., 2010, "The Challenge of the Shroud: History, Science and the Shroud of Turin," AuthorHouse: Milton Keynes UK, p.165. [return]
15. Heller, 1983, pp.152, 216; Jackson, J.P., "An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain all Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image," 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, pp.325-344, 328; Iannone, 1998, p.59. [return]
16. "Reflectance difference spectroscopy," Wikipedia, 16 September 2017. [return]
17. Heller, 1983, p.112; Ruffin, 1999, p.84; Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., 2000, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, pp.92-93; Wilson, I., 2010, "The Shroud: The 2000-Year-Old Mystery Solved," Bantam Press: London, pp.65-66; Oxley, 2010, p.210. [return]
18. Maloney, P.C., 2002, "Science, Archaeology, and the Shroud of Turin," Approfondimento Sindone, 1 September. [return]
19. Heller, 1983, p.112. [return]
20. Jackson, 1991, p.328; Borkan, M., 1995, "Ecce Homo?: Science and the Authenticity of the Turin Shroud," Vertices, Duke University, Vol. X, No. 2, Winter, pp.18-51, 28; Iannone, 1998, p.59. [return]
21. Guscin, M., 1998, "The Oviedo Cloth," Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, p.79; Wilson, I., 1998, "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, p.105; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
22. Guscin, 1998, p.79; Iannone, 1998, p.59; Guerrera, 2001, p.65; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
23. Guscin, 1998, p.79; Antonacci, 2000, p.109; Guerrera, 2001, p.65. [return]
24. Kohlbeck, J.A. & Nitowski, E.L., 1986, "New evidence may explain image on Shroud of Turin," Biblical Archeological Review, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp.23-24. [return]
25. Guscin, 1998, p.79. [return]
26. Kohlbeck & Nitowski, 1986. [return]
27. Wilson, 1998, p.106. [return]
28. Wilson, 1998, p.105. [return]
29. Wilson, 1998, p.106. [return]
30. Antonacci, 2000, p.109; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
31. Jackson, 1991, p.328; Borkan, 1995, p.28. [return]
32. Ruffin, 1999, p.84. [return]
33. Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
34. Heller, 1983, p.112; Jackson, 1991, p.328; Borkan, 1995, p.28; Guscin, 1998, p.79; Iannone, 1998, p.71. [return]
35. Guscin, 1998, p.79. [return]
36. Jackson, 1991, p.328; Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.93. [return]
37. Damon, P.E., et al., 1989, "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, pp.611-615. [return]
38. Gove, H.E., 1996, "Relic, Icon or Hoax?: Carbon Dating the Turin Shroud," Institute of Physics Publishing: Bristol UK, pp.7, 264; Hulse, T.G., 1997, "The Holy Shroud," Weidenfeld & Nicolson: London, p.28; Wilson, 1998, p.106. [return]
39. "Aragonite," Wikipedia, 29 October 2018. [return]
40. Wilson, 1998, pp.59-60). [return]
41. Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., 1988, "Turin Shroud shown to be a fake," The Independent, 14 October, in Wilson, 1998, p.7; Oxley, 2010, p.221. [return]

Posted: 27 December 2018. Updated: 25 February 2019.

No comments: