Talk:Shroud of Turin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Shroud of Turin is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
November 29, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
October 23, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by Dthomsen8, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 30 July 2013. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.

New research paper[edit]

New and recent research has been published on the Shroud of Turin on 30 June 2017 to the open-access journal Plos One titled Atomic resolution studies detect new biologic evidences on the Turin Shroud. Here is a link to the paper:

Abstract: We performed reproducible atomic resolution Transmission Electron Microscopy and Wide Angle X-ray Scanning Microscopy experiments studying for the first time the nanoscale properties of a pristine fiber taken from the Turin Shroud. We found evidence of biologic nanoparticles of creatinine bounded with small nanoparticles of iron oxide. The kind, size and distribution of the iron oxide nanoparticles cannot be dye for painting but are ferrihydrate cores of ferritin. The consistent bound of ferritin iron to creatinine occurs in human organism in case of a severe polytrauma. Our results point out that at the nanoscale a scenario of violence is recorded in the funeral fabric and suggest an explanation for some contradictory results so far published.

This paper has already been noted in the article. Sizeofint (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


According to my understanding, the consensus view among scientists and archaeologists is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. However, this article focuses on the small group of people who are trying to find evidence to refute this conclusion. Looking at the article, almost every research paper in this vein is included in the article. It is, of course, true that many people do not accept the medieval dating and this fact should be reflected in the article. But if you knew nothing about the Shroud and just read this article, you would come away thinking the provenance is still hotly debated. Things like energy beams etc are WP:FRINGE relgious views, and should be reported as such in the article. Ashmoo (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we should be using reliable secondary sources instead of primary sources like research papers. However, no one has been motivated to WP:FIXIT so far. Sizeofint (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The primary notability of this topic is the fact that a lot of people desperately want the Shroud to be authentic, and that even today there are scientists who produce test after study claiming to have undermined the C14 dating so that the issue can be reopened. If we exclude all the fringe theories then the article will be bombarded by the fringe believers tryin to put it all back in again. However we certainly do need to ensure that all fringe theories are clearly described as such. Have you perhaps spotted any instances of current concern? Wdford (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

There is more than a fringe group promoting the authenticity of the Shroud. The article in skewing all too strongly toward debunking fails to make clear the amazing mystery here. The main image is a scorch and no one has come very close at all to explaining or reproducing the full process. [Correction: By scorch I mean that the extreme surface only is affected. Some scientists say it is in no way a scorch, apparently meaning the result of a quick flash of fire or heat. I should have avoided this term.] This article makes a reference to the National Geographic article from 2015, quoting part that hints towards doubts, but it ignores the intriguing part of it that states

Looming above all other issues is what physicist Paolo Di Lazzaro calls “the question of questions”: how the image was produced, regardless of its age. Every scientific attempt to replicate it in a lab has failed. Its precise hue is highly unusual, and the color’s penetration into the fabric is extremely thin, less than 0.7 micrometers (0.000028 inches), one-thirtieth the diameter of an individual fiber in a single 200-fiber linen thread.

Even if it is a forgery, it has stymied all efforts to prove it as such. The radio-carbon results on later strips of repairs at the edges are not an overwhelming slam-dunk, even if accurate. How would a forger, particularly from the 13th century, get so many historical details right (about the flagellum, for example), and why would he not follow the artistic conventions of the day? Why would he think to include the location specific kind of aragonite that the geological scientist Nitowski has written about? How would anyone think to encode a negative image in 3D? If this was accidental, it remains interesting that it seems to have happened only once in all of history. As for the desperate believers...they are on both sides. Many desperately hope it is not confirmed as authentic. The objective encyclopedia article could do justice to the mystery of the cloth, but doesn't. It skews everything up, or rather down. [Addendum: One summary answer to critics can be found here.] Pernimius (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The article is already very clear that the process of creating the image is still unknown. This is even mentioned in the lead section. One of the reasons why it can never be "precisely" replicated is because the image has been aged over several centuries – and has been variously baked and smoked and boiled etc along the way.
The radio-carbon results have been held valid by every radio-carbon dating expert who has expressed an opinion on the topic. Textile experts who have actually examined the actual shroud are unequivocal that there is ZERO evidence of a repair in the location of the samples. All the so-called "evidence" in favour of authenticity is capable of multiple interpretation. The forger was a soldier with Middle Eastern experience rather than an artist, and was thus probably much more familiar with a flagellum than an artist would have been. The aragonite – if it was really present at all – could easily have landed on the shroud during a more recent pilgrimage by its owner to Jerusalem, and is unlikely to have survived all the washing and boiling that the shroud was subjected to in the aftermath of its "discovery". Photographic experts have proved that any black-&-white photo can be made into a 3D image if you use an appropriate machine – and that is precisely what the VP8 was. It was probably done only once in history, probably because the forger/s achieved this type of image by accident and couldn't figure out afterwards quite how they had done it, and partly because if the forger/s ever got caught they would have been burned alive for satanism.
Your addendum is a story written by a prosecutor, not a judge, and accordingly it is heavily biased rather than neutral and objective. The author was a director of the Shroud of Turin Education and Research Association (STERA), and is thus hardly a neutral observer on this topic. The author is making a movie about the shroud, and is using this very article to promote sales of his booklet. The article was published on a pro-Catholic website, which openly declares its mission as being "to explain and defend the faith". Encyclopedias use neutral and knowledgeable sources, not biased junk like this. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Your bias is obvious. You say "The radio-carbon results have been held valid by every radio-carbon dating expert who has expressed an opinion on the topic." But you seem to have ignored entirely this from some years ago: "Shroud Dating May Have Been Inaccurate: BBC Interviews Radiocarbon Expert"
But stronger is "Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin," by Richard B. Sorensen, which says, among other things:
But the coup de grace for the dating process came from a study released on 20 January 2005, in which Raymond Rogers, a scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory and one of the original members of the STURP team, conclusively demonstrated that the samples used for the original radiocarbon tests were taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud, and therefore did not represent the original fabric.29 The 1988 Shroud dating tests and results have thus been completely discredited.
McCrone’s claims have been convincingly refuted in several STURP technical reports (Pellicori and Evans 1980:42; Pellicori 1980:1918; Heller and Adler 1981:91-94; Schwalbe and Rogers 1982:11-24).
Pernimius (talk) 02:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to find the name of that "radiocarbon expert" by looking at the article you linked, but failed several times. Turns out that "the Church official in charge of the Shroud, Christopher Bronk Ramsey" is just a construct of bad writing. "Christopher Bronk Ramsey, director of Oxford’s Radiocarbon Accelerator" is a separate person from "the Church official in charge of the Shroud" (Giuseppe Ghiberti), as became clear when I parsed the rest of the sentence.
So, the article says that some Catholic mufti, one whose job is to believe that the shroud is genuine, says that a scientist says something. Can you give us something that is not so much hearsay? Especially not filtered through the brain of a non-expert believer? And with a little more detail?
The rest of your assertions are just that. People calling something "conclusive" or "convincing" is just empty words when you know that the people who do the concluding and the being convinced were already convinced beforehand. We need independent scientists, without the taint of being members of the homogenous religious group STURP. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The BBC report on the interview with Ramsey was published in Feb 2008. It correctly quoted Ramsey as saying that a credible scientist (Jackson) had raised a new theory, which needed to be tested. Like any competent and objective scientist, Ramsey did the extra tests. These were published immediately, in March 2008. The results were that Jackson's theory had been disproved, and that the radio-carbon dating still stands. Ramsey stated that "As yet there is no direct evidence for this - or indeed any direct evidence to suggest the original radiocarbon dates are not accurate." See the full report here [1]
Raymond Rogers demonstrated that the threads he tested did not match the STURP samples. However Rogers never verified that the threads he tested were actually true shroud samples to begin with – they were threads posted to him by a clergyman who was not authorised to possess shroud material to begin with, and their provenance is totally unknown. The first rule of scientific testing is to ensure that the samples are valid – while Rogers was quick to criticize the C14 team for "failing" to verify the provenance of their samples, he made absolutely zero effort to verify the provenance of his own samples. Since the C14 team went to a lot of trouble to preserve the audit trail, and Rogers had zero audit trail at all, the scientific weight lies against Rogers.
The blather from Sorensen is just a repeat of the standard shroudie straw-clutching. There is no scientific evidence that disproves the C14 dating. If you post a list of all the shroudie "evidence" on this talk page, I will give you a line by line refutation. Wdford (talk) 10:01, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Bait and switch: correct radiocarbon dating for a repaired part of the Shroud that is not typical of the oldest part of the Shroud may be confirmed scientifically a million times...but it is not determinative in the way you want it to be. You have missed the point of the critique and you have not answered it. I don't have any doubts at all about the later dating for late repairs on the Shroud. That is what everyone should expect, after all. Pernimius (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, here it is in simple words:

A) In favour of the medieval dating:

  1. The Damon team carefully selected the samples to ensure the material was representative of the original shroud. They were C14 experts, but the team included textile experts, and they used magnifiers etc.
  2. Other textile experts have subsequently examined the actual shroud, and have confirmed that there are ZERO signs of repairs in that area.

B) Against the medieval dating:

  1. Benford had never examined the actual shroud, and based her "hypothesis" on a vision wherein Jesus told her about the repair.
  2. Rogers received some threads in the post. He confirmed that they did not match the STURP samples. However Rogers made no effort to verify that the threads were actual shroud material to begin with. The threads were posted to him by a clergyman who was not authorised to possess shroud material, and the provenance of the threads is totally unknown.

C) Conclusion – the scientific evidence all supports the medieval dating, while the shroudies are left with Rogers testing unprovenanced threads. Is that clear enough? Wdford (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and detail. However I read something like this and I wonder how what you say can possibly hold up. But you might be right. Scientists seem to be differing. I tend to trust above all Barrie Schwortz, who is as familiar with STURP as anyone around...and he holds for authenticity (after hesitating for 17 years because of the color of the blood). Pernimius (talk) 12:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The answer to your confusion is simple - you are reading junk-science blogs on a blatantly pro-authenticity website. As I have stated repeatedly now - when Rogers writes that "I found that the radiocarbon sample was uniquely coated with a plant gum", he is referring to the unprovenanced threads which he ASSUMES were from the radiocarbon sample. However there is no evidence that the threads were indeed from the radiocarbon sample to begin with, and in fact it is highly improbable that Rogers could have received actual shroud material from his source. Scientists who have studied the actual radiocarbon samples have found no trace of any gum, and experts who have studied the actual shroud have found no trace of any repair in that area.
Barrie Schwortz is a photographer who has made a good living out of his association with the shroud. He is not a scientist, far less a radiocarbon scientist. The fact that you choose to believe his opinions over the opinions of every radiocarbon scientist who has commented on the topic, is a big clue to your confusion.
Wikipedia does not rely on junk-science blogs from biased websites, nor does Wikipedia give junk-science blogs from biased websites equal standing with actual scientific evidence. Perhaps you might read [2] for a detailed discussion of the actual scientific evidence? Wdford (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again. When I read an article that starts off with this
A January 20, 2005 article in the scholarly, peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta (Volume 425, pages 189-194, by Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California) makes it perfectly clear: the carbon 14 dating sample cut from the Shroud in 1988 was not valid. In fact, the Shroud is much older than the carbon 14 tests suggested.
— I am supposed to take that as junk science?? So sorry Thermochimica Acta — you've just been terminated! Your fancy name and peer-review cannot save you!
My good man, faith-based websites can include just as much reason and science and honesty and good logic as any other ones. That is not to say that all are of equal quality or validity or depth or objectivity. I think you may just have a prejudice that overly predetermines your reading and judgment. It seems to me that there are good scientists with good credentials being cited on both sides. Schwortz is a good witness because he is an insider of STURP, a non-Christian, who withheld belief in authenticity for 17 years. He's been smart about debunking some of the debunkers, even if he is not a scientist. Dan Porter's website has also presented pro and con over the years. "Junkiness" may be partly in the eye of the beholder. It is a possibility. Thanks again for your time in explaining who you follow. Pernimius (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you should read the WP article on Raymond Rogers as it includes a sentence that might explain how Rogers managed to get his article published despite all its scientific flaws: "He [i.e. Rogers] was also on the editorial board of Thermochimica Acta from the first issue of this journal in 1970 (also the very first paper published in the first issue of this journal is authored by him) until his retirement in 1988". --Lebob (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
By "junk science" I was referring to the broader swath of pro-authenticity "hypotheses", such as corona discharges and monoxide absorption and other such physically-impossible things that have been trotted out by the pro-authenticity camp in a feeble attempt to undermine the C14 dating.
Please note also the following – A) STURP had nothing to do with the C14 testing, and neither Schwortz nor Rogers is a C14 scientist nor were they involved in the C14 testing. B) Rogers' technique for comparing the unprovenanced threads against the STURP material was flawless, certainly valid and deserved peer-review approval. C) Rogers made no effort to verify the provenance of those threads, therefore he cannot (scientifically) link the threads to the shroud C14 samples, or use the threads to draw conclusions about the C14 samples.
I read the papers written by actual C14 scientists and actual textile experts who have actually worked with the actual shroud, and I don't give equal weight to psychic nuns and lapsed monks and people who think the laws of physics don't always apply. I think you may perhaps be the one with the prejudice. Wdford (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Fortunately a paper on the origin of Rogers's samples has been written. It does not support the skeptical interpretation. The C14 scientists might very well have been unimpeachable in the performance and reading of their tests of materials; but were they able to verify the similarity of the samples (in all relevant respects) to others in the Shroud? That would seem to require other kinds of specialists. Note this statement: "The results of the FTIR analysis on all three threads taken from the Raes sampling area (adjacent to the C-14 sampling corner) led to identification of the fibers as cotton and definitely not linen (flax)."
Also: the laws of physics may always apply and yet we may not know all the laws of physics. It is simply hard, or rather impossible to tell how much of reality we have access to with our given apparatus. Scientists suspect, for example, that our theories are not adequate for before the Planck epoch. Pernimius (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

You cite a paper on the origins of Rogers' samples. Please note the following:

  1. The laws of physics as they relate to the aging of cloth fibres are well established.
  2. The shroud was almost certainly manufactured subsequent to the Planck epoch.
  3. The author of your cited paper, Thibault Heimburger, is a physician, not a C14 expert or an archaeologist.
  4. Per Heimburger, the Raes threads were stored carelessly, mailed around the planet and distributed at will.
  5. Per Heimburger, Gonella therefore stated of the Raes threads that: “The sample has thus lost all documentary value, and cannot be used anymore for formal examinations”.
  6. Notwithstanding the above, Heimburger happily concludes that "there is nothing but rumours against the authenticity of the Rogers’ Raes threads. There are many observed facts consistent with those threads being authentic shroud threads." This kind of slap-happy extrapolation is called "junk science".
  7. Per Heimburger, Rogers' so-called radiocarbon samples were merely one thread about 4mm in length, and one thread about 15mm in length.
  8. Per Heimburger, in 1988 Gonella and Riggi sent some threads to Alan Adler, who kept them until June 2000, when he sent some of them to Steve Mattingly in San Antonio, Texas. Mattingly sent them back at the end of 2001. In December 2003, Larry Schwalbe received the samples from Adler and delivered them to Rogers. Despite all this, Heimburger claims that "the chain of custody has been carefully maintained".
  9. Gonella and Riggi were not authorised to be passing bits of the shroud around on a whim. So where did this material actually come from? Well Zugibe quotes documentarian Giorgio Tessiore as stating that a strip was trimmed off the edge of the radiocarbon sample, because it clearly was contaminated by foreign threads. This strip was retained by Riggi. {The Crucifixion of Jesus, Completely Revised and Expanded: A Forensic Inquiry, By Frederick T. Zugibe, pg 322, at [3]} Ian Wilson also cited Riggi (the cutter) who retained the trimmed section for his own use. These fragments of contaminated material were then shared with some shroudies, including Garza-Valdez of the infamous parallel C14 dating exercise. {The Shroud, By Ian Wilson, pg 126-136. At [4]} There is also a paper from Dan the Man on your favourite blogsite, here: [5] Is it not more plausible that the unprovenanced threads in the Rogers study were actually taken from this strip, which had been discarded by the actual C14 experts SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS SEEN TO BE CONTAMINATED?

