Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Consolidate video

OK..also this video conference is mentioned in two places, both the controversy and the News part on the bottom. It needs to be removed in one place. Where do you guys think is best for it? The Controversy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another ending

The way the article ends has to be fixed. It states that after his death there is a video conference of Rogers where he decided that the shroud was authentic. But reading what Rogers said all along, he didn't change his mind, he always thought it was authentic. He just repeated his lack of vanillin theory one more time. The way it is written now, it makes it sound as if one of the scientists who thought it was a fake decided it was now real. But Rogers NEVER thought it was a fake. In fact he is the only one I see quoted as arguing for it being real constantly. It needs to be cleared up. The phrase "he declared it to be fake and now thinks its real" is not compatible with him always saying it was real. One or the other is true. Either add the part where he called it a fake, or remove the part where he changed his mind. To make things make more sense, I moved that part up by the other information on Ray Rogers and that project. that way it fits better with the time line. I didn't copy the words "where he previously called it a fake" because it looks to me like he was always calling it real. So I just didn't add that one way or the other. I just wrote that he thought it was real in that documentary that was made near the end of his life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Maybe adding where the three samples came from would help people decide. After all, its not like they came from a corner, they came from three very different areas. I found a diagram. One of the samples is pretty much in the center, ehile the others are in the corners. I think its confusing when people keep referring to it as being one area. Its not. Also, it would be nice to figure out which of the radially different areas Rogers was testing.

POV

This article has too many points of view and everytime I go to put a tag as such it gets removed. We need to put some sort of a lock on this. If you claim something you must back it up with fact, not conjectur or weasel words like "Some claim" this article is full of that and it's impossible for me to change any of it as my revisions keep getting changed almost instantaneously. I have therefore requested partial protection as well.

The article is also way too long, it takes over 2 minutes almost 3 minutes to download in dial up and needs to be shortened

Please do not remove tags till you clear this up 4.142.123.117 (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)eric

Restoring all active, current threads that were prematurely swept under the rug

I know this was debunked by carbon dating a few years ago. can someone please include the carbon dating findings. NOTE: There may be more, Please check the archives and GFDL histories carefully, as much tampering with active discussions has been taking place. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vatican Position

What's the position of the Vatican on the shroud? The speech I linked to seems to suggest that he believes it's a matter for the science to determine the origin, and if the science concludes it's from the middle ages it's fine by them. However, confirmation by somebody fluent in Catholicese would be helpful.--Robert Merkel

The speech itself contains some sentences that might seem a quite enthusiastic approval by the pope. As for vatican habits, they are really very explicit in considering it as Christ's linen, no doubt seems to be left after these words. In this sense, I don't read in it that the Church is really waiting for scientific investigations: whatever might scientists say, the Shroud is a religious symbol, and it will remain a symbol even if it will eventually reveal of different times.
Looking into the "icon", as the Shroud is always defined as an "image", "inside it" and not "in it" are the religious meanings of this figure, so the Church sweetly invites scientists "to act with interior freedom and attentive respect for both scientific methodology and the sensibilities of believers". This latter element is a quite clear invitation to avoid intensively looking for solutions that could break believers' illusions, and please note that the Church itself, as the owner of the reliquia, selects allowed scientists to examine it... ;-) --Gianfranco
The British Government won't let any scientist touch their mummies, I fear, either. (Even though Egyptians claim the mummies are theirs). So your argument is, you will let me say, quite biased and unjust. Pfortuny 06:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hear hear. The same could be said for scientific instruments such as SOHO, supercolliders, etc.; only one that has shown true belief by submission to the baptisms and catechisms prescribed by the priesthood gains entree to the sancta of the new cathedrals. And see the ashes made of the careers of heretics. Contrariwise, should just any jobbo off the street consume HST time, "clean" and "restore" the Sistine, or rip swaths from the shroud? How can this necessary filtering ever be done objectively? Kwantus 19:44, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

The official possition is that the origin is unknown. However, as with any other relic of dubious origin, personal devotion is not officially prevented or encouraged. The Pope (the present one) is clearly devout to it, but you have to take into account that the present Pope is Eastern, and so he is very devout of Icons, and the shroud can be seen as one (and one especially gifted). Pfortuny 09:59, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pfortuny's comments (above) are perfect examples of "adding apples and oranges". British possessiveness of the mummies in their museums is in no way analogous to the Catholic Church's habit of preventing critical investigation of the Turin shroud. The age and origin of the mummies in British museums is not in question. They've already been examined. If a question should arise regarding the authenticity of one or more of these mummies, and the British government refuses to allow an investigation, or allows only an already-biased group (equivalent to STURP) to do the investigating, then will be the time to criticize the British government for not allowing scientists to examine the mummies closely enough.

This Pfortuny has got to go. What is meant by "The present Pope [I take it this post dates from the reign of John Paul II] is Eastern, and so he is very devout of Icons"? Just because a Catholic is from an eastern European country doesn't make him "devout of icons". Polish Catholics, unless they belong to a Uniate jurisdiction, don't employ icons in their worship any more than French or Italian or Irish Catholics do. Nor do other non-Uniate Catholics. The ones who are "devout of icons" are the Orthodox, not Catholics ("eastern" or otherwise). True, most Orthodox churches are in eastern Europe or the Middle East, hence they're often called "Eastern Orthodox", but it's an incredible folly to confuse them with Polish Catholics. tom.amity129.93.17.63 03:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quality

Just to have a comparison for the "unparalleled artistic quality" claims, here's a random Fayum mummy portrait from ancient Roman Egypt, grayscale and blurred, positive and negative:

File:Shroud-compare1.jpg File:Shroud-compare2.jpg

-- [DELETED IMAGE OF SHROUD CLOSEUP WAS HERE] --

Which one has the greater artistic quality? Which one provides more detail? The answer to that question is inherently POV. These mummy portraits were a commodity, by the way, they were not in any way unusual. In fact, the best artists of the time probably produced even more photorealistic images, but none survived the Dark Ages. They didn't just rot away -- many of the greatest works of art were deliberately destroyed, as Christianization brought with it iconoclasm, a curious trait of religious fundamentalism that would be revived by the Taliban many centuries later. --Eloquence* 02:42, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)

