Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #4

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ...Continued from part #3 with the implicit assumption behind the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin, that "3) there has been no additional neutron source that would be creating C-14 from N-14."

[Above: Nuclear radiation image of Dr. August Accetta, in Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," 2000, p.131]

And, having shown in part #3 that the image on the Shroud is "some kind of scorch," that "somehow `projected' across space onto the cloth," "which has thus far eluded all attempts at duplication" and "has no natural counterpart," now for my posting of what I claim is the main reason why assumption 3) above is wrong.

Which is if the Shroud is indeed the sheet that was covering Jesus' body when He was resurrected, then the change of state of His body into a "glorious body" (Php 3:21), a "spiritual body" (1 Cor 15:42-44), which could pass through walls and locked doors (Jn 20:19,26); and which the disciples Peter, James and John had a preview of at Jesus' transfiguration (Gk. metamorphoo) in Mt 17:1-2 = Mk 9:2; would have emitted radiation which imprinted Jesus' image (as well as the images of plants and possibly a Roman coin) onto the linen.

Leading sindonologist and historian Ian Wilson, in his 1978 book "The Turin Shroud," i.e. ten years before the 1988 radiocarbon of the Shroud, also drew the conclusion that "the image is some form of scorch" because "Spectroscopically `body,' `blood,' and burn-mark features all recorded the same intensity":

"Either way, the deduction must be that, if the Shroud image was formed neither by human artifice nor by ordinary natural means, it must have been by some unknown image-forming process. It is in attempting to define something of the nature of this third alternative that we arrive at the Shroud's paramount mystery. ... With regard to the image-forming process itself .. A far more promising suggestion has been that the image is some form of scorch, the color being the sepia of the first stage of the oxidation process preliminary to actual burning. ... This idea gained credibility ... at the 1973 exposition. On close study of the Shroud color there seemed a great similarity between the character of the scorches from the 1532 fire and the tones of the body image. Just over three years later the validity of this subjective impression was demonstrated scientifically at Albuquerque. ... Spectroscopically `body,' `blood,' and burn-mark features all recorded the same intensity. ... the implication for future research was self-evident-the Shroud image had pronounced similarities to a scorch. The obvious question is how a genuine dead body, cold in the tomb, could produce some kind of burning or radiance sufficient to scorch cloth, acting in so controlled a manner that it dissolved and fused blood flows onto the cloth, yet created at the same time the perfect impression of a human body? The concept is mind-boggling. Yet, if the evidence already presented for the Shroud's authenticity is to be believed, something along these lines appears to be the only explanation." (Wilson, I., "The Turin Shroud," Book Club Associates: London, 1978, pp.207-209. Emphasis original).

But then as he also asked above, "The obvious question is how a genuine dead body, cold in the tomb, could produce some kind of burning or radiance sufficient to scorch cloth, acting in so controlled a manner that it dissolved and fused blood flows onto the cloth, yet created at the same time the perfect impression of a human body?" (my emphasis).

Wilson recalls that at the 1977 conference on the Shroud in Albuquerque, , "the idea that it might have been some kind of thermonuclear flash" was "Not far from anyone's minds ... considering that they were sitting not two hours' drive from the site of the first atomic-bomb test at Alamogordo in 1945":

"Not far from anyone's minds at the Albuquerque conference was the idea that it might have been some kind of thermonuclear flash-a singularly appropriate speculation, considering that they were sitting not two hours' drive from the site of the first atomic-bomb test at Alamogordo in 1945. Adding some weight to this speculation were some unexpected photographic properties of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, as attested by Hiroshima author John Hersey:

The scientists noticed that the flash of the bomb had discolored concrete to a light reddish tint, had scaled off the surface of granite, and had scorched certain other types of building materials, and that consequently the bomb had, in some places, left prints of the shadows that had been cast by its light. The experts found for instance, a permanent shadow thrown on the roof of the Chamber of Commerce Building (220 yards from the rough center) by the structure's rectangular tower; several others in the look-out post on top of the Hypothec Bank (2,050 yards); another in the tower of the Chugoku Electric Supply Building (800 yards); another projected by the handle of a gas pump (2,630 yards) .... A few vague human silhouettes were found, and these gave rise to stories that eventually included fancy and precise details. One story told how a painter on a ladder was monumentalized in a kind of bas-relief on the stone facade of a bank building on which he was at work, in the act of dipping his brush into his paint can; another how a man and his cart on the bridge near the Museum of Science and Industry, almost under the center of the explosion, were cast down in an embossed shadow which made it clear that the man was about to whip his horse ... ' [Hersey, J., "Hiroshima," Penguin: Harmondsworth UK, 1946, pp.104-105]

The correspondence of these radiation images with the phenomenon on the Shroud itself is, of course, by no means total. The Shroud was, after all, seemingly scorched from within rather than from without, and by a process of necessity far more controlled than the blast from an atomic bomb." (Wilson, 1978, p.209. Emphasis original).

and there "were some unexpected photographic properties of the first atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima" including "human silhouettes" reported.

And indeed one paper at the conference by a physicist, Dr. Eric Jumper, was titled, "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the Shroud" (my emphasis):

"While it does indeed seem possible that a molecular transport process over reasonably long periods of time (a minute or longer) would set up a molecular concentration gradient which could form some sort of intensity pattern interpretable as an image, it seems very unlikely in my mind that molecular transport could have formed the image we find on the Shroud. This opinion is based on the observations of stain spreading I made in the simple experiment, the fact that the stain on the Shroud does not penetrate even the surface fibers of the cloth and the fact that the Shroud image is nowhere saturated. While it cannot be concluded that radiation caused the Shroud image, in the specific areas of stain spreading and saturation, radiation cannot be ruled out." (Jumper, E.J., "Considerations of Molecular Diffusion and Radiation as an Image Formation Process on the Shroud," in Stevenson, K.E., ed., "Proceedings of the 1977 United States Conference of Research on The Shroud of Turin," Holy Shroud Guild: Bronx NY, 1977, p.188)

and it's understated conclusion then was that, "radiation cannot be ruled out" (my emphasis).

Wilson considered that "the impression is inescapable that, rather than a substance, some kind of force seems to have been responsible for the image" as "the image-forming process seems to have shown no discrimination between registering the body surface, the hair, the blood, and even inanimate objects-i.e., the two coins":

"Nevertheless the impression is inescapable that, rather than a substance, some kind of force seems to have been responsible for the image. This is suggested by the information in the 1973 commission's report that the image affected only the topmost surface of the fibers, and whatever created it had neither seeped nor penetrated the fibers and was insoluble and resistant to acids. Whatever formed the image was powerful enough to project it onto the linen from a distance of up to four centimeters (according to jumper and Jackson), yet gentle enough not to cause distortion in areas where there would have been direct contact. This factor is particularly obvious on the dorsal image, where the cloth would have received the full weight of the body. The concept of a force is implicit from the manner in which the image seems to have been created with a marked upward/downward directionality, without any diffusion, and leaving no imprint of the sides of the body or the top of the head. Also the image-forming process seems to have shown no discrimination between registering the body surface, the hair, the blood, and even inanimate objects-i.e., the two coins discovered by Jackson and Jumper. All would seem to have been imprinted on the cloth with the same even intensity, and with only the most minor color variation in the case of the blood. The idea, then, of some form of thermonuclear flash being the force in question is obviously more than idle speculation. Dr. jumper certainly treated it seriously, arguing that, as any diffusion process would have involved penetration of the fibers, and as any remotely lingering laser beam would have caused destruction, whatever created the image must have been some extremely high intensity, short duration burst, acting evenly upward and downward. Thermal chemist Ray Rogers of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who attended the conference, said very much the same thing, using the words `flash photolysis,' and speaking of a mere millisecond of time. In the absence of definitive analysis of the Shroud stains, this concept may be as near as scientists can bring us to whatever created the Shroud image." (Wilson, 1978, pp.209-210. Emphasis original).

There is some doubt that the Roman coins are there, but if they are not, the argument above still applies to the "body surface, the hair, the blood," and also to the later discovered imprinted flower images-see next part #5.

Wilson concluded his discussion of in his 1978 book of how the image on the Shroud was formed, by venturing "a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image" that from "the dead body of Jesus ... there is a burst of mysterious power from it" and instantaneously the image of "the blood ... and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection":

"Even from the limited available information, a hypothetical glimpse of the power operating at the moment of creation of the Shroud's image may be ventured. In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly, there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal `snapshot' of the Resurrection." (Wilson, 1978, p.211).

Twenty years later (and ten years after the radiocarbon dating) in his 1998 book, "The Blood and the Shroud," Wilson revisited the "argument, also advanced by some high-level scientists" that there was something "thermonuclear to the circumstance by which the crucified body image was created on the Shroud," and he quoted a Harvard physicist, a "Dr Thomas J. Phillips" who pointed out in Nature (a week before the actual 1989 radiocarbon dating report), that "If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of Christ" then "the body ... may have radiated neutrons, which" could "have ... changed some ... carbon 14 ... to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years [i.e. fourteenth century]" (my emphasis):

"Another argument, also advanced by some high-level scientists, has been that if there were anything thermonuclear to the circumstance by which the crucified body image was created on the Shroud, then this in itself, by adding to the cloth's low-level radioactivity levels, could have made the Shroud appear younger than its true age. A letter from Dr Thomas J. Phillips of Harvard University's High Energy Physics Laboratory, published in the very same issue of Nature which carried the formal report of the radiocarbon-dating findings, commented:

If the Shroud of Turin is in fact the burial-cloth of Christ ... then according to the Bible it was present at a unique physical event: the resurrection of a dead body. Unfortunately this event is not accessible to direct scientific scrutiny, but ... the body ... may have radiated neutrons, which would have irradiated the Shroud and changed some of the nuclei to different isotopes by neutron capture. In particular some carbon 14 would have been generated from carbon 13. If we assume that the Shroud is 1950 years old and that the neutrons were emitted thermally, then an integrated flux of 2 x 10¹⁶ neutron cm^-2 would have converted enough carbon 13 to carbon 14 to give an apparent carbon-dated age of 670 years [i.e. fourteenth century].' [Phillips, T.J., "Shroud Irradiated With Neutrons?," Nature, Vol. 337, 16 February, 1989, p.594]"

(Wilson, I., "The Blood and the Shroud: New Evidence that the World's Most Sacred Relic is Real," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1998, pp.232-233).

Wilson also quoted from a "British nuclear physicist Dr Kitty Little" who "completely independently" of Dr Phillips, and who had actually "irradiated a range of fibres, including several different cellulose ones" as linen is, "in a research reactor called BEPO" and the "cellulose fibres turned to the straw-yellow colour" that "the image of the Shroud" is, and "this would inevitably have resulted `in the formation of extra carbon 14 on the sheet ... to make the apparent age of the fabric appear more recent than it really is":

"A similar view has been expressed by the pioneering British nuclear physicist Dr Kitty Little, now retired from her career at the UK's Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, Oxfordshire. She has recalled an experiment that she conducted back in the 1950s in which she irradiated a range of fibres, including several different cellulose ones, in a research reactor called BEPO: `At the time BEPO was being run at only three MW, so that the temperatures were in the range 70° to 90° centigrade. This meant that I was obtaining radiation effects without the complication of heat effects.' Little observed the fibres to change with only relatively low-grade heat to the very same colour reported of the Shroud image, something of which at that time she had no knowledge. In her own words: [The] cellulose fibres turned to the straw-yellow colour that has been described for the image of the Shroud...' Even more interesting, however, was that the very same radiation particles which produced this effect were necessarily also accompanied by neutron emission. And as she has explained, this would inevitably have resulted `in the formation of extra carbon 14 on the sheet, the whole of it', this extra carbon tending quite categorically and specifically `... to make the apparent age of the fabric appear more recent than it really is ...'" [ Little, K., "The Holy Shroud of Turin and the Mystery of the Resurrection," Christian Order, April 1994, p. 226] This explanation, proposed completely independently of each other by Drs Phillips and Little, potentially accounts both for how the radiocarbon dating could have erred and for how the crucified body image could have been formed on the cloth, all in one neat single package. ... The great difficulty in such a hypothesis, whether it comes from me or from a trained scientist, is that it demands that 2000 years ago something far beyond the normal order happened to the body of Jesus as it lay in apparent death. That something of this kind indeed happened has of course been claimed by Christian believers throughout those 2000 years." (Wilson, 1998, pp.233-234).

In a more recent book, "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence" (2000), Wilson referred to further experimental evidence supporting the Shroud image being a "nuclear radiation process"

[Above: X-ray of hands compared with Shroud images, Dr Alan Whanger, Duke University]

including it having "the Shroud's image's ... X-ray characteristics, particularly in the case of the bones in the hands" and Dr August Accetta's allowing himself to be injected with a radioactive dye and then xrayed(see images at beginning of this post) , which "conclusively demonstrated that a full-body radiation image could be produced by this means, without the application of any paints or dyes" and "replicated all the Shroud image's monochromatic characteristics" (my emphasis):

"Furthermore ... one of the Shroud image's additional properties seems to be that of X-ray characteristics, particularly in the case of the bones in the hands, as first observed in the early 1980s by Michigan chemistry professor Dr Giles Carter, followed in 1995 by Dr Alan Whanger and his wife. So what nuclear radiation process could possibly account for these as well as all the Shroud image's other properties? At which point enter Dr August Accetta, a youthful physician based in Huntington Beach, California. So convinced of the Shroud's authenticity that he has founded a special Shroud Centre to further Shroud researches and public education on the subject, Accetta has likewise been fired to go where no researcher has ever gone before on the subject, with a view to proving positively how the Shroud image could derive from some nuclear radioactive event. Using himself as a guinea pig, and working in collaboration with Dr Kenneth Lyons and Dr John Jackson, Accetta allowed himself to be injected with methylene diphosphate, a mildly radioactive compound with a six-hour `half-life' that he routinely uses in his medical work to show up internal organs. [Accetta, A.D., "Nuclear Medicine and Its Relevance to the Shroud of Turin," Sindone 2000 Shroud Conference in Orvieto, Italy, August 2000] Having allowed time for this compound to bind itself to his bones, tissues and body organs Accetta then assumed the Shroud pose, while a gamma camera was deployed to `photograph' the photons radiating from his body. This was set to fire at timed intervals which Accetta and Lyons knew from their experience would register the body elements at different intensities relative to the degree of the methylene diphosphate's absorption and dispersal through them. The results obtained proved quite astonishing, indeed little short of sensational. First, it was conclusively demonstrated that a full-body radiation image could be produced by this means, without the application of any paints or dyes, which replicated all the Shroud image's monochromatic characteristics. Second, the image had the same collimated, or straight-up, straight-down character as that of the Shroud's imprint, though in fairness it should be said that a collimator in the set-up ensured this, since otherwise the radiation would have spilled out at all sides. Third, apart from its being slightly more distinct against its background, the image had the same lack of outline as that on the Shroud. Fourth, the image shared the Shroud's otherwise seemingly unique lack of any light focus. Fifth, the Shroud's X-ray properties were strikingly replicated, spectacularly in the case of the hands, in which the metacarpal bones and phalange or finger bones could clearly be distinguished with a most compelling similarity to these same bones on the Shroud. Sixth, when viewed via the VP-8 Image Analyzer, Accetta's body exhibited the same three-dimensional properties as that on the Shroud imprint, the limbs being particularly similar. One of the Accetta process's few differences from the Shroud was that it produced images of some of the body's internal organs, most notably the kidneys. Another difference was that Accetta's head, unlike the rest of his body, appeared very distorted on the VP-8 Image Analyzer, seemingly because of the high volume of radiation emitted from its lower two-thirds, a problem that he expects to eliminate in future experiments. As Accetta is the first to acknowledge, he cannot claim to have been able to replicate all the Shroud's characteristics exactly, nor indeed did he expect to. A quite spectacular achievement on his part, however, is that he very genuinely has been able to reproduce some of those characteristics sufficiently closely for some kind of nuclear radiation explanation for the Shroud's image to be considered seriously, more so than anyone might previously have dared contemplate." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.129-130) .