Wdford (talk) 11:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Well argued and researched. But to be as rigorously scientific as you want us to be: we need to be quite sure that the original tested sample itself was not "contaminated" (with medieval repair-threads). Otherwise we have non-junk science leading us to a junk conclusion. That is why some people are calling for new C14 testing under a different protocol. There may very well be absolutely no question about the C14 testing itself, only about what can be made of it in light of the history of the cloth. But we shouldn't ignore the fact that there is the whole other area of skewed C14 results. Here's just two snippets of a relevant news article:
When Dr David sent for radiocarbon-dating samples taken both from the mummy cadaver and from its wrappings, the result that came back was that the wrappings were purportedly a thousand years younger than the mummy. As she recognised, although it was just conceivable that a young woman had been rewrapped a thousand years after her first interment, it was unlikely. Yet the only alternative was that there was something about the wrappings, of linen, just like the shroud, which had interfered with the carbon-dating reading, making the wrappings appear much younger than they actually were.
Intrigued, in 1993 Valdes travelled to Turin where Giovanni Riggi, the microanalyst who had cut off the piece of shroud used for the carbon dating in 1988, allowed him to view under the microscope small portions that had been held back from the laboratories. To Valdes's satisfaction he saw these specimens were covered with a similar coating to that which he had observed on the Mayan jade. The coating was composed of partly still living organisms accumulated to such a thickness in proportion to the linen that it would have had a major effect on the dating.
I am indeed in favor of more rigorous science in this post-Planck epoch. Let's just be honest about our limitations. Pernimius (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You are going in circles, comrade. Ian Wilson is a pro-authenticity author, who makes his living out of keeping the "mystery" alive. He is not a scientist, and he is not objective. Garza's work was declared invalid by the Church itself, because he was not in possession of authorized shroud material (or possibly any kind of shroud material).
The bio-contamination hypothesis has been disproved by actual scientists. A) The actual C14 samples were studied under high magnification, and they showed no sign of such contamination. B) Valdes was probably looking at something that was not actual shroud material, as discussed above. C) To skew the date that far, the mass of biological material would need to be huge – heavier than the cloth itself. This was manifestly not the case. D) Bio-contamination of that nature would be "eating" the shroud material and its carbon, rather than photosynthesizing, so the C14 date would not actually be skewed at all. Gove thoroughly debunks this hypothesis – you can download the original report in pdf at [6]
Re the repair hypothesis – various actual textile experts have examined the shroud under modern magnifiers, and have reported that there is ZERO evidence of repairs. Jackson – a STURP scientist and himself heavily pro-authenticity – confirmed that the STURP photos taken under backlight conditions showed that the weaving patterns ran right through the sample area, and that there was ZERO evidence of repairs. The repair hypothesis was a valid suggestion, but it has been tested and disproved. See the Jackson report at [ See also Gove again, same report as above.
Re Mummy 1770, there was always the possibility that it was indeed rewrapped – not unknown, especially for a wealthy person. In fact they chose this particular mummy precisely because it was badly preserved and damaged – see [7] The formal report makes it clear that there was very little soft tissue remaining, that in places bandages had been applied directly onto exposed bone, and that the skull bones showed signs of paint. This could support the theory that the mummy was wrapped (or re-wrapped) long after death. (View especially pg 89, at [8]) There is also the fact that the dating tests were done long ago – the study was published in 1979, and by 1988 the technology had improved greatly.
Re the ibis study, the authors noted that if the bird had eaten "food of marine origin or land snails", then the required correction factor would neatly account for the discrepancy. Perhaps Wilson forgot to mention this factoid? The authors concluded that: "Meanwhile, although the results of the present measurements include the possibility that the bioplastic coating observed on the cloth fibers of the wrappings of the ibis cause it to yield a radiocarbon age several hundred years younger than its true age, they are far from definitive. It would be premature to draw any conclusions about the true age of the Turin Shroud from these measurements." You can read the actual report at [9] We should also note that the ibis was much older than the date of Jesus' burial, and was less carefully stored since its mummification, and yet the maximum dating discrepancy (if caused by contamination) was still only half of what would be required to move the shroud date to a 1st century date.