A curious thing about the shroud pic above is that if you bung it into Photoshop and invert it, it is difficult not to think the pic above is not a negative, but a positive. FWIW. Moriori 03:06, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
In topics like this, Wikipedia's NPOV policy is in many ways an endlessly circular trap. If one wants to be Chomskian about it, there is literally nothing that can be said which is supportable as anything other than POV, including all statements about what is and isn't POV. To me, the above images aren't even comparable in "fidelity to life", although the viewer must have the patience to let his eye rest on each for a good while and come equipped with a certain kind of discernment which is not given to all. Assuming this patience and aptitude, the shroud image, despite its grainy media, pulls far ahead of the Roman portrait in verisimilitude, heft and dimensionality, despite the portrait's superior media (and, in this case, a better digital capture). I have long admired early Roman portraiture and never cease to be annoyed at the common statement that, in comparison to the ancient Greeks, the Romans were inartistic oafs distinguished only by their military and engineering skills. But even though the portrait above is a good representative of some of the most realistic pigment images ever made, the sheer depth of visual information in the shroud is so far beyond it that it must be classed differently. Maybe the easiest way to see this is to concentrate for a moment on the "blood stains" in the forehead area of the shroud, which, even if they are blood rather then pigment, are functionally equivalent to pigment as an applied liquid medium that has dried. Let your eye sit on the forehead stain that looks like an inverted number 3. Then slowly shift your focus to just below the inverted 3. If you have the aptitude mentioned above you will get a sensation almost like vertigo, due to a sort of drop-off from a 2D object to a 3D object. If the inverted 3 were placed on the Roman portrait it would simply look like a badly misapplied brushstroke and this exercise of slowly shifting focal point would produce no sensation... When I say the shroud image is dimensional I'm not just trying to use an impressive word. It's dimensionality has been quantified by NASA's VP8 Image Analyzer (see http://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm) and is objectively of a different nature than all pigment images as well as all photographs. An eye wired to a brain sensitive to this kind of embedded dimensional information will pick it up on the shroud and a deep intuitive sort of feeling will come to that person. He will "know" this image is qualitatively different from both the positive and negative ofthe Roman portrait... BTW, no one claimed an "unparalleled artistic quality" for the shroud. In fact, if the shroud image was produced by some strange happenstance it can't be described as "art" at all. We have been talking about unique physical properties, not aesthetic properties per se. JDG
The entire comment above (which would benefit from paragraphs, by the way) is entirely subjective. It's your opinion and as such relevant to this talk page. It's acceptable to have such opinions in the article if they are properly attributed. It is not acceptable to claim that they are uncontroversial, generally accepted facts, which they are not.
My entire problem with the style of the article as it was and to some extent still is, is that it presumes objectivity where there is very little. The points you make are at the very center of the debate about the shroud. The Skeptic's Dictionary article gives a very good overview of the arguments from the other side, including the response to the alleged unique "three-dimensionality", which is in fact to be expected for any symmetrical image (it's morbidly amusing that shroud lovers cite 1976 image processing research, that's a little like citing medical research from 1920).--Eloquence* 00:50, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)
It so happens I read the Skepdic shroud page just last week. Rarely have I seen such a sorry excuse of an analysis. If this is the sort of thing that strikes you as "a very good overview"...(sentence unfinished). Let's look at just one of its statements: "Most skeptics think the image is a painting and a pious hoax." This isn't even a decent representation of what most skeptics think (at least slightly informed ones), it is also flat-out ludicrous and false. The images on the shroud were conclusively shown by electronmicroscopy in the late 1970s to be the result of discoloration of the flax and cotton fibrils from some chemical and/or heat event that caused a selective darkening of the material itself. Application of "paint" was entirely, utterly, ruled out, except for the purported bloodstains. The shroud, according to _all_ scientists in the last 30+ years, is simply not a coloration, it is a discoloration. Yet Skepdic skips blithely on and says "the image is a painting" (for obviously the Skepdic writers are skeptics and they are describing their own views here). This alone disqualifies the article from serious consideration. But there are many more hooters in it and, if I find time, I'll be back to share them. BTW, I saw no discussion of the dimensionality issue. Your assertion that dimensionality is expected for any symmetrical image makes no sense. I don't even know what you're trying to say by this. Symmetry has nothing to do with ordered depth. As for your problem with research from 1976, if you'd read the link above you would have seen it primarily describes work done in 1997 with a retooled VP8...(Added 5 minutes later) I suppose I should not have said _all_ scientists above, because McCrone, in the face of almost a dozen peer-reviewed science articles all categorically disproving his beliefs, continues to claim the shroud is "a watercolor in a tempera medium". What can one say about an individual who is uninfluenced by repeated physical proof and unanimous repudiation by his peers? I don't even think of him as a scientist. JDG
McCrone: Speaking of McCrone, the current treatment of him (which you wrote, JDG) is blatantly POV. I hope to find time this weekend to try to fix this and several other POV passages. Meanwhile, I suggest you identify the researchers you rely on and present their credentials. We'll leave it to the reader to judge whether those credentials are indeed "as impressive or more impressive." JamesMLane 03:47, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
James, please don't fall into this POV mantra so many others use as a catch-all. Looking back on that statement on McCrone in the article, it certainly is unsupported and should be worded differently. I saved in haste. I'll change it. JDG
I'm not using it as a catch-all. That the current passage is unsupported is one problem. The POV is a separate problem: If you add support in the form of information about other scientists' credentials, that would be good, but if you leave in the conclusion as to whose credentials are better, that conclusion, even though now supported, would still be a POV.
Yet another issue is that scientific disputes aren't really resolved by comparing credentials. Some very eminent and respected scientists have been proven wrong by upstarts and interlopers. The whole "issue" of credentials isn't really central to this article, which is getting long anyway. One approach would be that someone does a separate article on McCrone (I'll volunteer), someone else does an article on any scientist taking an opposing position, and a reader who wants to know about credentials can just click through and read about them. What would you think of revising the passage that way? JamesMLane 09:30, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds good. And I agree credentials don't resolve scientific disputes, but in certain cases it may be instructive to refer to them. McCrone is doing a real disservice to research by doggedly propping open questions that have been closed. The fact that paint was not used to create the shroud image in no way rules out the possibility of forgery or of a natural formation of the image. It's an unproductive use of time and energy to keep going back and arguing points that are really beyond argument. McCrone has attracted a lot of animosity among researchers for doing this, not excluding those who tend to believe the shroud is not miraculous. JDG
Oh, and if you do the separate piece on McCrone, please don't forget to mention his stellar work on the Vinland Map ( http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=24301 ) JDG
I read the Yale link you gave and the Wikipedia article on the Vinland map. Neither of them seems to me to suggest that McCrone's work on the subject shows him in a bad light, which I assume is your interpretation (taking your "stellar" to be sarcastic). By the way, some of the information from that Yale article ought to go into our Vinland Map article. JamesMLane 01:47, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I'm having an extremely sarcastic week, for some reason. The Yale article, being Yalian, is quite understated. It uses the phrase "The map's validity was first seriously questioned...(by McCrone)". In fact, McCrone declared it a forgery and was exultant in 1990 when both the Vinland Map and a fullsize reproduction of the shroud were showcased in a British Museum exhibition entitled "Fake". The title of the Yale article is "Vinland map ruled authentic". Connect the dots. For a less circumspect treatment, see this article: http://www.shroud.com/bsts4307.htm . JDG
Whatever! What I am trying to say is that the caption to the pic on this page says "a negative rendering of the face portion of the shroud". Right then, print it on clear film (whatever) and use that as a negative to print a photographic pic. Do you get a positive print? I wish I had a darkroom, so I could try this, but I haven't, and I don't think so. Moriori 08:50, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
Um, I was addressing Eloquence, not you (would have been indented one step more if I had been)... If I understand what you're asking, what you would get if you "use that as a negative to print a photographic pic" would be a positive print, but of course it would be a black and white positive without the straw color of the original. JDG
I feel nobody listens to me :/ (joking). But may I ask (to clarify): is the b/w jpg a digital image of the negative taken by the Italian photographer? Just in case I missed something. Pfortuny 09:56, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Pfortuny, that big paragraph wore me out and I had to check in to dreamland before writing anything else... I believe the image here is not the one by the very first photographer, Italian Secondo Pia, in 1898. I believe it's from the 1930s by somebody named Enrie or something similar. It's a B&W negative, basically a negative of a negative.JDG

Questions (mainly to JDG, bc I am at a loss)

  1. What does the "realism" in your sentences mean? Because I see different meanings in it. (in some sense, the above pictures are more realistic than the shroud, in some sense they are less).
  • Please see answer to Eloquence above comparing shroud with Roman portrait.
  1. The shroud AFAIK is made of linen. Is it possible that "that realistic effect" (whatever the meaning) is more difficult on a linen cloth than, say on a jar (clay-made), or canvas, or whatever? (I have not the faintest idea, that's why I am asking).
  • The shroud is mostly linen (flax) with some cotton. If you're talking about the usual ancient/medieval methods of image formation, using linen would not be ideal if the objective was the greatest possible realism. In the case of semi-liquid pigment, linen would tend to absorb it in ways difficult for the artist to control. In the case of something like chiaroscuro (a woodcut technique), the linen would tend to shed pigment grains in unpredictable ways. In the case of something like chalking, you'd have the same problem with grain shedding. And, generally, the weave of the linen gives an underlying grainy effect that would undermine most people's idea of "realistic"-- so, yes, canvas or baked clay would be better... Of course, linen turned out to be ideal for the way the image was formed on the shroud. Whatever or whoever the agent of image formation was, it/he/she used selective discoloration of fibril surfaces to produce the overall effect. This is partly what enabled the embedding of all that weird dimensional data-- the discolorations are at different distances from fiber tips and occupy varying lengths along entire fibers. The control needed for this is almost unthinkable (much more likely it resulted from some odd happenstance), and, no, it could not have been done on canvas or baked clay, as those surfaces force all image "information" onto a thin plane at their surfaces. JDG