[Continued in part #5]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Exodus 33:18-23; 34:2,5-8. ¹⁸Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." ¹⁹And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. ²⁰But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." ²¹Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. ²²When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. ²³Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." ... ²Be ready in the morning, and then come up on Mount Sinai. Present yourself to me there on top of the mountain. ... ⁵Then the LORD came down in the cloud and stood there with him and proclaimed his name, the LORD. ⁶And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, ⁷maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation." ⁸Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped.

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #3

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ...Continued from part #2 with radiocarbon dating assumption "3) there has been no additional neutron source that would be creating C-14 from N-14."

[Above: Carbon-14 Dating - an example, Ralph E. Taggart, Michigan State University. Note that a neutron (n) impacting a normal nitrogen-14 atom (¹⁴N), splits it into a proton (p) and a carbon-14 atom (¹⁴C), which when combined with two atoms of oxygen as CO₂, is taken up by plants (like flax that linen is made of) in photosynthesis.]

As I mentioned in part #2, in my Yahoo group post of 28-Jan-05, I gave as a possible reason why assumption 3) above could be wrong, that:

"Stevenson & Habermas mention that the Shroud has been for much of its history stored in vaults in castles and monasteries. If those vaults were stone and those stones contained uranium and uranium decay products (which is likely), then they would be a source of neutrons that would have had the effect of reducing the Shroud's radiometric age."

This is indirectly supported by Wikipedia in that, "Granite is a normal, geological, source of radiation," "In buildings constructed primarily from natural granite, it is possible to be exposed to approximately 200 mrems per year," "Granite could be considered a potential natural radiological hazard as, for instance, villages located over granite may be susceptible to higher doses of radiation than other communites," and "Cellars and basements sunk into soils formed over or from particularly uraniferous granites can become a trap for radon gas (my emphasis):

"Granite: Natural radiation Granite is a normal, geological, source of radiation in the natural environment. Granite has around 10 to 20 parts per million of uranium. By contrast, black granite (typically actually a tonalite, gabbro or diorite) has 1 to 5ppm uranium, and limestones and sedimentary rocks usually equally low. Many large granite plutons are the sources for palaeochannel-hosted or roll front uranium ore deposits, where the uranum washes into the sediments from the granite uplands and associated, often highly radioactive, pegmatites. In buildings constructed primarily from natural granite, it is possible to be exposed to approximately 200 mrems per year. ... Granite could be considered a potential natural radiological hazard as, for instance, villages located over granite may be susceptible to higher doses of radiation than other communites. ... Cellars and basements sunk into soils formed over or from particularly uraniferous granites can become a trap for radon gas, which is heavier than air. However, in the majority of cases, although granite is a significant source of natural radiation as compared to other rocks it is not often an acute health threat or significant risk factor. Various resources from national geological survey organisations are accessible online to assist in assessing the risk factors in granite country and design rules relating, in particular, to preventing accumulation of radon gas in enclosed basements and dwellings"

I still think that is a likely contributory cause of the Shroud's 14th century radiocarbon age (and that alone invalidates the 1988 radiocarbon dating result). But it later occurred to me (or perhaps I later read it-see quotes in next part #4) that there is another reason why assumption 3) could be wrong and that is if the Shroud is indeed the sheet that was covering Jesus' body when He was resurrected, then the change of state of His body into a "glorious body" (Php 3:21; 1 Cor 15:42-44), which could pass through locked doors and walls (Jn 20:19,26), may have emitted radiation which imprinted His crucified image onto the linen. See also my response to the comment at the end of in part #2.

However, before we get to that in what will be part #4, it is important to realise that despite nearly forty years (since 1969, or even over a century since 1902) of scientific investigation, scientists have been unable to come up with a plausible naturalistic explanation of how the image of a crucified man was transferred from his body to the linen sheet covering his body. As Stevenson & Habermas noted in their 1981 first book, the best explanation that STURP (the Shroud of Turin Research Project), came up with was that the image on the Shroud was "some kind of scorch," although not caused by fire since "the optical properties of the Shroud image and the fire scorches are not identical":

"Theory: The Image Is a Scorch. The scientific team arrived in Turin in 1978 already suspecting that the image on the Shroud could well be some kind of scorch. The scorch theory had become the leading candidate for image formation partly because other theories seemed improbable and partly because the image looked like a scorch in photographs available before 1978. Cellulose yellows in the first stages of burning. If the heat and timing are carefully controlled, an experimental scorch can yellow cellulose fibers the way those on the Shroud are yellowed. Furthermore, a known scorch-the burns from the 1532 fire-lay right on the cloth, and the image resembled it. Analysis of color photographs prior to 1978 indicated that the image and the fire scorch have similar optical properties. A scorch has several other properties which the Shroud image also possesses. The image was not affected by the heat of the 1532 fire or by the water thrown on the Shroud to extinguish it. Neither heat nor water would affect a scorch in any way. The 1978 observations largely confirmed this pre-1978 theorizing. The ultraviolet and visible light reflectance tests showed that the image and the fire scorches reflected light in a similar way. ... However, the optical properties of the Shroud image and the fire scorches are not identical. The fire scorches are visually redder than the body image, and the two areas of the cloth fluoresce somewhat differently under ultraviolet light. The team thought that these differences would be present if scorches had occurred under different conditions. In 1532, the Shroud was burned while sealed inside a metal box. Such a scorch, occurring in a substantially oxygen-free environment, would be visibly redder and would have different fluorescent properties than a scorch which occurred in the presence of oxygen. Indeed, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori demonstrated this fact experimentally. They burned cellulose in an oxygen-depleted environment, and the scorch this experiment produced fluoresced in a way similar to those of the fire-damaged areas of the Shroud. It thus seemed probable to many members of the team that the image on the Shroud is a scorch, slightly different than the known scorches on the Shroud, but a scorch nonetheless. If the image was a scorch, how did it get on the cloth? This question proved to be very difficult to answer in scientific terms. The problem was finding what the Schwalbe and Rogers summary of research called a `technologically credible image transfer mechanism.' This was the main objection to the scorch hypothesis before 1978, and it remained the major objection after the testing and analysis were completed. Not all of the scientists agree with the scorch thesis, and many members of the scientific team stopped well short of imagining that a corpse emitted enough light and heat to scorch a burial shroud. Indeed, the team's summary of research classified the scorch hypothesis in the category of artificial-image theories. In other words, a chief issue for some was attempting to view the Shroud image in strictly natural terms. ... this may not be fully possible." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, pp.90-92. Emphasis original)

but then the problem is, "If the image was a scorch, how did it get on the cloth?" That is, how was it that "a corpse emitted enough light and heat to scorch a burial shroud"?