There is no consensus yet for how the image was formed. Some suggestions have come very close, but none have PRECISELY replicated the image to the satisfaction of those who cling desperately to the hope that it might be authentic. This is probably because the precise cloth structures, light structures, aging conditions, baking conditions and storage conditions cannot be replicated unless 5000 different combinations are attempted, and this is unlikely to ever be done. I personally would love to see new samples taken, and modern equipment used to re-perform the dating. But until that is permitted, we need to accept that all the actual scientific evidence supports the dating being accurate, and that only supposition and straw-clutching sustain the pro-authenticity camp. Wikipedia rules preclude reliance on supposition and straw-clutching. Wdford (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
You have given me a lot to digest here certainly, but on first reading it seems that, in sum, from your perspective all the pro-authenticity science has something radically wrong about it and all the anti-authenticity science is unimpeachable. Hmmmmm.... I'd say beware of what lies behind your sentence: He is not a scientist, and he is not objective. Truth and objectivity do not all come through scientists, nor are all scientists themselves "objective." Just consider McCrone and his fanciful "The Shroud is a painting" approach. (Absurd beyond belief.) Or "There is no blood on the Shroud." (Another howler.) Prejudices can guide even what "rigorous" scientists choose to focus on, disregard, or report. They can lean toward a certain outcome in all the ways that their adversaries can.
But even granting all your points for the sake of argument, there is no harm in doing another C14 test with differently drawn samples and different protocols, with direct and open confirmation of the lack of biological coating, lack of cotton fibers.
Finally, even if the shroud is proven beyond a doubt to all reasonable parties to be medieval, we'd have to say we have one incredible (virtually miraculous) "fake" (or an astoundingly rare "accident") on our hands. The travertine aragonite, for example...who would have thought of that?! And historically accurate wounds from a crucifixion always represented differently in medieval art of the day. And just the right kinds of scourging wounds and lance wound, and a weave consistent with 1st century Palestinian weaving, ...etc., etc., etc. It might in the end be more appealing, even for objective scientists, to believe that—for whatever reason—C14 testing is an outlier for authenticity-testing techniques. Pernimius (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Generally speaking, science questions need to be answered by people with scientific skills, using scientific methods, and based on scientific evidence. Obviously nobody is perfect, and even credible scientists like Rogers fall short occasionally. However it is wrong to say that McCrone's theory is "absurd". Obviously the remaining image is not a painting in the conventional sense. However one of the best replications so far was from Garlaschelli, who painted over a bas relief, then washed the paint off, and produced a shroud-like image from the discoloration caused by the chemicals in the paint. Maybe McCrone was not that far wrong?
Considering that the shroud has been washed and boiled repeatedly in the Middle Ages, it is incredible that any rock dust could have survived on its fibres for 2,000 years. Far more likely is that a much more recent owner took it with him on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, where he laid it on some of the local travertine altars as part of his devotions.
A forger would have read the Bible for details, and tried to replicate them closely. However a Middle Eastern soldier in the middle of a crusade might have been very familiar with the wounds caused by lances, scourging etc, and perhaps even crucifixion. Who is to say that medieval Palestinian weaving is vastly different to 1st century Palestinian weaving? All of this "evidence" is circumstantial, and much of it is speculative to boot. The C14 testing, on the other hand, gives dates consistent with the appearance of the shroud, and there is ZERO C14 evidence to undermine the validity of the C14 dating. As well, the shroud does NOT resemble the known Jewish burial shrouds from that period, or the description in the gospels of the clothes that wrapped Jesus' body.
However I fully agree that it would be useful to do fresh tests. I don’t know if "there is no harm" in it – a conclusive and uncontestable proof of a middle ages origin could harm the Church and its revenues. But the shroud certainly is either an incredible (virtually miraculous) fake or an astoundingly rare accident. In my personal opinion, it is probably both – a technique discovered by accident, and then put to use making a fraudulent relic. Maybe the forger decided one was enough, as an assembly line was just too risky. Maybe the forger realised that there could only be one "true shroud", and that making more units would ruin the market. Maybe the forger was killed in a battle before he could make more. Wdford (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
There's a lot of OR here. Is there the slightest evidence that the shroud was "washed and boiled repeatedly in the Middle Ages"? It seems a wildly unlikely way to treat a relic to me. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Excellent question. I am aware that it is mentioned in the book "The Shroud of Turin: A Case for Authenticity" by Rev. Fr. Vittorio Guerrera – see here [10]. The author states that "in medieval times such treatment was considered a legitimate truth detector test." This is also mentioned in the book "The Holy Shroud and Four Visions" by Rev. Patrick O'Connell and Rev. Charles Carty. See here [11]