Maybe those questions are related and related to the discussion, but I dunno. Answers are appreciated from anyone :) Pfortuny 07:03, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) Fayam portrait Here's my POV as an Art Historian who is familiar with Fayam mummy portraits. To say that this is a "random" Fayam mummy portrait is a subtle excercise in wool-pulling! This is no "random" portrait. It is one of the finest and most expertly-handled, most three-dimensional and beautiful of all the known Fayam portraits. These portraits were painted by artists who undoubtedly specialised in creating these life-like images. Unlike Leonardo, their output probably ran into hundreds or thousands of portraits in a productive lifetime. Some of them were very very (POV, POV!) skilful at achieving a lifelike and 3D face. And they brought to life the dead body at which they were looking, fleshed it out and gave it "soul" as expertly as the most expert modern forensic sculptor. But, (and this of course is a value judgement, made for the benefit of those who are not familiar with this particular artform) this Fayam portrait goes well beyond the average in depiction of that which is lifelike. The writer has, I suspect, selected the finest example he could locate in order to make the point, whatever the particular point is..... ON THE VINLAND MAP - On this topic, Pfortuny is as usual immoderate. The Vinland map was "declared authentic" by a conference whose sole purpose seems to have been the discrediting of McCrone with the aim of upping the authenticity of the shroud of Turin. Nobody took this conference seriously, except the advocates of the Turin shroud for whom it's just about their favorite conference in the world. The interesting thing about this conference is that its organizers DIDN'T INVITE McCRONE, which is extremely odd since he's the one who did the work on the Vinland map to begin with! Whom do they think they're kidding? Tom.amity129.93.17.63 04:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) --Amandajm 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jesus of Nazareth vs. Jesus the Nazarite

Note to this author: The name Nazoreth did not exist during the time of Jesus. It is a second century name. Jesus was refered to in the new testament scriptures as 'Jesus the Nararite'. A Nazarite is a person who belongs to a subsect of Essene Jewdaism. For instance, upon the cross the Romans nailed the sign 'Jesus the Nazarite, King of the Jews'. It is a mistake of translation between Greek to other languages that 'Jesus the Nazarite' became 'Jesus the Nazarene'. Later this was mistranslation was interpreted as 'Jesus of Nazareth', but only after the 2nd century, as prior to the second century no Narareth existed in Palastine, or Jordan (where Jesus was babtized by the Nazarite John the Babtist).

I assume this is meant as the justification given for changing "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus the Nazarite". I'd say it fails to meet a reasonable standard of evidence; so I'm restoring the familiar name pending a more thorough discussion of the issue. CJGB (Chris) 04:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You're wrong in asserting that there was no such place name as Nazareth until the second century, because you don't know that. You're assuming there was no such place because it's not mentioned in any records (other than the Gospels), but that doesn't prove there wasn't such a place. The silence of the records might mean Nazareth was an obscure, small and insignificant place and that there was no occasion to mention it. The New Testament phrase which is traditionally translated as Jesus of Nazareth, and which you render as Jesus the Nazarite, is actually Iesous Nazarenos. Now, what does Nazarenos ("Nazarene" in English) mean? "Of Nazareth" or "the Nazarite"? Take your pick. Either is possible. But even though the town called Nazareth isn't mentioned in any other records, it is mentioned in the Gospels, and in the Gospel of Luke it's identified as Jesus' hometown.

Your definition of Nazarite in terms of Essene Judaism is incorrect. Essenes may have employed the term, but it goes all the way back to Torah.

You confuse the issue with your careless misspellings (Nazoreth, Nararite, Palastine, Jewdaism). Tom129.93.17.202 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"Photographic"

When he was placed in his tomb and that his image was somehow recorded on its fibers as a photographic negative at or near the time of his proclaimed resurrection") should not be in the intro paragraph and in fact is misleading anywhere in the article. First, there are many image modes that people believe in that have nothing "photographic" or photography-like about them (see the sections on impressions from sculptures or bodies and image formation by bas-relief, amongst others). Second, most of the more advanced "Shroudies" and almost all scientists coming from imaging backgrounds believe the idea of the photographic negative is understandable in this case, but usually misleading. Thy believe the image is probably a negative of something, but certainly not a photographic negative and not even directly analogous to a negative photo. One must bear in mind that it is the modern photographic negative that revealed tremendous detail on the Shroud, but this is quite distinct from concluding or arguing that the Shroud actually is a photographic negative. See this paper by Peter Schumacher for a good explanation: [1]. Thanks JDG 04:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)... BTW, I was an original author on this article way back-- not that I'm asserting ownership or anything, but just so you know I'm not swooping down out of left field. JDG

Sorry, but this is a crucial viewpoint, it belongs in the intro and suppressing this fact seems like... well... suppression. The belief that it is a photo negative is the singular most thing that makes the shroud distinctive in the minds of many, please note that the phrase is not concluding or arguing that it actually "is a photographic negative", but only that many (perhaps even with sound reason) believe it to be one. Shouldn't the article on photo negatives at least be allowed to be linked to from this article? Of course, and might as well get to it in the intro, since that is the core of the matter. If you censor this, it seems like an attack on this belief. NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints be represented neutrally, which this line is careful to do; so why are you attacking the representation of a highly significant viewpoint? Reverting, and will continue to dispute the suppression of this significant point if necessary. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Codex, I'm afraid you're confused about the distinctions that need to be made here. I'm not up to tussling over it right now, so I'll leave your edit in place. But I'll be back, hopefully in a week or two, and then let's try to bring in a few others to clarify and perhaps decide the issue. JDG 23:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to chip in like this, but I believe the dispute is specifically over the use of the phrase "photographic negative". The word "photographic" implies that the image was produced through the action of light, not any of the other possible mechanisms such as some kind of miraculous process or a chemical reaction caused by decomposition gases. Therefore JDG is correct to question the use of this phrase in the introductory paragraph, since most of the main theories do not entail a "photographic" process (i.e. there was not thought to be any light involved in the formation of the image). In fact the main theory which involves photography is one that disputes the authenticity of the shroud (i.e. the assertion that it was some kind of medieval photography)!
From the wikipedia entry on photography:

"Photography is the process of making pictures by means of the action of light. Light patterns reflected or emitted from objects are recorded onto a sensitive medium or storage chip through a timed exposure. The process is done through mechanical, chemical or digital devices known as cameras."

If the phrase had been "something similar to a photographic negative" or something like that, there would be less problem with the phrase. That would not necessarily imply the action of light, merely an analogy with a photographic negative - although I'm sure there must be a better way of saying it!! If it is truly believed to be the result of a genuinely photographic process (i.e. caused by light) then this should be elaborated on in the "Theories of image formation" section, and a more general term (covering most of the theories propounded by believers in its authenticity) should be used in the introductory paragraph. Sorry to be so pedantic over the use of the word "photographic"; but this is, after all, an encylopedia, where pedantry is to be encouraged for the sake of accuracy!
Missdipsy 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
To repeat what I said above: The belief that it is a photo negative is the singular most thing that makes the shroud distinctive in the minds of many, please note that the phrase is not concluding or arguing that it actually "is a photographic negative", but only that many (perhaps even with sound reason) believe it to be one. Shouldn't the article on photo negatives at least be allowed to be linked to from this article? Of course, and might as well get to it in the intro, since that is the core of the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue of the negative is more than adequately addressed in the body of the article. You have completely destroyed the fine balance of the opening paragraph as it was when the article was voted to FA. Please desist. JDG 19:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Bollocks. It is of the utmost crucial importance to me that all POVs be represented fairly here, and not be given short shrift by partisan interests who would see them blanked. Reverting to a version 2 years old and blanking the talk page is no substitute for an honest discussion of the actual facts, what are you afraid of discussing?ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

References

References in the article are a complete mess: some with {{note}}, some with inline links, and some with <ref>. Any objections against converting them all to <ref>? --Tgr 12:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Textile claims

In the opening paragraphs this claim ―:

“textile and material analysis pointing to a 1st-century origin”

can be read. It’s confusing. If I remember correctly Ian Wilson (Christianity), a major pro-authenticity advocate of TS, has written in his books and newsletter that the textile evidence is ambiguous. ―Cesar Tort 03:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I’ve re-read Wilson’s textile passages and yes: I remembered correctly. In The Mysterious Shroud. Wilson wrote:

“Overall, Raes’s evidence is ambivalent. It shows the Shroud could have been produced in first-century Palestine, but equally plausibly it could have been produced in fourteenth-century Europe or a fourteenth-century Muslim country, from which commercially expanding countries like France and Italy were importing heavily. Troyes, only twelve miles from Geoffrey de Charny’s Lirey, was one of Europe’s most important centers for precisely this form of trade.” (pp. 42f).