In their second book, ~9 years later in 1990 Stevenson & Habermas note that after "100 thousand to 150 thousand scientific man-hours ... studying the Shroud" by STURP, "most members still seem to regard the dehydrated-cellulose image as a probable low-temperature scorch, and the image as having been somehow `projected' across space onto the cloth" which is :the old radiation-scorch hypothesis in thin semantic disguise:

"In conclusion, natural hypotheses have failed to explain the Shroud's image and are untenable at this time. ... Thus, neither fakery nor natural hypotheses are viable. Murphy remarked in 1981 that `it is STURP's conclusion that none of the forgery theories is tenable. Neither are any of the "natural phenomenon" hypotheses.' ... At this point, science is unable to explain the Shroud's image completely. On scientific grounds, the cause of the image is an enigma. In the words of the STURP report delivered at New London, `The answer to the question of how the image was produced, or what produced the image, remains now, as in the past, a mystery.' As Heller asserted, `100 thousand to 150 thousand scientific man-hours have been spent' studying the Shroud, utilizing the best scientific instruments, and yet the image still remains a `mystery.' In spite of this conclusion, by the early to mid 1980s, numerous scientists had indicated their view that the image was best explained by a scorch theory of some sort. Even Mueller, a critic of the Shroud, pointed out in 1982: `Nationwide, at least, most members still seem to regard the dehydrated-cellulose image as a probable low-temperature scorch, and the image as having been somehow `projected' across space onto the cloth. This is, of course, the old radiation-scorch hypothesis in thin semantic disguise.' Wilcox's 1982 article series, largely based on his interviews with twenty-six scientists from the 1978 investigation, confirmed some of Mueller's suspicions. Noting that possibly the most important single finding of STURP was the oxidized, dehydrated, and conjugated nature of the linen fibrils. Wilcox decided to ask the scientists he interviewed what they believed to be the cause of the image. Only seven ventured a specific answer. Two of them, Pellicori and German, favored the latent-image version of the contact theory even though STURP declared that contact theories are `totally incapable' of explaining crucial portions of the image. The other five scientists who answered Wilcox's query indicated their view that the image was a scorch . Even though a sample of seven scientists is admittedly very small (about 27 percent of those questioned), it is nonetheless quite significant that those who did answer believed the scorch hypothesis fit the facts better than any other. However, the interesting question here is, how can a dead body under a cloth produce such a scorch on linen?" (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.128-129) .

STURP in their final report referred "to the chemistry of the" Shroud's "image as advanced [cloth] decomposition":

"The scientists of STURP even conclude the following concerning the image-formation process: `The cause, then, of the yellowing is chemically altered cellulose consisting of structures formed by dehydration, oxidation, and conjugation products of the linen itself.... This conclusion is supported by laboratory simulations using controlled accelerated aging processes that produce the same spectral reflectance curves as the body-only image areas and the background areas on the Shroud.... It is important to note that this chemistry is similar to the chemistry that causes the yellowing of linen with age. The fact that we can see the body image tells us that the body image is due to a more advanced [cloth] decomposition process than the normal aging rate of the background linen itself. For this reason, we will from this point on refer to the chemistry of the body-only image as advanced [cloth] decomposition.' [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49]" (Stevenson & Habermas, 1990, p.205. Emphasis original).

that is, "an unknown form of `advanced decomposition' of the cloth, which seemed to `project' from body to cloth," "which has thus far eluded all attempts at duplication" and "has no natural counterpart":

"The STURP scientists go on to state: `The Shroud's mapping relationship, however, poses the strongest objection to a contact mechanism. Contact mechanisms have not been able to produce a convincing cloth-body distance relationship. In fact, taken alone, this mapping function seems to suggest some kind of `projection' mechanism, because there seems to be image present even where it does not appear to have been possible that the cloth was in contact with the body. We are left to identify what kind of `projection' mechanism, and this we have been unable to do. Simple molecular diffusion and `radiation' models, for example, fail to account for the apparent resolution of the image as we understand it.... We really do not have a satisfactory, simple explanation for how the body image got on the cloth. We think this fact is underscored by the fact that to our knowledge no other image on any cloth-grave cloth or art form-like the body image on the Shroud is known to exist today. If another example were to exist, our task of identifying the origin of the body image would be much simplified. ' [Schwalbe, L.A. & Rogers, R.N., "Physics and Chemistry of the Shroud of Turin, A Summary of the 1978 Investigation," Analytica Chimica Acta, Vol. 135, 1982, pp.3-49] Immediately following that remark, the members of STURP began a discussion of whether or not the Shroud might be Jesus'. To put all of the above in common English, they concluded that the Shroud image is caused by an unknown form of `advanced decomposition' of the cloth, which seemed to `project' from body to cloth-a process which has thus far eluded all attempts at duplication. The image is unlike any art form and also has no natural counterpart." (Stevenson & Habermas,1990, pp.205-206. Emphasis original).

To be continued in part #4.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Exodus 33:7-11. ⁷Now Moses used to take a tent and pitch it outside the camp some distance away, calling it the "tent of meeting." Anyone inquiring of the LORD would go to the tent of meeting outside the camp. ⁸And whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose and stood at the entrances to their tents, watching Moses until he entered the tent. ⁹As Moses went into the tent, the pillar of cloud would come down and stay at the entrance, while the LORD spoke with Moses. ¹⁰Whenever the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance to the tent, they all stood and worshiped, each at the entrance to his tent. ¹¹The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #2

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ... Continued from part #1.

As far back as September 20, 1988, the BOSTON GLOBE reported a dispatch from London:

[Left: The Turin Shroud, Fortean Picture Library]

"A London newspaper said Sunday the results of tests carried out in laboratories in England, Switzerland and Arizona would show that the Shroud of Turin depicting a shadowy image of Jesus Christ was a medieval fake. "'Papal representatives in Italy will announce next month what religious skeptics have long suspected: That the Shroud of Turin is a medieval fake. . .forged between the years 1000 and 1500,' the Sunday Times said. The shroud, last displayed in the public in 1978, is known in Italy as La Sacra Sindone. It has a shadowy image of a body with a bearded face bearing apparent bloodstains from a crown of thorns and a large wound to the chest. (UPI)." Indeed the secular media was very pleased to report "the results" of the 1988 carbon-14 tests that the supposedly objective "Oxford scientists had leaked" to it, "ahead of any official announcement":

"Test Results Leaked Before any official announcement of the carbon-dating test results, The Times in London reported on 27 August 1988 that Oxford scientists had leaked the results. Several weeks later, still ahead of any official announcement, the press mercilessly blasted the Shroud's repute. The Times carried a front-page story on 18 September, captioned: `OFFICIAL: THE TURIN SHROUD IS A FAKE', without disclosing the name of its official source. The New York Times headline on 22 September was: `TEST SHOWS SHROUD OF TURIN TO BE A FRAUD, SCIENTIST HINTS'. The New York Post wrote on 28 September: `SHROUD OF TURIN LEGEND IN TATTERS: Carbon Tests Date it to the 14th Century'. None of these respected newspapers published any corroborating details. Intent on exploiting the news value of the leak, the media went overboard in sensationalising an unconfirmed report that the Shroud was carbon-dated only back to the Middle Ages. The Vatican's response to these blaring headlines was eagerly awaited by many of the world's Christians who believed the Shroud had covered the body of Christ. On 13 October, at a press conference in Turin, Cardinal Ballestrero stated the Church's acceptance of the laboratories' results, but he qualified his statement by saying, `the problem about the origin of the image and its preservation still remain to a large extent unresolved'. This measured reaction was ignored by the mainstream media. England's Daily Telegraph blatantly misreported the Cardinal with the headline `TURIN SHROUD IS A FORGERY, SAYS CATHOLIC CHURCH'." (Whiting, B., "The Shroud Story," Harbour Publishing: Strathfield NSW, Australia, 2006, p.141. Emphasis original)

However, all a radiocarbon dating can do is show a radiocarbon age (not the actual age), and certainly not that an artifact is a "fake" or a "fraud" (since there always could be other explanations), as the `unbiased' Professor Edward Hall, stepping way outside his field of expertise as a nuclear physicist, famously declared, "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it":

"In the late 1970s, he was quick to see the value of the revolutionary new method of radiocarbon dating then being developed (called accelerator mass spectrometry or AMS dating) and became fully committed to establishing the method at Oxford. In the early days of setting up the AMS facility at Oxford, he could be found crawling inside the accelerator tank, or discussing design modifications, or even sweeping the floor. Such total involvement got its reward especially in his participation in the dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988. Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, had authorised the removal of samples of the shroud for testing by three laboratories: in Arizona, Zurich - and Oxford. Hall's laboratory dated its sample to between 1260 and 1390. The mix of good science, intricate instrumentation, the attention of the world's press, the ambivalence of the religious authorities and sheer importance of the outcome for so many people appealed to him immensely; he also took pleasure in, as he saw it, the debunking of any conviction that could not be rationally demonstrated. `There was a multi-million-pound business in making forgeries during the 14th century,' he bluntly told a British Museum press conference. `Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it.' And again, `Some people may continue to fight for the authenticity of the shroud, like the Flat Earth Society, but this settles it all as far as we are concerned." (Hedges, R., "Obituary: Professor Edward Hall," The Independent, August 16, 2001).