It is also mentioned by Wilson, a leading authenticity supporter, who cites a Savoy courtier named Antoine de Lalaing – who may have been an eye-witness. Lalaing (and Wilson) take this as proof of authenticity. See here [12] It is also mentioned by William Meacham, another vocal authenticity supporter, in a presentation to a 1986 Symposium. Meacham uses this to make a case that residues from that medieval oil could have soaked deep into the fibres and skewed the modern C14 tests. See here [13]. Neither of them discuss how the blood stains, the pollens, the rock dust etc could all have survived this treatment in pristine condition.

Steven D. Schafersman, a sceptic, also cites the boiling test in his debunking of Rogers' vanillin-in-lignin dating method. See here [14]

Hope this helps. Wdford (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

We may be losing the thread here: arguing out the authenticity question is different from answering Ashmoo's original comment that
"According to my understanding, the consensus view among scientists and archaeologists is that the Shroud is a medieval forgery. However, this article focuses on the small group of people who are trying to find evidence to refute this conclusion."
I think a survey of the web on the issues shows that there is no question of merely a fringe group promoting authenticity, but many, many reasonable people proposing reasonable bases for authenticity, that is, not TRYING to find evidence of authenticity (or reasons to be skeptical of C14 testing adequacy in this case) but actually finding such evidence. It would be desirable to have a full survey and listing, but I don't think it has been done. You have scientists and historians and theologians who have soberly weighed the pros and cons, and who have published their accounts and conducted open international conferences (and yes, of course, even theologians can be objective and intelligent!). Two very thorough and fair-minded synthesis papers are here and here, by Atle Ottesen Søvik. Intelligent people who have weighed many of the articles pro and con for years (and who are probably more informed than most contributors to this discussion) include Barry Schwortz and Dan Porter. It is unfair to reject them because they don't limit themselves to a positive acceptance of the C14 findings of 1988 and base their whole response on it as the definitive element. So...for the question "fringe or not"—definitely NOT. I would feel better about a truly objective account for an article such as this for Wikipedia. It seems weighted so heavily toward the debunkers, as I mentioned above. It could be much more balanced. Pernimius (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Atle Ottesen Søvik is a Professor of Systematic Theology, not a scientist or a historian, and certainly he is not a C14 expert. He published this article in a journal of theology. When it suits his case he makes judgements based on the level of the peer-review of the sources, but at the same time he seems to get much of his information from Barrie Schwortz and internet blogs. Søvik is quick to dismiss counter-arguments because they are not written by experts in the field in question, but he ignores the fact that most shroudies – including himself – are not experts either.
The C14 dating is a cast iron death-knell to the pro-authenticity argument. All arguments against the C14 dating have been demolished based on scientific evidence. Søvik published his paper in 2013, so he should be aware of all that scientific detail. However Søvik's main comment is that the C14 tests may have been skewed by a medieval repair, even though a number of actual experts who have studied the actual shroud with magnifiers have proved that there was no such repair in that area. He blindly accepts that Rogers tested valid C14 sample material, even though there was never any verification of provenance. So much for "fair-minded" and "truly objective". Søvik is not even vaguely objective – in fact he bends over backwards to support the pro-authenticity camp – as one would perhaps expect from a theologian.
At the scientific level he is clearly all at sea. In addition to his blind acceptance of Rogers' unverified opinions, in his Excususes document he comments at the end of page 17 that the condition of the blood in the stains (the presence of bilirubin) indicates that the source must have "died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates." There is no way that Jesus' body was wrapped in his burial shroud a mere 20 minutes after he died – it was hours before the cloth came into contact with the body. On page 21 Søvik even speaks of breaking joints to overcome rigor mortis. These two assertions are diametrically contradictory - how is this paper scientifically credible?
Even at the theology level the paper is nonsense. On page 15 Søvik remarks that "so many details fit exactly with the gospels". However he neglects to mention the only gospel detail relevant to the shroud itself – that the burial wrappings were not a single long shroud, but rather "strips of linen". John 20:6-7 speaks of "strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen." Bit of a howler from a theology professor, yes?
Predictably he comes to the conclusion that the shroud is probably authentic, and predictably you therefore seize upon this as "evidence" that the pro-authenticity group are not "fringe". In actual fact the shroudies have ZERO actual evidence – just a mountain of supposition and wishful thinking, some parts of which contradict other parts thereof. The Wikipedia article is not weighted inappropriately – it states the actual scientific position based on actual scientific evidence, and it also offers a discussion of all the pro-authenticity arguments, along with explanations of why those arguments don't stand up. That is what proper encyclopaedias do. Wdford (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Wdford, are you a C14 expert? If not, why should anyone listen to you, by your own criteria?
I would guess that you believe that though you are not an expert you are intelligent enough to weigh evidence presented by experts and make a valid judgment, and then listen to critiques of that research and make intelligent judgments about that too. This is what Schwortz, Porter, Søvik do, most likely with far more knowledge than you have of far more research than you have done.
The debunking of the shroud is not a certainty. Too many things speak against it, as Søvik makes clear. Schwortz, Porter, Søvik all started out as skeptics and they all tend to believe the authenticity of the shroud after intensive study. This does not speak of agenda-drive conclusions but a fair evaluation of much research. There are scientists on both sides. The "fringe" labelling is entirely out of place.
You rest everything on C14 tests done on a particular section of the cloth, one that is controversial. You can dogmatically claim that people "proved" that there was no repair in a given area, but you have no reference, nor anything near a consensus attestation of this proof. Furthermore there is evidence already given and easily available that C14 testing is not without the persistent shadow of its own flakiness.
Søvik proves that many things suggest authenticity while some things speak against it. He has the honesty to present both. That is all I ask of the Wikipedia article. It is not a closed question in the minds of many experts with credentials.
As for the issue of the strips of linen, a scholar, not a fringe enthusiast, has studied this carefully and finds no contradiction. And in any case a demand for exact ultra-faithful detailed correspondence to the biblical accounts is too high a bar. People remember events differently and the details can conflict without justifying fundamental skepticism about the witness. Pernimius (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Skimming over the article again, I do not find it so bad as I did before. It does have a lot of content, even from the pro-authenticity camp. My main objections would be against any suggestion that the shroud has been "proven" to date from the middle ages (implying that it is a "done deal") or that all questions raised against the debunking are baseless or easily dismissed. Say rather that some scientists have come to one conclusion, while others remain seriously hesitant about or outright resistant to that conclusion. I have nothing at all against people coming to those conclusions, but an encyclopedia article should not take too strong a stance in a still controversial issue. And I would continue to say that it is clearly not just a fringe group that supports authenticity. Thanks for the discussion that has led to some refinements and new learning. Pernimius (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It is currently still impossible to say HOW the image was created, which is thus still an open question. However the AGE is settled conclusively by the C14 dating. See also the article Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin for a full discussion of the various objections to the dating, and the scientific rebuttals thereof. All the other pro-authenticity arguments can also be answered. It is true that some scientists have remained seriously hesitant about or outright resistant to that conclusion. However none of those are C14 experts, and they are very much fringe on this topic. Most scientists no longer argue the issue of the dating, because they do indeed consider it to be a done deal. That said, I personally would welcome further C14 testing, using the much more modern techniques currently available, and I do not anticipate that the result will be much different. Wdford (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Distortion-warning! Wdford claims that Søvik "comments at the end of page 17 that the condition of the blood in the stains (the presence of bilirubin) indicates that the source must have 'died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates.' " What Søvik actually wrote is as follows:

If it was painted, the blood stains were painted first, and the image around them afterwards. This is also impossible to accomplish. Due to the blood’s condition the detailed blood stains must have been painted with blood from a human or animal that died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates.

As the words here make very clear, Søvik was not necessarily claiming that the body on the shroud died only 20 minutes before the shroud was employed, but that IF the blood was used for painting, then the time of death would have probably had to have been 20 minutes earlier. It seems to me that there may be a question of a difference between blood seeping out of corpse's wound and extracted blood exposed to the air. This example is enough for me to distrust Wdford's accuracy in representing any arguments made by others. Pernimius (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