Therefore, I removed the erroneous claim in article. ―Cesar Tort 06:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The textile claims do not suggest time frame at all, mearly that the shroud had middle east origin!!! only radio carbon dating can be used to date an artefact like this, and they ballsed it up on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

“dramatically lowered”

  • “This article had an intensive rewrite in early `05. 1st paragraph was result of much work and consensus. Changes and additions since then have *dramatically* lowered quality. Restoring”

JDJ wrote the above in edit summary and I endorse his comment. --Cesar Tort 06:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I oppose it. Also, WHO tried to sweep the last two years worth of discussion under the carpet? That isn't the procedure; discussion threads are not to be archived when there has been activity on them less than a year old. Since most of it pertained to the specific reasons for making those changes, and what's currently on this page is no substitute for the discussion on the actual issues that have already been discussed, looks like most of the current discussions that were prematurely archived, are going to have to be pasted back here again. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The page was already 100 kilobytes long (and the oldest post before archiving it was of 7 December.). Isn’t there a policy to archive such long pages?
But this is beside the point, Codex Sinaiticus (BTW it cannot be a coincidence that your nic means manuscript of the Greek Bible!). The fact that the article’s opening paragraph states plainly “The image was somehow recorded on its fibers as a photographic negative at or near the time of Jesus' proclaimed resurrection” makes it look like a Christian apologetics article. —Cesar Tort 16:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
It states no such thing. It states that this is what one point of view believes to be the case. NPOV policy requires that all POV's be given a fair shake -- even when you don't like them. It would not do justice to represent anything else as being the POV of those who believe it is a negative. This smacks of POV-pushing when one side is not allowed to present its case, and the other side is - not to mention suppression of recent active discussion on the subject from this talk page, which is about to be reintroduced since it is still being actively discussed. And how exactly is my username not a coincidence? Not a coincidence with what? To speak of a "coincidence", there have to be at least two things coinciding / not coinciding with each other; if one of those things is my username, what is the other thing? The fact that this is a topic centred on current religious belief? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 17:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead: make Wikipedia a Christian encyclopedia if you want. I won’t argue any more with you. —Cesar Tort 17:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag by Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus has already trespassed the 3-revert rule, as can be seen here.

Since revert #4 was the placement of the POV tag, it should be removed. ―Cesar Tort 20:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Cesar, he didn't violate the rule. I was going to block him myself, until I realised the placing of the tag wasn't actually a revert. Thats not to say that I think the POV tag is justified because he misrepresents WP:NPOV - it doesn't state that all POV's are given a "fair shake", it says the subject must be described in neutral language and notable opinions given due prominance. I'm perfectly convinced the article does that already and that his additions introduce POV. Nevertheless, it shouldn't be removed for violating WP:3RR. Rockpocket 20:59, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
That was an illegitimate 3RR report, as can be seen on the link. Placing a NPOV tag is not a reversion. I am disputing the neutrality of this article, because you are trying all kinds of tricks to avoid mentioning or fairly discussing the single most imporatant thing that is actually believed about the shroud - the belief that it is a photographic negative. There's no reason in the world to censor this from the intro, just because you don't like the fact that people believe this. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not censoring the fact that sindonologists believe the image is a photographic negative, only that the way it was phrased brought up Christian apologetics (Jesus’ “resurrection”) in the intro paragraph (this is not a religious encyclopedia). Furthermore, the shroud is not a photographic negative. It’s a quasi-negative. The image differs from a negative in two respects:

1) There are blank spaces surrounding the various imprinted forms (for example, nose, cheeks, etc) within the outlines of the figure.

2) The beard is opposite in tone to what we should expect (dark on the original “negative” imprint) giving the effect when a positive is made that Jesus was a white-bearded old man.

―Cesar Tort 03:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What you seem not to understand is that it doesn't matter if you say it is a "quasi-negative" (what is your source or authority for this?), and it doesn't matter if I think it really was a photographic negative. It doesn't matter what any of us editors think, and we aren't here to decide the factuality or non-factuality of any of these claims, because we weren't appointed to do that, in fact policy doesn't allow it here (but over at Wikiversity, it's another story, research is allowed there all you want!). What is crucial for wikipedia is that we represent the actual claims as faithfully, accurately, and as neutrally as is possible to verify them. There is no question that some - notwithstanding your own arguments - believe the shroud image is photographic in nature and have stated this. To not allow this to be mentioned is like fighting against reality, for some reason that can't really explained, so it's easier to just dodge the subject and try to simply shut it up as much as possible rather than face it. That usually backfires - if the goal was to detract attention, too much can't be done to draw attention to the actual crux of the matter. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
“what is your source or authority for this [quasi-negative]?”
Joe Nickell.
“There is no question that some - notwithstanding your own arguments - believe the shroud image is photographic in nature and have stated this. To not allow this to be mentioned is like fighting against reality…”
Not misleading the reader in the intro paragraph that the quasi-negativity may have been caused by “flash photolysis” resurrection, as Ray Rogers put it, is the real issue here. ―Cesar Tort 04:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
It shouldn't mislead anyone who knows how to speak English to state that this is one of the key positions on the Shroud, as it previously read. That is the gist of WP:NPOV - to write from the neutral standpoint, we don't state that it unequivocally is not a photo negative, or that it is -- but we can and should cite which authors have taken each position. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 04:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

I think I just noticed part of the problem... I hadn't actually noticed this before, but on 11 Dec., user:Brandmeister changed the wording subtly, so that instead of stating that there are those who "believe" the Shroud is photographic in nature (true), it rather stated simply that the Shroud "is" photographic in nature -- which I agree is too much for neutrality. I hadn't paid attention to that minor change when I was reverting, but it seems that is what you were looking at and removing. What I actually wanted it to say is the wording just before Brandmeister changed it on Dec. 11, that some believers "consider" it photographic. Would you accept that as a compromise? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's ok with me but we have to wait for JDG's opinion. --Cesar Tort 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh irony

of ironies!

Although the pov tag was placed for another dispute, now I’d like it stays there until this paragraph ―:

Raymond Rogers' January 20, 2005 paper in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta provides apparently conclusive chemical evidence that the sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid

―is reconsidered. While it is true that Raymond Rogers tried to rebut Joe Nickell on this topic, [2] it’s far from certain that the 1988 radiocarbon dating was not valid.

As stated above, it was Rogers himself who, back in 1977 (before he actually studied the shroud directly in 1978!) coined the phrase “flash photolysis” as a “scientific” term for the hypothesis of Jesus’ resurrection imprinted on the shroud. My point can be appreciated if we consider a couple of letters that Marvin Mueller, a nuclear physicist who published a critical article on the shroud in a 1982 Skeptical Inquirer, sent me. His letter was later published in no other than Joseph Marino’s newsletter: the man who first tried to refute the 1988 radiocarbon dating by claiming that the sample cut from the shroud in 1988 was not valid.

In a couple of his 1990 letters to me, Mueller wrote:

Except for perhaps two or three weeks each by McCrone, Nickell, and Fischer, there has been almost no hands-on bench work put-in by those on the skeptical side. In contrast, the total effort by STURP was probably over a hundred times larger. Shroud skeptics are not easy to motivate at the nitty-gritty, nose-to-grindstone level. Yet science, to perform properly, demands that a serious effort be made to invalidate claims and hypotheses. The image problem is not easy to address experimentally and a thorough test of Jackson’s [STURP’s main pro-authenticity advocate] conclusions could easy take months of work by a small team – preferably by a totally independent one.

But, as I mentioned in my previous letter, the chief problem lies with motivating enough scientists and artisans to undertake such a program of arduous research with a Jacksonian intensity, and the prospects of this happening seem bleak to me. There is a notable motivational asymmetry between the two sides of the Shroud controversy.

I quoted all of this because it’s clear to me that, if skeptic researchers were out there publishing like Rogers in respected peer-reviewed journals, a hole might well be found in Rogers’ argument. In other words, the motivational asymmetry between the two sides makes the research biased! And that means that Rogers, the proponent of the flash-photolysis/ resurrection hypothesis he invented before putting any hand on the shroud, is not necessarily right about what he writes in his 2005 Thermochimica Acta paper.

The tragedy is that confirming (or casting serious doubts on) the 1988 dating may be easy if the Vatican permitted a new C-14 testing. In other words, part of the mystery has to do with the church’s reluctance to allow the badly-required new battery of tests.

This situation can only favor the advocates. —Cesar Tort 09:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC) 

  Postscript
  • “…and repeated peer-reviewed analyses of the image mode which strongly contradict McCrone's assertions”

The above, which also appears in the opening paragraphs, further illustrates my point.