As I posted to my Yahoo list on 28-Jan-05 (a day after my first post provisionally accepting the Shroud as the actual burial shroud of Jesus), based on the following quote from my son's university physics textbook:

"Radioactive decay has many interesting applications. One is the technique of radioactive dating by which the age of ancient materials can be determined. The age of any object made from once-living matter, such as wood, can be determined using the natural radioactivity of 14/6C. All living plants absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air and use it to synthesize organic molecules. The vast majority of these carbon atoms are 12/6C, but a small fraction, about 1.3 x 10^-12, is the radioactive isotope 14/6C. The ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in the atmosphere has remained roughly constant over many thousands of years, in spite of the fact that 14/6C decays with a half-life of about 5730 yr. This is because neutrons in the cosmic radiation that impinges on the earth from outer-space collide with atoms of the atmosphere. In particular, collisions with nitrogen nuclei produce the following nuclear transformation: n + 14N --> 14/6C + p. That is, a neutron strikes and is absorbed by 14/7N nucleus, and a proton is knocked out in the process. The remaining nucleus is 14/6C . This continual production of 14/6C in the atmosphere roughly balances the loss of 14/6C by radioactive decay. As long as a plant or tree is alive, it continually uses the carbon from carbon dioxide in the air to build new tissue and to replace old. Animals eat plants, so they too are continually receiving a fresh supply of carbon for their tissues. Organisms cannot distinguish 14/6C from 12/6C, and since the ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in the atmosphere remains nearly constant, the ratio of the two isotopes within the living organism remains nearly constant as well. But when an organism dies, carbon dioxide is no longer absorbed and utilized. Because the 14/6C decays radioactively, the ratio of 14/6C to 12/6C in a dead organism decreases in time. Since the half-life of 14/6C is about 5730 yr, the 14/6C/12/6C ratio decreases by half every 5730 yr. If, for example, the 14/6C/12/6C ratio of an ancient wooden tool is half of what it is in living trees, then the object must have been made from a tree that was felled about 5730 yr ago. Actually, corrections must be made for the fact that the 14/6C/12/6C ratio in the atmosphere has not remained precisely constant over time. The determination of what this ratio has been over the centuries has required using techniques such as comparing the expected ratio to the actual ratio for objects whose age is known, such as very old trees whose annual rings can be counted. Carbon dating is useful only for determining the age of objects less than about 60,000 yr old. The amount of 14/6C remaining in older objects is usually too small to measure accurately, although new techniques are allowing detection of even smaller amounts of 14/6C, pushing the time frame further back." (Giancoli, D.C, "Physics: Principles with Applications," [1980], Prentice Hall: New Jersey NJ, Third Edition, 1991, p.817. Emphasis original)

radiocarbon dating depends for its validity on "three essential assumptions" namely: "1) that the sample originally contained the normal background ratio of C-14 to C-12; 2) it has not been contaminated by younger material; and 3) there has been no additional neutron source that would be creating C-14 from N-14."

But, as I pointed out, in the case of the Shroud, all three assumptions are problematic for the following reasons:

"1) the original flax could have come from an area of higher background radiation, meaning there was a higher ratio of C-14 over C-12 than normal"; "2) it his highly likely that over hundreds if not thousands of years, the linen has been invaded by bacteria, nematodes, fungi and other microorganisms that were themselves younger than the original linen and so would make the sample appear younger" and "3) Stevenson & Habermas mention that the Shroud has been for much of its history stored in vaults in castles and monasteries. If those vaults were stone and those stones contained uranium and uranium decay products (which is likely), then they would be a source of neutrons that would have had the effect of reducing the Shroud's radiometric age."

As far as I know, no one has ever addressed "1) the original flax could have come from an area of higher background radiation," and it is hard to know how they could. That is the problem of testing a unique object. Normally in science, the same test is carried out repeatedly on similar items in order to cancel out any unique factors that may be biasing the result one way or the other. As I wrote in my Yahoo group post of 28-Jan-05:

"It should always be borne in mind that the Shroud is a single sample, and the normal practice in science is to test multiple samples to eliminate stochastic effects."

But there are no other 1st century linen shrouds of crucified victims to radiocarbon test and compare them with the Shroud of Turin, and even if there were, they would not have had the same unique history as the Shroud, nor it theirs.

As for "2) ... microorganisms that were themselves younger than the original linen and so would make the sample appear younger," I later discovered that there is fact something called a "bioplastic coating":

"The evidence I have found has broad implications. For example, my research has clarified many puzzles about the age of the Shroud, particularly the 1988 radiocarbon dating, whose proponents concluded that the Shroud does not date from the time of Jesus of Nazareth. I now know that this conclusion was mistaken, but the reasons were not apparent back in 1988. I have discovered on the Shroud what I call a bioplastic coating, a type of clear encasing that is invisible to the unaided eye. Today, it looks to viewers like a shiny lamination, which is why some eyewitnesses say the Shroud has a surprising `surface sheen'. It is not, however, a manmade coating; it is actually composed of millions of living microbiological organisms that have formed over time, somewhat like a coral reef. This is a natural process I had earlier noted while doing research an other ancient artefacts. When the scientists used carbon dating on Shroud samples in 1988, they did not realize that they were dating, as one entity, both the original ancient fabric and this living bioplastic coating. Their mistaken result was off by centuries. My conclusion, based on evidence I have gathered, is that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake, as was suggested, but is quite possibly a relic of the time of Jesus of Nazareth." (Garza-Valdes, L.A., "The DNA of God?," Hodder & Stoughton: London, 1998, pp.2-3).

or as leading sindonologist, historian Ian Wilson called it, "a natural, plastic-like biofilm, comprising millions of micro-organisms" which "had accumulated on the Shroud's surface," especially on its "top ... two corners by which it was traditionally held up for exposition over the centuries" from one of which, namely "its top left-hand corner" that "the sliver of Shroud that was taken for the 1988 radiocarbon dating was snipped":

"A potentially much more viable explanation has been pioneered by Mexican-born Dr Leoncio Garza-Valdes of San Antonio, Texas who, although a paediatrician by occupation, has had a life-long passion for microbiology. At a Shroud conference in Rome in 1993 he presented a paper suggesting that a natural, plastic-like biofilm, comprising millions of micro-organisms, had accumulated on the Shroud's surface, much in the manner of the build-up of a coral reef' Although little studied except by professional microbiologists, such biofilms unquestionably exist very widely on innumerable surfaces in nature, including our skins, our intestines and even inanimate rock in the form of the so-called `desert varnish' that covers weathered boulders. Garza-Valdes' startling suggestion was : that, because many of the micro-organisms comprising the Shroud's biofilm remain alive, their mass could easily have skewed the radiocarbon dating, thereby giving a much too recent reading. Unlikely though such a hypothesis might sound, Garza-Valdes had good reason for advocating it. As a collector of ancient Mayan jades, he had discovered a very similar biofilm on one specimen in his collection, the Itzamna Tun, which had been used in Mayan blood-letting rituals. When scrapings of the blood were sent for radiocarbon dating, the laboratories' pre-treatment or cleaning procedures should have removed any contamination, but, as Garza-Valdes discovered, the living bacteria coating these and the rest of the jade successfully resisted the solvents, as a result of which they caused the Itzamna Tun to be radiocarbon dated as some seven centuries younger than its true age as reliably known from its : artistic style. Inevitably, such a finding led him to consider its possible relevance to the Shroud carbon dating. Accordingly in April 1993 he visited Turin, where he met up with Professor Giovanni Riggi, the microanalyst who had been responsible for cutting off the sliver of the Shroud for carbon dating in 1988. As Garza-Valdes discovered, Riggi had personally retained some excess fragments which he had trimmed off from the sample of the Shroud that was divided between the radiocarbon-dating laboratories. And, when he viewed these fragments under the microscope, he immediately found himself staring at much the same biofilm as he had observed on the Itzamna Tun blood, except in this instance significantly thicker. As he was keenly aware, if such a film had not been removed prior to the radiocarbon dating process, then it might easily have skewed the Shroud's dating, exactly as had happened with his Mayan jade. Riggi gave him some Shroud fragments to take back to the United States, and he accordingly tried on them the very same chemical cleaning procedures that the official Nature scientific report on the Shroud dating [Damon, P.E., et al., "Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin," Nature, Vol. 337, 16th February, 1989, pp.611-615] described the radiocarbon-dating laboratories as having used on their Shroud samples. As he discovered, even when the cleaning solvents were used at extra strength, they hardly affected the contaminating `plastic' biofilm, instead doing rather more damage to the linen itself. And, although the radiocarbon-dating laboratories have calculated that for the Shroud's date to have been skewed by thirteen centuries a contamination layer amounting to an astonishing 60 per cent of the entire sample is needed, Garza-Valdes regards this sort of proportion as perfectly feasible. For it is a matter of firm record that the sliver of Shroud that was taken for the 1988 radiocarbon dating was snipped from its top left-hand corner, one of the two corners by which it was traditionally held up for exposition over the centuries. In countless engravings of Shroud expositions back through history, bishop after bishop can be seen clutching the Shroud at this very point. Now, as microbiologists are fond of demonstrating, microbes from even the cleanest hand will grow impressive colonies in an agar dish in a matter of days. So, if there is any point on the Shroud on which the maximum amount of microbiological contamination could be expected to have accumulated, it would have to have to have been these corners." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., "The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence," Michael O'Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.98-100).

This "bioplastic coating" explanation of why the Shroud's radiocarbon age could be centuries younger than its actual age received support from a microbiologist Prof. Stephen Mattingly who could see no reason why "micro-organisms ... should not comprise more than 50 per cent of the weight of a centuries-old linen" cloth like the Turin Shroud:

"Although most scientists would rightly feel that this was overoptimistic, the highly respected microbiologist Prof. Stephen Mattingly, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, having similarly studied the Shroud samples under the microscope, shares much of Garza-Valdes' optimism. While careful not to become too embroiled in the Shroud debate, he fully supports the view that a substantial microbiological biofilm is present: `There is no doubt that the Shroud has a major layer of microbial contamination on and within the cellulose fibres.' [Mattingly, S., e-mail to Dr. John Jackson, December 1999] Mattingly further supports Garza-Valdes' contention that this contamination was not removed by the laboratories' cleaning procedures, pointing out that the radiocarbon laboratories left themselves wide open to their result being challenged by their failure to perform either a preliminary or a post-test chemical analysis of the samples that their AMS radiocarbon-dating process had to destroy. In Mattingly's words, `This is the first step in quantitative analysis in college chemistry. I can remember my lab instructor sending me back to the bench because the recovery mass of my unknown did not agree with the known value.' Had the radiocarbon-dating laboratories performed such a chemical analysis, then the presence of contaminating material to the tune of 60 per cent would have become very readily apparent in a way that no optical method could provide. But, focused as they were on their own science of nuclear physics, they assumed that they were testing pure Shroud and nothing else, and therefore worked blind. Although Professor Hall said in 1989 that he would be amazed if even 1 per cent contamination remained on the cloth, Mattingly rejoins: `I can assure you that you cannot look at any object and assume that it is appreciably free of microbial contamination. You might be surprised to know that every square millimetre of your skin is coated with a substantial layer of micro-organisms. They are contributing, along with your gut microbial flora, in a significant way to your overall body mass.' [Ibid.] Were a proper chemical analysis of Shroud samples conducted, certainly any from the area sampled for radiocarbon dating, what should be revealed is the presence of muramic acid. In Mattingly's words, `If it is present, this is proof that bacteria are present. Muramic acid is only found in nature in the cell walls of bacteria. It is widely used as a marker for the presence of bacteria. The quantitative level of muramic acid can then be used to estimate the mass contribution of bacteria to the overall mass of the linen.' [Ibid.] Mattingly's overall assessment is that, since micro-organisms make up 80 per cent of the mass of living organisms on the earth today, `why they should not comprise more than 50 per cent of the weight of a centuries-old linen should not be a major leap in credibility'. To demonstrate this, shortly before the March 2000 Symposium he cultured his own skin bacteria in his laboratory, concentrated these in pellet form and then repeatedly smeared the mixture over a 1 gram square of linen until the combined weight of linen plus bacteria reached 2.30 grams. Having thereby achieved a 57 per cent degree of contamination, he heated the bacteria to render them harmless, then sent the result to Drs Adler, Jackson and myself, together with an untreated sample as a `control'. As he pointed out in a covering note, because of the coating's artificial and now sterile nature it cannot be considered a replication as such of that on the Shroud. Instead the clear message of his samples is that a 57 per cent layer of coating is nothing like as obvious and obtrusive as non-microbiologists expect it to be. And, because the radiocarbon laboratories failed to conduct a proper chemical analysis of the samples they destroyed, no one can deny that such a coating could have been present and have seriously affected the dating result. In the light of Prof. Mattingly's comments, the confident claims made by the radiocarbon-dating laboratories in their Nature report of 1989 that they had `conclusively' shown the Shroud to date from the Middle Ages may be considered effectively to lie in tatters" (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, Ibid, pp.102-103. Emphasis original)

Why this seemed so likely to me in 2005 is that I had completed my biology degree the previous year and I well remember one of my zoology lecturers having made E.O. Wilson's point that microorganisms were so numerous that if everyone in the lecture theatre suddenly vanished, where we had all been sitting could still be seen in the outline of nematodes that were on our bodies and clothes:

"Spokesman and popularizer though he may be, Wilson remains above all a scientist enraptured by the mysteries of life. The Pheidole project, he says, represents a `celebration' of this most abundant group of ants. Cataloging them comprehensively, he says, was a step toward unraveling the unsolved problem of why some species are `so profusely evolved'; the work itself was `the taxonomist's equivalent of figuring out the hemoglobin molecule.' Lest graduate students fear there are no more such challenges, Wilson is ready with dozens. Bacteria and archaeans, he writes, are `the black hole of biological systematics.' Only about 6,000 have been formally recognized-despite the potential threat and benefit they represent to human health and commerce-but that many, `almost all new to science, can be found in only a few grams of rich forest soil.' Nematode worms, he says, account for four of every five animals living on Earth-and are so abundant that if the planet's surface vanished, its `ghostly outline' could still be made out in the biomass of nematodes, almost all of species unknown." (Rosenberg, J.S., "Of Ants and Earth: E.O. Wilson's view of life takes in all things small and great," Harvard Magazine, March-April 2003 )

This ties in with Prof. Mattingly's point above that "every square millimetre of your skin is coated with a substantial layer of micro-organisms. They are contributing, along with your gut microbial flora, in a significant way to your overall body mass" (my emphasis).

Now some have misunderstood Garza-Valdes' argument that it claims to explain the entire discrepancy between the Shroud's claimed actual age of ~2,000 years and its apparent radiocarbon age of ~1,300 years. But as I pointed out in my post of 28-Jan-05 all these factors, i.e. under points 1) to 3), "would all combine ... to make the radiocarbon age younger than the real age":

"Note that these [factors] would all combine (they are not mutually exclusive or dependent) to make the radiocarbon age younger than the real age."

I have covered the first two of the three classes of such factors, namely, "1) that the sample originally contained the normal background ratio of C-14 to C-12" and "2) it has not been contaminated by younger material." These alone would make accurate radiocarbon dating of the Shroud not just difficult but practically impossible.