“Repeated peer-reviewed analyses” are basically STURP’s analyses. With the exception of McCrone and another agnostic, STURP was composed of almost 40 Christians and a Jew. And the STURP elite, Jackson, Jumper, Rogers, Heller and Schwalbe were latter-day champions of Christian apologetics. It cannot be a coincidence that the champions reached diametrically-opposed conclusions to the agnostic! Have McCrone’s claims, that he found traces of pigment on the shroud, being refuted by the STURP champions of Christian apologetics? I’m unqualified to answer the question. I am not a specialist. Obviously the McCrone vs. the STURP data ought to be evaluated by an independent team. Now then, a random “40 scientists” search into, say, the American Association for the Advancement of Science members would hardly give a result of 40 Christians, let alone passionate defenders of their dogma!

Can it be seen now the full force of Mueller’s point?

If the scientists who investigate the shroud are not a fair mixture of Christians, Jews, agnostics, atheists and secular humanists the research itself will always be skewed to show the hidden agenda of the researchers. —Cesar Tort 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to this author: Do you think an atheist or agnostic who has the preconcieved opinion that 'Jesus and religion are hogwash' would be any less biased when considering evidence upon the shroud? Don't you think that it is best to take a neutral viewpoint upon the likelyhood of Jesus's shroud being the TS, and rather concentrate upon the allegations of scientific fraud concerning the C14 testing and the known history of the TS? Did you know that McCrone had already publically labelled the TS as a fake in his opinion long before the original C14 test??? Do you really believe Mc Crone to be an unbias Agnostic considering his views against published historical records tracking the passage of the Shroud of Turing from its home in Eddessa through to France and then finally Italy (by Pope John Paul II)? Did you know that most of the availible historical and scientific research prior to the C14 dating pointed to the TS being genuinely 1st century AD???
Here is my point for you! One should not apologise for highlighting known historical data and the contra evidence against the C14 tests being genuine. Further to your point about STURP. A Pharisitic Jew would certainly not be involved in a plot to glorify a relic proving Jesus's resurection/resusitation (resusitation is the correct translation of the Greek word used the the Bible). Jesus belonged to a group of Jews (the third largest sect after the Pharisees and the Seducees) called the Essenes. Most modern Jews do not follow Essene principles of Acetism, as practiced by Christ and the Apostles. So a modern Jew is not likely to bias in favour of Jesus. Further more, many people say they are Christian. It does not mean that atheists/agnostics are more detached and unbias when it comes to the TS issue. Would you not agree that the only people who can be relatively unbias are those who have no firm opinion about the existence or absence of God and all the related topics, ie those who truely balance all the evidence rather than infuse their own opinion??? It is also worth pointing out to everyone that STURP were excluded from the C14 test when the vatican unexplicably decided to reduce the testing groups from 6 (some of which were independent laboratories) to 3 laboratories. I ask you to consider why the Vatican did not want any independant laboratories having access to the shroud, and were affraid of due process.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

The Rivero-Borrel shroud

The present article contains this phrase:

  • “While wrapping a cloth around full life-sized statue would result in a distorted image...”

Below you can see the replica that the late Enrique Rivero-Borrel, president of the Mexican Society of Sindonology, did years ago.

I myself took several photos of this shroud, front and back, in a MITRA library (Vatican Embassy in Mexico).

A man with pigments applied onto his body was covered by a cloth of the size of an altar cloth (like the TS). Since the sides of the man were not wrapped the result, as can be seen, is an undistorted image.

If we take into consideration what I posted above, that McCrone’s observations have been challenged but not refuted, there’s the possibility that the TS image may have been fabricated in a similar way. (We must remember that there were other imaged shrouds in France, where the TS appeared for the first time in the 1350s. The shrouds were destroyed by fanatic Jacobins in the French Revolution.) Rogers himself said that McCrone was “the best in the world” in his specialized field of microanalysis. McCrone concluded that none of the TS control (off-image) tapes showed pigment or particles, while eighteen tapes from body and “blood”-image areas showed significant amounts of pigment.

This raises big questions. Is there something similar to the Rivero-Borrel shroud in the literature of TS studies? If McCrone is right about the presence of pigments and STURP wrong, the judgment day for the TS may be at hand…

If there is nothing published similar to the Rivero-Borrel shroud, I may ask the editor of Free Inquiry to publish an article on the subject authored by me. Years ago the editor became interested when I sent him printed photos of the Rivero-Borrel images.

But I’d like to know first whether or not there’s something similar in the vast field of TS studies. ―Cesar Tort 04:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to this author: This theory of yours i would suggest you ask yourself the following questions. 1) How is it possible for all the fakes to be out of proportion, whilst the TS image shows exact body proportions. 2) In experiments, dust particles from the blood marks on the linen were treated with vapours of hydrazine and formic acid, and then irradiated with ultraviolet light. This experiment showed up a red glow of porphyrin molecules under this radiation. Porphyrin occurs in a stage of haem synthesis and is considered a sure proof of the presence of blood, even when the haem itself has been destroyed by the effect of heat. Spectrographic analysis by Sam Pellicori of the Santa Barbara Research Centre in California could clearly show that the marks on the cloth which appear to be blood are in fact blood. The spectrum shows that it is a denatued metahaemoglobin. Metahaemoglobin comes from the oxidation of the haemoglobin iron in blood. McCrone claimed that iron in the marks was a celar indication of an iron oxide pigment in use only since the fourteenth century. However, McCrone had not mentioned the absence of the other transition metals also found in this type of pigment (namely manganese, cobalt and nickel. Further experiments by Profs Heller and Adler of the STURP group used experiments for identifying haematic micro traces which are accepted as legal evidence in the USA of the presence of blood. Now I have left this evidence for you to puruse, how can you maintain your view that the shroud could have been faked using Pigments??? For reference see / Website of Holger Kersten
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.59.203 (talk)

broken link

In the "General Observations" section, there is a broken link to "Analysis of artistic style." Can somebody fix this to make it point to whatever it's supposed to point to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capedia (talk • contribs) 17:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).


If the Shroud is fake then the DNA test results would have come up negative. Has anyone(scientists and such) done DNA tests of the Shroud of Turin to make sure that real blood is present, and if it is doesn't that make it true that it is real? If real blood is not present then obviously it would be fake. If blood is present it could not be fake, (assuming the dating tests are true and they do date back to Christs time)since artists of the time period would not be so disgusting as to paint with real blood. Also to anyone who says that it is not human blood, that also would be disgustin to make a fake with animal blood, and besides what would be the point to make a fake Shroud of Christ? To have people from all over the world touch this piece of history for what purpose?


(if anyone must know i am not taking side just presenting a different view of things. email me with any questions: urie_alex@yahoo.com)

Fire

I think I heard something about the Radio carbon dating being innacurate because it went through a fire and all the carbon in the soot messed it up. I don't know if it's mentioned in the article or not, because I just skimmed over it and I don't really have the time to read the whole thing. I think someone should look it up and put it in the article.

Not even the late Rogers believed in that claim. —Cesar Tort 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Note to this author: If you enlarge the shroud photo shown on the main article page, you can see the burn marks. Actually, the samples taken were nowwhere near these burn marks, rather along the edge of the shroud.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.145.107 (talk)
I have heard this idea from a lot of people, so the misunderstanding is rather common. Those who believe it to be true don't understand how radio-carbon dataing works. If Wikipedia tried to document every false claim about a subject, there would be little room and no time to document the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.70.39.45 (talk) 22:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Overview

I'm not sure that the article makes clear enough the fact that, despite the opponent's views on the matter, the issue as regards the image being fabricated has been more or less discredited, it's certainly not any kind of painting, McCrone was way off beam. Obviously, the article has to condense things, making rather agonising choices about what to leave out, but if you read all the literature out there on the subject as I have - both for and against - you can gain an in-depth view (as long as you're open-minded on both for and against!). Ian Wilson's marvellous work on documenting the history and also the possible early history is a great starting point. The carbon-dating is more or less discredited too, so if we put to one side exactly whose shroud it was (!) the big question still is - how was it created? That's what skeptical scientists should be applying themselves to, instead of just saying (like Gove) 'somebody got a bit of cloth and faked it up'.....hardly a scientific or satisfactory answer. It's amazing that in this day and age, with all our fantastic technology, we can't answer that question."Matthew.hartington 23:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)"