And that is without even considering factor "3) there has been no additional neutron source that would be creating C-14 from N-14." This I will cover in part #3.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Exodus 33:1-5. ¹Then the LORD said to Moses, "Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, 'I will give it to your descendants.' ²I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites. ³Go up to the land flowing with milk and honey. But I will not go with you, because you are a stiff-necked people and I might destroy you on the way." ⁴When the people heard these distressing words, they began to mourn and no one put on any ornaments. ⁵For the LORD had said to Moses, "Tell the Israelites, 'You are a stiff-necked people. If I were to go with you even for a moment, I might destroy you. Now take off your ornaments and I will decide what to do with you.'"

Bogus: Shroud of Turin? #1

As posted on 27-Jan-05 to my since terminated Yahoo

[See Index to my "Bogus: Shroud of Turin?" posts on my The Shroud of Turin blog]

[Above: Giuseppe Enrie's 1931 photographic negative of the face on the Shroud of Turin, which was a positive image, meaning that the image on the Shroud was the equivalent of a photographic negative, Shroud of Turin Facts Check]

group, as a Protestant evangelical Christian I had up to then given very little thought to the Shroud of Turin, assuming it to be just another fake relic of medieval Churchianity.

However, in January 2005, I bought secondhand a book, "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1981), co-authored by a Protestant philosopher/theologian Gary Habermas whose judgment I trusted from having read some of his writings.

I was astonished at the amount of evidence that points unequivocally to the Shroud of Turin being the very burial sheet of Jesus and indeed further evidence of His resurrection. Since then I have bought and read many books and articles both for and against the Shroud of Turin being the graveclothes of Christ, and the evidence has only become stronger

Bogus: Shroud of Turin, The Conservative Voice, April 08, 2007, Grant Swank ... Why don't people go to the original source? When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, the source for finding out this and that about the fabric is the Bible. After all, the focus is on the cloth used to wrap Jesus' corpse. So it would seem appropriate to go to the Bible detail first for that kind of matter. When investigating the prime data in the Bible, one then realizes how much time and energy could have been saved. How many articles in magazines - even professional journals - have been written about the Shroud of Turin? How many scientists have performed experiments on it? How many theologians have given their opinions about first century specifics, authenticity of the cloth, and on and on? I am not sure who this "Grant Swank" is since there appears to be several Christian commentators by that, or a similar, name. But whoever he is, he clearly is commentating on something he knows very little about. Does he seriously imagine that no one has ever thought of, "When it comes to the Shroud of Turin ... go[ing] to the Bible detail first"?

In fact among my many books on the Shroud of Turin, I have some which do consider whether it is consistent with the New Testament data (and it is). For example, Stevenson and Habermas's book, "Verdict on the Shroud" (1981) that I mentioned above, has an entire chapter four entitled, "The New Testament and the Shroud." And in a later book, "The Shroud and the Controversy" (1990), the same authors have a chapter 10, "Questions People Ask" and an Appendix D, "Biblical Questions Addressed," which both cover "the Bible detail" regarding the graveclothes of Christ. And Ian Wilson's classic, "The Turin Shroud" (1978), which anyone who claims to be a serious critic of the Shroud must have read, also has an entire chapter five, "The Shroud and the Recorded Burial of Jesus" by which he means, recorded in the New Testament.

The Shroud of Turin is not the cloth that wrapped the cold body of Jesus. It may have belonged to someone else, but not Jesus. The Bible precludes that conclusion. Turn to the Gospel of John, chapter 20, verses 4 through 7: "They both ran, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first; and stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself." (Revised Standard Version). There you have it. The fabric used to wrap Jesus' corpse was of two parts, not one full piece. The Shroud is of one full piece. It can't be the wrap-around for Jesus' dead body. Twice the word "cloths" is used - plural cloths, not one cloth. Then the reader is informed that a separate "napkin" was used to encase Jesus' head upon burial. On the first day of the week, early dawn, the napkin was found separate from the other fabric. It is hard to believe someone could write something so obviously fallacious! No one claims that the Shroud was the only graveclothes of Jesus.

And what's more, Swank neglects to inform his readers that not just John but all four gospels in a total of six places mention the burial cloths of Jesus, under various Greek words, both plural and singular, as follows (NIV translation). First, before Jesus' resurrection:

Mt 27:57-60 "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth [Gk. sindoni = "linen cloth"], and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."

Mk 15:43-46 "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth [sindoni], took down the body, wrapped it in the linen [sindona], and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb."

Lk 23:50-54 "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth [sindona] and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid."

Jn 19:38-41 "Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it [Gk. edesan = root deo "to bind"] , with the spices, in strips of linen [Gk. othoniois = "piece of linen"]. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. "

Then after Jesus' resurrection:

Lk 24:11-12 "But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen [othoniois] lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened."

Jn 20:3-8 "So Peter and the other disciple [John] started for the tomb. Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen [othonia] lying there but did not go in. Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen [othonia] lying there, as well as the burial cloth [Gk. soudarion = "head cloth"] that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up [Gk. entetuligmenon = root entulisso "to wrap up, roll up"] by itself, separate from the linen. [this last "from the linen" is not in the Greek] Finally the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went inside. He saw and believed."

Stevenson & Habermas explain that "othonia refers to all the grave clothes associated with Jesus' burial-the large sindon (the shroud), as well as the smaller strips of linen that bound the jaw, the hands, and the feet":

"The Grave Clothes. Another issue concerns the difference in the words chosen by the gospel writers to describe the grave clothes that Jesus was wrapped in. The synoptic evangelists say that he was wrapped in a sindon, a Greek word meaning a linen cloth which could be used for any purpose, including burial. John, on the other hand, says Jesus was wrapped in othonia, a plural Greek word of uncertain meaning. Othonia is sometimes translated as `strips of linen,' a meaning that would seem to be incompatible with a fourteen-foot-long shroud covering the front and back of the body. However, it is likely that othonia refers to all the grave clothes associated with Jesus' burial-the large sindon (the shroud), as well as the smaller strips of linen that bound the jaw, the hands, and the feet. This interpretation of othonia is supported by Luke's use of the word. He says (23:53) that Jesus was wrapped in a sindon, but later (24:12) that Peter saw the othonia lying in the tomb after Jesus' resurrection. Luke, then, uses othonia as a plural term for all the grave clothes, including the sindon ... Therefore, the gospels refer to the grave clothes in both the singular and the plural. When a single cloth is spoken of, it is obviously the linen sheet itself. However, since Luke (or early tradition) had no difficulty in using the plural (24:12) to describe what he earlier referred to in the singular (23:53), the term `clothes' may still refer to a single piece of material. On the other hand, if more than one piece is meant, `clothes' is most probably a reference to both the sheet and the additional strips which were bound around the head, wrists, and feet, as indicated in John 11:44 (cf. John 19:40). Interestingly enough, bands in these same locations can be discerned on the Shroud of Turin. At any rate, it is a reasonable conclusion that at least one major linen sheet is being referred to in the gospels." (Stevenson & Habermas, "Verdict on the Shroud," 1981, pp.48-49. Emphasis original)

And note especially that "Luke ... had no difficulty in using the plural (24:12 [othoniois = "strips of linen "]) to describe what he earlier referred to in the singular (23:53 [sindona = "linen cloth"])". So Swank's simplistic argument that, "Twice the word `cloths' is used - plural cloths, not one cloth," is fallacious. Quite clearly the same graveclothes are being referred to both collectively and singly, depending on each writer's focus.

As for two pieces of fabric used for a corpse, check out the Gospel of John, chapter 11, verse 44 regarding Lazarus. When Jesus called forth the name of Lazarus, the man came from his tomb, wobbling, dressed in gravecloths. They were plural, not singular. The Bible gives us detail in regard to the fabric: "And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes [Gk. keiriais = "bandages"]; and his face was bound about with a napkin. [soudarioo]" (King James Version). Again, "gravecloths" - plural cloths. Not one full piece for the corpse. Again, "napkin" for the head, separate from the full-length fabric. Again Swank's illogic in assuming that "plural" excludes "singular"!

And as can be seen by my interpolations above, the Greek word translated "graveclothes" is an entirely different one from sindon, the focus being on the strips of linen binding Lazarus' hands, feet and jaw, not on the shroud he was presumably wearing, otherwise he would have been naked!

In their later book referred to above, Stevenson & Habermas answers this, "John 20:5-7 mentions ... two cloths.... however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth" question, by pointing out that "One way for the synoptic Gospels ... to be in harmony with John is if a burial method like the one depicted on the Shroud was used" (my emphasis):

"Q. Doesn't the Shroud conflict with Scripture? a) John 20:5-7 mentions linens and at the very least implies there were a minimum of two cloths. Many have suggested that the linens were `strips,' however the Shroud is merely one piece of cloth. ...

A. All of the other scriptural issues were dealt with heavily in Verdict. The answers to these apparent discrepancies are as follows: First, the Gospels use the following words to describe the Shroud: Sindon burial sheet, winding sheet, shroud; sudarion-sweat cloth, face cloth, handkerchief; othonia linens. One way for the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) to be in harmony with John is if a burial method like the one depicted on the Shroud was used. John mentions a cloth that was described as `around his head' and about the face of Lazarus (John 20:7; 11:44). The word is sudarion, used in burial to bind the jaw against the effects of rigor mortis. There is evidence on the Shroud that a sudarion was used, though the whereabouts of any such cloth has long been unknown. The Shroud is a pure linen garment with some evidence that the head, hands, and feet were bound, most likely with other `linens.' The synoptics describe a linen sheet-a single cloth. Most likely, the sheet was more significant to the synoptic writers than other funerary cloths. Since the Jewish burial custom allowed the use of cloths to bind the hands and feet as well as the jaw, the total picture matches Jewish burial customs exactly and explains clearly why the synoptics only mention a sindon and John mentions othonia.

Second, John's use of othonia has led to a widely held belief that Jesus was wrapped like an Egyptian mummy. But such a procedure doesn't conform to what is known of first-century normal Jewish burial ritual. Nor does it match what was previously mentioned in the Word, to wit, that Joseph of Arimathea had purchased a winding sheet and wrapped Jesus in it (Mark 15:46). Even John used the word edesan, which is translated wound in the KJV but literally means `enfolded.' Enfolded would also match the burial custom. Being wrapped with strips of cloth would not. In other words, othonia in John should be understood to mean that Jesus' dead body was enveloped from head to feet in one burial cloth, not wrapped like a mummy with numerous strips of cloth." (Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "The Shroud and the Controversy," Thomas Nelson Publishers: Nashville TN, 1990, p.149-150. Emphasis original)

Two dead bodies - both wrapped about with two separate pieces of fabric. The Shroud of Turin is one full piece that wrapped a corpse of some era; but it can't be the cloth used for the dead frame of Jesus. The Bible relates otherwise. The problem is not "The Bible" but Swank's: 1) lack of consideration of all the evidence in all four gospels; 2) lack of checking the original Greek words; and 3) lack of logic - that there are "two separate pieces of fabric" (i.e. strips of linen that bound a Jewish corpse's hand, feet and jaw) does not exclude that there was also "one full piece" (i.e. a large sheet that then covered the whole body) - and in assuming that when a writer describes a scene, he has to record everything rather than only the most significant things.

[Continued in part #2]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Exodus 32:15-16. ¹⁵Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands. They were inscribed on both sides, front and back. ¹⁶The tablets were the work of God; the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets.

The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global #1

In the beginning: The debate over creation and evolution, once most conspicuous in America, is fast going global, The Economist, April 19, 2007 ...

[Left: Atlas of Creation, Harun Yahya]

THE "Atlas of Creation" runs to 770 pages and is lavishly illustrated with photographs of fossils and living animals, interlaced with quotations from the Koran. Its author claims to prove not only the falsehood of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, but the links between "Darwinism" and such diverse evils as communism, fascism and terrorism. In recent weeks the "Atlas de la Création" has been arriving unsolicited and free of charge at schools and universities across French-speaking Europe. The book is available free as a download of a PDF file, but even zipped it `weighs' over 30 Mb. I have no plans to download and read it, so I am not here endorsing the book, or the views of its author Harun Yahya (aka. Adnan Oktar).

It is the latest sign of a revolt against the theories of Darwin, on which virtually the whole of modern biology is based, that is gathering momentum in many parts of the world. Darwinists make these claims, but they rarely say what those "theories of Darwin" are and substantiate how "virtually the whole of modern biology is based" on them.

This is another example of how Darwinists rely on fallacies to support their theory, in this case the fallacy of Argument from Authority, i.e. "virtually the whole of modern biology is based" "on the theories of Darwin," therefore they must be true.

And this is despite their official position that, "Students should never be told that `many scientists' think this or that" because "Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence" (my emphasis):

"The Framework's [Science Framework for California public schools, California State Board of Education, 1990] most constructive recommendation is that teachers and textbook writers should avoid terminology that implies that scientific judgments are a matter of subjective preference or vote-counting.

Students should never be told that `many scientists' think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that `scientists believe.' Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to the tests of observation and objective reasoning.... Show students that nothing in science is decided just because someone important says it is so (authority) or because that is the way it has always been done (tradition).

The Framework immediately contradicts that message, however, by defining `evolution' only vaguely, as `change through time.' A vaguely defined concept cannot be tested by observation and objective reasoning. The Framework then urges us to believe in this vague concept because so many scientists do: `It is an accepted scientific explanation and therefore no more controversial in scientific circles than the theories of gravitation and electron flow.' An appeal to authority is unavoidable, because Darwinist educators cannot afford to reveal that their theory rests squarely on what the Policy Statement calls philosophical beliefs that are not subject to scientific test and refutation." (Johnson, P.E., "Darwin on Trial," [1991], InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, Second Edition, 1993, pp.145-146)

But as Phillip E. Johnson noted above, "An appeal to authority is unavoidable" for Darwinists because "their theory rests squarely on ... philosophical beliefs that are not subject to scientific test and refutation" (my emphasis).

The fact is that if God has supernaturally intervened at strategic points in life'a history (as the Bible claims He has in human history-see for example `tagline' quote below), "influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history)," as Richard Dawkins put it, or causing "miraculous additions at ... stage[s] of descent," as Charles Darwin put it:

"Darwin ... wrote in a letter to Sir Charles Lyell, the leading geologist of his day: `If I were convinced that I required such additions to the theory of natural selection, I would reject it as rubbish...I would give nothing for the theory of Natural selection, if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent.' [Darwin, C.R., Letter to C. Lyell, October 11, 1859, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, reprint, pp.6-7]. This is no petty matter. In Darwin's view, the whole point of the theory of evolution by natural selection was that it provided a non-miraculous account of the existence of complex adaptations. For what it is worth, it is also the whole point of this book. For Darwin, any evolution that had to be helped over the jumps by God was not evolution at all. ... At first sight there is an important distinction to be made between what might be called 'instantaneous creation' and 'guided evolution'. Modern theologians of any sophistication have given up believing in instantaneous creation. ... many theologians ... smuggle God in by the back door: they allow him some sort of supervisory role over the course that evolution has taken, either influencing key moments in evolutionary history (especially, of course, human evolutionary history), or even meddling more comprehensively in the day-to-day events that add up to evolutionary change. ... In short, divine creation, whether instantaneous or in the form of guided evolution, joins the list of other theories we have considered in this chapter." (Dawkins, R., "The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design," W.W Norton & Co: New York NY, 1986, pp.248-249, 316-317. Emphasis original)

then both "modern biology" and "the theories of Darwin" would be wrong, to the extent that they deny that supernatural intervention by God in life's history!

Then, on Dawkins' (and Darwin's) own admission, what "modern biology" textbooks and journals would have been describing all these years "was not evolution at all" but rather "divine creation" (my emphasis)!

To be continued (time permitting) in part #2.

Stephen E. Jones, BSc. (Biology).

---

Exodus 31:18. When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.