  • It’s not amazing at all! Have you digested Mueller’s point quoted above?
  • Ian Wilson is a devout Catholic. Only Christians take his “early history” of the TS seriously. No secular historian buys Wilson’s fancy history before the 14th century.
  • The C-14 tests are not discredited. Again, Mueller’s quote explains many things.
  • I have also read all the serious sources by both skeptics and pro-authenticity advocates: books and published articles. I even subscribed the journal Shroud Spectrum International by Catholic editor Dorothy Crispino.
  • Finally, I am not saying that McCrone’s painting hypothesis is plausible, only that the Rivero-Borrell shroud may be the solution to the mystery if McCrone was right about the pigments issue. (This may be OR for the moment but if nobody has published anything similar to what I wrote above I certainly will.)
--Cesar Tort 23:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


  • I do appreciate your comments, and they made me take another look; Mueller does have a valid point - the only way this can be resolved is for every side of the argument to be thoroughly scientifically tested, and if you're saying that bias is endemic, then yes, any team doing the work from whatever side of the argument should be a composite of all religions and viewpoints if a true and fair consensus is to be the result, and more importantly, contain a result that can be seen to be fair and impartial.
  • Fair comment about Ian Wilson's catholicism, but as far as I can tell, he tries to be impartial in his judgements, certainly much more broad-minded than most shroud supporters. Though I do concede that with such a strongly held inner belief, some leakage could easily occur. Don't agree that 'no secular historian' buys the pre-14th century history.
Wilson said once to Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince that he felt that mundane hypotheses on TS image formation threatened him. This strikes me as if Wilson is not doing true historical research but apologetics, his hidden agenda. (BTW, do you know an atheist historian who buys Wilson’s history?) ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I know the work of several historians on the subject, but I've no idea of their faith. It's tempting to repulse such questions, but ultimately, I agree with the overall point that on an issue such as this, the faith and/or beliefs of the people doing the research HAS to be looked at. Scavone's work is compelling, if still essentially circumstantial, but I'll need to check his belief systems now, thanks to you! "Matthew.hartington 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"
  • Well let's say that the C-14 tests are not proved to be creditable either. I do agree that Mueller's quote means looking harder from that point of view.
  • I can see without prompting, the work you've done on this, all to your credit; but you seem to have your own bias operating - probably like the Wilson one, unconscious leakage! One for you to watch!
Of course I have a bias! But the point is that my bias, natural explanations are by definition not supernatural or paranormal like sindonologists’ bias. They want to prove Jesus’ resurrection using… science! (something like Buddhists trying to prove Buddha’s miraculous birth or Muslims trying to scientifically prove that Mahomet moved the mountain). In other words, my bias doesn’t need to be demonstrated. Theirs has (and with all probability it’s fantasy). ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect: _If_ the Resurrection really happened as a historic event, and _if_ by its very happening it had tangible and lasting physical effects (something that not even most Christian theologists agree upon,) then looking for scientific proof of this happening is not so irrelevant or out of place. Faith is quite secondary here: what the Shroud shows, and the way that it shows it, should be of interest to science... and if it offers some support (not necessarily "proof") to religious beliefs, so be it. To deny this possibility is as bad science as saying that it _should_ support religious belief. - Daniel_C 23:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it's a bad way to conduct investigation - taking the premise then trying to make the facts fit. Much better to just look and see what's there, and go wherever it takes us."Matthew.hartington 11:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)"
  • Your comment about McCrone and the Rivero-Borrell shroud are well worth looking at, and McCrone has taken some stick over the painting issue - it does seem to me that the painting hypothesis has been more or less settled in conventional painting terms - but that doesn't mean he was wrong about the pigment. You make a valid point here, I think you should publish, yes.
  • Thanks for the comments and info - very interesting. "Matthew.hartington 12:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)"
And thanks also for your comments, Mathew. I replied to a couple of them above. ―Cesar Tort 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Are the C-14 tests refuted?

There seems to be undue weight in the article towards Ray Rogers’ 2005 “refutation” of the 1988 Carbon-14 testing on the TS. I feel compelled to quote Nickell’s reply to Rogers in Skeptical Inquirer:


―Cesar Tort 17:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

C-14 tests are reputed in general now. For example tests on living flowers result in them being dated to hundreds of years old. Some shells are dated to 100 of years into the future etc. Wheat from Egyptians jars has dating thousands of years apart for individual grains all found in the same jar! Basically the C-14 level in thing isn't constant at any time and can't be used for anything any more. All these tests actually prove is how much C-14 is in the fabric. Getting a date from that is a guesstimate at the very best. If the cloth is older than medieval it seems it would be the only piece of cloth in existence that is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dacium (talk • contribs) 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Note to the above author. It is possible that the grains found in the Egyptian jar were simply stored in an old jar to begin with no???

Actually the oldest cloth pieces are those used to wrap Egyptian mummies. And yeah C-14 test are quite unreliable in cases where the object is exposed to such abuses. -Dark Dragon Flame 15:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Origen of the disrepute aligations concerning C14 testing upon the Turin Shroud

The C14 testing method is not questioned in general. However, it is generally aggreed that testing fabrics/fibres is difficult. Fibres must be properly prepared to remove contaminating particles. The original disrepute aligations were directed at the experimenters and the Vatican, not the C14 testing protocol. These allegations were not origionally made by Ray Rogers’ 2005 “refutation, but by earlier publication.

In the case of the 1988 radiocarbon dating experiments upon the shroud, nobody has questioned the accuracy of the measurements that were taken of the various samples tested. Rather, it is accusations (first published by respected theologian/pedagogicistin Holger Kersten, and Scientist/philosophist Elmar Gruber in the book "The Jesus Conspiracy" in 1992) that the Turin Shroud samples were switched with Samples of 'The Cope de Saint Louis'(a medieval cloth woven in the same Herringbone pattern as the Turin Shroud) directed against the Vatican Cardinal Ballestrero, and against Dr Tite (the person responsible for the overseeing of the cutting of the cloth and the sealing of the fragments into glass vials). The accusations were not only directed against these individuals, but several key figures involved in the experiements such as Professor Hall of Oxford University, Gabrial Vial of Lyon, Professor Luigi Gonella (Cardinal Ballestrero's scientific spokesman), Professor Wolfi of the Zurich laboratory, Professor Carlos Chagas, and Professor Giovanni Riggi (based in Turin). They accuse the Vatican (or elements within the Vatican along with the above mentioned scientists who were involved in the administration and conducting of the experiments) of colluding to prevent the true age of the Turin Shroud being measured. Suffice to say that this book needs to be read by any interested Shroud scholor, but for those who can't be fussed reading the book, the authors maintain a website that sumerizes their main findings.

That makes no sense at all. Why would anyone try to hide the true age of the shroud? Even if its a billion yrs old, its not likely to be Jesus. Why would anybody go to that much trouble for something that would have no effect on anyone? Nothing really changes no matter who that is in there. I still believe that Christ is a Messiah, and I still don't think thats him. If someone proved it was him...Oh well. Who would risk their reputation or possible punishment for that???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reason for edit of "Second Image on Back of Cloth"

Where it previously read " At the same time, the second image makes the electrostatic hypothesis very probable because a double superficiality is typical of corona discharge and the photographic hypothesis somewhat less probable" I changed it to "At the same time, the second image seems to support the electrostatic hypothesis because a double superficiality is typical of corona discharge and the photographic hypothesis somewhat less probable." I found the very probable" not in keeping with the NPOV, as this one piece of information falls far short of making any one claim "very" probable. --Fitzhugh 05:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Avignon Pope?

In 1389 the image was denounced as a fraud by Bishop Pierre D'Arcis in a letter to the Avignon pope...

According to the Avignon Papacy article, the Avignon popes reigned from 1309 to 1377, so something is obviously wrong here. Looking at the German source, it appears the pope in question was actually Antipope Clement VII. I'll amend the article accordingly. There are two references to Avignon popes in the article; I'll remove the first one (since it's not terribly relevant anyway). CJGB (Chris) 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Contemporary Record May Contradict its Authenticity

As is well known, the actual person died by stoning and consistent with biblical law, after he was confirmed dead, he was briefly suspended and then immediately taken down. There was no crucifix. Any wounds would have to be consistent with stoning and so the shround may be of doubtful authenticity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.79.51.17 (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

If you're saying Jesus Christ was stoned to death, I have no idea where you're getting that from. The wounds identified on the shroud are consistent with being scourged and crucified in addition to the wounds consistent with a crown of thorns and a pierced side.Clashwho 20:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Statement

The lady here has an especially high forehead

I changed this:

The shroud of Turin is a fake created by someone with only cursory knowledge of human facial anatomy. It should be noted that enlarging the lower part of the face and diminishing the forehead is a common error of inexperienced artists, as well as a distinguishing feature of Medieval and early Renaissance art.

To this:

The shroud of Turin is a fake created by someone with only cursory knowledge of human facial anatomy. It should be noted that enlarging the lower part of the face and diminishing the forehead is a common error of inexperienced artists.

I did so because this assumption of medieval and early Renaissance art is the opposite of the truth: in fact the foreheads were often exaggerated to match the ideal of the time. Noble women frequently plucked their hairline to make the forehead seem higher. Perhaps this is best illustrated with an example. The Hours of Englebert of Nassau have even better examples, but I didn't see any images of that manuscript. I'm just making sure not to offend any one :).--Vlmastra 01:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC) But the artist that painted that is obviously NOT inexperienced, but in fact very good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of proportion section

I've been going through the article a bit trying to tighten it up to meet wikipedia standards. One thing that I just took out was most of the text under the subheading "Analysis of proportion". This has been in the article for quite a long time it seems, but from this diff, the editor who originally added it (here) did so from original research and from the partial memory of a textbook that he or she couldn't identify or cite. Pending more solid sourcing, it seemed this should come out of the article. I've read accounts by forensic pathologists and not seen the proportionality of the face mentioned as an issue, though I have seen about the height and length of fingers being unusual. Beyazid 20:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?

On the "Characteristics" section of the article it says that researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.

However, later in the section on bas-relief, it says that Costanzo constructed a bas-relief of a Jesus-like face and draped wet linen over the bas-relief. After the linen dried, he dabbed it with ferric oxide and gelatin mixture. The result was an image similar to that of the Shroud. Similar results have been obtained by author Joe Nickell. Instead of painting, the bas-relief could also be heated and used to burn an image into the cloth.

I guess bas-relief should be removed from the first quoted sentence. Bobisbob (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one that added about the researchers not being able to replicate the effect by that list of techniques, including bas-relief. This was specifically about the property of the coloration density of the image correlating to distance information. What Nickell apparently did was just try to transfer a face-like imprint. Correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't read a source from him (actually there is no citation tag currently in the article to point out the verifiable, published documentation of what exactly he did with bas-relief). I don't think he did image analysis like the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists. Beyazid 07:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess, and it does specify that the the Jet Propulsion Laboratory scientists in particular couldn't reproduce the effects. Bobisbob (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

featured article?

Is this a featured article? at least the german interwikilink to this article marks it in this way. 128.230.111.195 (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a former feature article; see the boxes at the top of this page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

needs a section on authenticity debate.

Arguments for and against authenticity from both Christians and non-Christians should be included. One Christian argument against authenticity is that the figure has long hair when 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 says that it is shameful for men to have long hair and therefore the figure in the shroud is not Jesus --Ted-m (talk) 02:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that that is what section 3.4: Textual criticism is for. Grab a source relating these verses to the shroud and explain the point. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 04:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Photographic hypothesis

VRTS ticket # 2008022410006805 refers. The last paragraph read to me as a novel synthesis from primary sources, and actually the source cited does not appear to be peer-reviewed or formally published, so I have removed it. Please be extra vigilant when mentioning living individuals to ensure that any material which might be construed as critical or controversial is properly supported by reliable independent secondary sources. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 10:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Last Word

At least the article holds up to the typical Wikipedia standard of "skeptics" getting the last point in....virtually every subtopic.

A free encyclopedia written by anonymous unprofessionals....what more could I expect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.245.72 (talk) 23:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is that?? Maybe because extraordinary claims warrents extraordinary evidence!--85.230.237.204 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"alleged" resurrection

In the lead there is the sentence "It is believed by many to be a cloth worn by Jesus Christ at the time of his burial, two days prior to his alleged resurrection." Various editors have removed the word "alleged", others have re-instated it. My reason for deleting "alleged" is as follows:

The sentence describes a belief held by "many" people which connects the shroud to "Jesus Christ" and his "resurrection". Both Jesus and his resurrection are mentioned in this sentence as adjuncts to the belief held by the "many". Therefore it is not necessary to "allege" the resurrection in this context. This is confirmed and made clear by the (uncontested) use of the term "Jesus Christ" (the Messiah, the appointed of God) as opposed to "Jesus" (the man, subject of the Gospels) which places the "many" in the set of believers in the Christian faith and Jesus (and by extension his resurrection) within their belief system. As it stands, the "alleged" implies that the resurrection is not universally accepted within the set of people who acknowledge Jesus to be the Christ (i.e. within Christianity); as far as I know, this is not the case, and certainly not the intended meaning of the sentence. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm kicking myself for not realizing this sooner: Why is resurrection mentioned at all in the lede? It's a (pardon the pun) thread deserving of discussion in connection with the shroud for sure, but one of secondary/tangential importance. Ergo, I removed it, which should hopefully end the revert-warring over the term "alleged".
However, I do wish to point out that I disagree with Timberframe regarding the "alleged Jesus": There is historical evidence indicating that a Rabbi named Yehoshua (a name that was Greekized, Latinized and then Anglicized to "Jesus") did exist and preached in the city of Nazareth. Groupthink (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go with your solution. I too wondered why it was so important to mention the resurrection at all in this context, but "it's been there for a long time". I accept your point about historical evidence, and my tongue-in-cheek "alleged Jesus" was to make the point that there is also historical evidence for the resurrection. It's a matter of personal choice and faith whether you accept one and not the other. My real point is that it's PC gone mad to prefix any article of faith with "alleged" in sections of the article which are overtly describing matters of faith.--Timberframe (talk) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
If this were an article on something Easter-related then I'd agree with you, but given that the primary topic at hand is about a factual item, not a faith tenant, I would assert that "alleged" is appropriate in the context of the article. Groupthink (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Tell me what I want to hear

See last sentences, paragraph four, of Parapsychology and Dean Radin my user page. Kazuba (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Means by which the image was produced

I have never seen an image on another piece of cloth so for that reason alone I am skeptical, however, the in ability to replicate a similar image on cloth using any type of two dimensional printing has failed to reproduce the 3 dimensional effect found by NASA. Consequently I am wondering whether the image may have in fact been produced by decomposition gases coming from the body in a sealed tomb where there is no air movement? Again since no other cloth seems to exist with this effect I am also wondering whether the cloth may have been treated with some type of wash prior to its use that would have been effected by the out gassing and then washed a second time after use with a different wash which fixed the image made by the out gassing to the cloth - all by accident of course? -- Taxa (talk) 23:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

70 references

This article has 70 references, yet there is a notice on top that it lacks references. I think that notice is old. There seem to be references on every point of view, pro/against etc. Unless someone has good reasons not to, I will remove that no-refrences flag in a day or so. Thanks History2007 (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! I agree the article is in general well referenced. If references are required for specific points in the article editors can add the [citation needed] tag after the points in question. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, done deal. Thanks History2007 (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't count the references, nor do I think that the # of references truly matters. There ARE multiple instances of non-citated (supposedly NPOV) statements, such as this paragraph from the "sudariumof oviedo" section:

Forensic analysis of the bloodstains on the shroud and the Sudarium suggest that both cloths could have covered the same head at nearly the same time. Based on the bloodstain patterns, the Sudarium would have been placed on the man's head while he was in a vertical position, presumably while still hanging on the cross. This cloth was then presumably removed before the shroud was applied.

Without a citation, I have no idea what credence (if any) to lend to this analysis. Without a citation, I tend to believe it is a POV statement made by someone with an ax to grind. 

  68.8.202.217 (talk) 18:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My explaination was too controversial for ASOR

Shroud of Turin: Neutrality on forgery? That is not the figure of a man. It is obviously Midieval artwork, a painting. Just stand back and look at the thing. The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) Biblical Archaeologist magazine editorial board refused to publish the shroud was a forgery. This was too controversial. I was somewhat personally involved and supported by David Noel Freedman. See: False Impressions: The Hunt For Big-Time Art Fakes by Thomas Hoving, Touchstone, 1997. Would you buy a Dale (automobile) from Liz Carmichael? Kazuba (talk) 08:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's the rub. Without independent publication, your propositions don't meet Wikipedia's requirement for verifiability and as such would be considered original research. I must say that the argument that you've offered here - "It is obviously Midieval artwork, a painting. Just stand back and look at the thing" - would probably fall short of the standard expected by most learned journals. -- Timberframe (talk) 09:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The only thing that is obvious is that there are tens of thouands of people (many of them experts) with differing viewpoints on this topic and that they do not agree with each other. That fact can be clearly supported. Beyond that there is open debate. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

YOU can find the data. If YOU are willing seek it out. Its around. Kazuba (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Who?

Who is this Jesus Christ guy? There seems to be a lot on wikepedia about him.````Marc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.216.49.250 (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Not just in wiki, either. I can recommend several other books, which collectively go under the name of the Bible. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Same Painting, Different Painters?

The paintings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JesusinShroud.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OntstaanLijkwade_GiovanniBattista.png appear to be the same (referenced in the article at Textual criticism and In the Catholic Church), but are claimed to be from two different artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.249.90.91 (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same thing. Furthermore, the cropped copy is implicitly being used to demonstrate an independent belief that Jesus was wrapped in a manner consistent with the image on the shroud, whereas the whole painting makes it clear that the painting is designed to defend the authenticity of the shroud. --Allen (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Subsections of Section Headed: Possible means of image formation

There are 7 subsections to this section, whose information content is difficult to assimilate and compare. As a reader, I would like to be able to say this or that technique might plausibly explain the image, or alternatively that the suggested technique is purely speculative. What I mean by this distinction is the following analogy, drawn from debates in the domain of artificial intelligence: If I climb a tree, and then claim that I now have evidence that I can reach the moon, then I am being speculative. If I shoot up a rocket that travels several meters off the ground, then I have offered plausible evidence that it might be possible to get to the moon.

In reference then to the various subsections:

The "Maillard reaction hypothesis" does not inform about whether there are any precedents for obtaining anything like such a detailed body image from a corpse. The referenced article simply says "may explain". I have not been able to access the reference, and am left wondering whether this "may explain" is purely speculative.

The "auto-oxidation" section also simply refers to historical claims, but gives no hard indication of whether there are precedents of auto-oxidation producing a corpse image. Again, it seems to belong in the realm of speculative.

The reference to the work of Allen in the "Photography" section is very helpful. If I read his text, then the technique appears to me as plausible, although historical evidence for the existence of photographic-like technology seems absent. (Rather, Allen argues the other way around: that since the shroud is definitely a fraud, and photography appears to be the only available explanation, therefore the photographic technology must have been available in medieval times.)

The "Painting" subsection seems to me fairly complete, and pretty much leaves the reader with the choice of accepting McCrone's work, in which case painting is highly plausible; or rejecting his work, in which case painting appears to be highly unlikely.

I find the "Solar Masking" and "Using bas-relief" subsections tantalizingly incomplete. Given that these theories are relatively recent, one would have expected visual evindence to illustrate the quality of reproduction that has been attained. The former is characterised as "crude and preliminary" but there is no indication of how crude.

Of the latter it is claimed that: "The result was an image similar to that of the Shroud". Where, then, is a picture of the results so that the reader may compare? Does "similar" mean we have a decisive breakthrough here? Or is it vaguely similar and open to dispute. The reference to PHYSORG.com is not really helpful. It has a journalistic wring about it, claiming definitive proof of the Shroud's fraudulent nature, yet not providing visual support for what has been attained. The net effect is to elevate the "bas relief" option has the most plausible to date, as if it is one that has no counter-arguments or opponents.

In neither of these two cases, am I able to form an impression of whether the researchers have shot up a rocket, or climbed a tree (to return to my earlier analogy).

A Miracle (the last subsection) would fully explain the image (although, of course, skeptics would a priori discount the occurrence of miracle as plausible in the first place.) 41.241.144.73 (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Carlos, 26 December 2008.

A significant portion of Shroud scholarship revolves around the possible means in which the Shroud could have been constructed by a 14th century forger. Some subsections are worthy of inclusion in the article, since they discuss methods of forgery which have come under the acceptance of Shroud skeptics. However, sections like the "Maillard reaction hypothesis" don't explain their notability, in terms of acceptance amongst Shroud researchers, and as you mentioned, it appears purely speculative. The "Photographic image production" and "Painting" subsections are well-written and offer a comprehensive explanation for the Shroud image. The "Solar masking, or 'shadow theory'" has piqued the interest of some since being proposed, but again, as you mentioned, the section does not provide any visual evidence to help the reader comprehend the validity of the theory. "Using a bas-relief" is also problematic; I believe it should be incorporated into the "Painting" section and expanded to address your concerns. And to clarify, the PHYSORG.com reference has a journalistic wring to it because it is a journalistic work (it was written by Richard Ingham of the news agency Agence France-Presse). The notability of this new theory should also be evaluated. It's fairly recent and there's been no indication of its acceptance among Shroud researchers. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The City of Edessa, The Apostle Thomas, and The Shroud

This is purely hypothetical but has anybody made an association between Thomas, who was known as "doubting Thomas" for not believing that Jesus had risen from the dead, the city of Edessa which he seems to have been closely associated with, and the known location of the shroud centuries ago? Is this pure coincidence or is there something bigger going on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.135.200 (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Software 3D viewer of the shroud of turin face

Hello,

In case it is of interest to anyone, I wrote a small and simple software to view interactively the face on the shroud in 3D on your computer.

You can get it from here (use your Windows File Explorer and type in the address-bar the address below):

address: ftp.rxsolutions.fr login: theshroud password: zerobc

Copy all the files and paste them onto a local folder of your computer. Then check the ReadMe.txt file out for instructions. This software is freely usable and re-distributable, without any restrictions.

Regards,

LC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infocharmoisy (talk • contribs) 13:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Positive or negative

The caption on File:Shroudofturin.jpg states that it's the negative photo, but compared to the other photos in the article, it would appear to be the positive... is that right? Unfortunately, despite being a featured picture, we don't really have a source for it. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Intermediate date between Christ and the Middle Ages

I cannot make any sense of this section called 'Intermediate date between Christ and the Middle Ages' - what is it trying to say? --John Price (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

what about adding somethng from this article.

have a read and see what you think ..and let me know... [4] (Off2riorob (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

easter sunday . 8pm ..new evidence

Dr Rogers's video will be broadcast tomorrow .. The Turin Shroud: New Evidence at 8pm on the Discovery Channel.(Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Barbara Frale on Templar ceremonies

Barbara Frale has found a trial document from 1287 describing a ceremony that involved something like the Shroud. It would seem to be within the scope of this article. 69.64.235.42 (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Lines in the lead

I removed: "Furthermore there is a lot of controversy about carbon dating (Robert E. Lee, Radiocarbon: Ages in Error. Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29) and in the case of the resurrection, Christian belief has it that the body of Christ was refulgent of light which could have rendered the carbon dating exercise meaningless". The reference to the controversy in carbon dating seems unnecessary in the lead, and refers to a very out-of-date article. The sentence about "refulgent of light" is mysterious to me, and seems to be entirely original research. Fences and windows (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

COIN theme paragraph trojanized with faked info

> Digital image processing <

This section is currently totally false and full of intentionally misleading garbage! It is well known that Jesus was buried with two ancient roman coins placed on his eyes.

- One shows the spiraling head of a liitus walking stick, a sign of power for roman imperial sage priests. Around it the coin's inscription reads "Tiberiou Kaikaros", Tiberius Caesar, who was roman emperor.

[The liitus priest stick signified the emperor was regarded as living god of the roman empire, therefore his money cannot be refused for trade under threat of capital punishment for blashphemy. This was important for the unity of a geographically huge empire.]

- The other coin depicts three leaves of wheat oars, more or less similar to the hungarian 20 filler coin obverse imagery as shown [here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HUFf_20_1987_obverse.JPG]. This kind of ancient coin is also known, it was minted in rememberance of the emperor's mother, whom imperial romans also considered a god of their panthenon.

- All this imagery and text is clear and easy to read from the Shroud's photo negative, there is nothing "Rorshach" about it. The 1980 National Geographic Magazine Shroud special edition had large size enlargements of these coin photos and attributed their meaning without any uncertainity.

- Whoever inserted the current coin nonsense into the article definitely did it out of malice! Wikipedia editors should take care to corrent atheist fifth column vandalizations! 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shroud_of_Turin/Archive_2&oldid=494256050"