If anybody actually read the text, they will see that the key issue is "died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates". Despite your melodrama, I quoted Søvik exactly. Please retract your distortion warning, and the attendant insult. You, on the other hand, have misquoted Søvik substantially, and have invented a "not necessarily" etc as well. Yet somehow I am the bad guy here?
However if you read the original Adler paper (see here [15]), you will note that Adler is confident that the "blood marks" were not made by whole blood, but "that the blood marks are derived from contact of the cloth with clotted wound exudates". In this extra article here [16], Adler states (last paragraph) that the artist "would need to take the substance within a 20 minute period after the clotting had begun". Søvik has thus slightly misquoted Adler – possibly due to a language difference.
This doesn't mean the donor was necessarily dead – although Adler assumes that to be the case – it merely means that the wounds were clotting, which could obviously happen while still alive as well. Dabbing wound exudate onto cloth would have exactly the same effect as a contact of a cloth on a wound, although Adler avoids that obvious fact, and makes a fuss about painting accurately with serum. I wonder why? Adler emphasises that the marks are caused by blood clot exudate, from a contact of cloth with a wound. This is probably true, but it doesn't preclude a forgery.
Per the gospels, Jesus was dead for hours before being wrapped, and his body was first washed and anointed. The clots would have dried, and then been washed off. In fact, the scourge marks are clear imprints rather than a smudge of clotted blood, so those wounds must have been perfectly clean – yet blood stains from more substantial wounds such as on the wrists and face were seemingly unwashed. Strange. If fluid "seeped" out of the dead arms after death during the handling process, the fluids would not have run down the arms as they would during the crucifixion process. And there would not have been that much seepage from head and arms to begin with, since the body hung vertically for hours after death, allowing all fluids to drain to the feet, and away from the head and upraised arms.
Whichever way, this argument doesn't preclude a forgery, whatever Søvik claims. This is obvious to any informed and objective reader. It is also a hallmark of the Søvik articles - he assumes one side is correct over the other, always favoring the authenticity argument.
Søvik also brushes off the C14 dating with the assumption that the dating was performed on a repair, despite all the compelling scientific evidence to the contrary. Since this is the strongest argument against authenticity - and is by far the strongest scientific argument overall - this brushing-off is suspicious to say the least. Read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, and see for yourself how overwhelming the evidence is. That is why we cite references in Wikipedia articles. Wdford (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Could you point out exactly how I misquoted, and how you correctly quoted the article in context? (Place my words and then the article's words in parallel.) I think I gave the exact words and the issue was not just death in (under) 20 minutes but painting with coagulated blood. My intention was not at all to insult, just to warn people of a tendentious reading of texts and possible distortion of arguments. You may not even realize that you are doing this. Pernimius (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User:Wdford, you are doing a great job here. Everybody can see: this is how it always looks when somebody who understands a subject discusses somebody who has read on it, but does not get it, and who holds a completely untenable position. I am thoroughly enjoying this. User:Pernimius has been clutching at straws for days, and you burn them all to ashes. I am ashamed of my feeble attempt above. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
OK, here you go:
  1. Adler: "An artist would therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon, and he would need to take the substance within a 20 minute period after the clotting had begun."
  2. Søvik: "Due to the blood’s condition the detailed blood stains must have been painted with blood from a human or animal that died a traumatic death within the last 20 minutes, before the blood coagulates."
  3. Pernimius: "If the blood was used for painting, then the time of death would have probably had to have been 20 minutes earlier. "
Spot the difference. Neither Adler nor Søvik used words like "probably". Neither of them included the phrase "not necessarily" anywhere either.
Søvik also writes: "If it was painted, the blood stains were painted first, and the image around them afterwards." Adler actually wrote: "This interesting observation suggests that the blood marks were on the cloth before the image producing process took place and protected the blood mark areas from this process." That is not quite the same either, is it? Note Adler's scientifically-appropriate use of the word "suggests", which Søvik seems to have missed completely.
Of course, there are other possible interpretations for this as well, such as:
  1. Adler misinterpreted the data. He was after all looking at isolated damaged fibres on sticky-tape.
  2. Perhaps the image was a chemical burn caused by chemicals in the paint, which was thereafter washed off. If the blood exudate was daubed on while the paint was still wet, then perhaps the blood chemicals protected the fibres from the paint chemicals and prevented those particular fibres from being affected.
  3. Perhaps the image was a photograph. If the blood exudate was daubed on before the fixing chemicals had done their job, then perhaps the blood chemicals interfered with the fixing chemicals on those areas and prevented the photo from being fixed to those fibres.
  4. Perhaps the image was made by UV light (presumably from the sun, not a laser cannon) dehydrating the shroud fibres unevenly, due to a mask of paint or etched glass etc. In that case, if the blood exudate was daubed on soon after the UV treatment completed, perhaps the moisture in the exudate restored those particular fibres before the dehydration process became irreversible.
  5. Etc Etc
Assuming a supernatural process is really not the easiest or most likely explanation for this particular "phenomenon", now is it?
Your sentence "just to warn people of a tendentious reading of texts and possible distortion of arguments", is a blatant insult. This often happens when a shroudie is confronted with unpalatable scientific evidence - they play the man instead.
Did you read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, to see for yourself how overwhelming the C14 evidence is? Wdford (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Notice how you did not quote the exact citation I reproduced, one which gave more of a context than your citation did to the issue of painting with coagulated blood, and how you chose to quote my words, that is, the commentary that I made after that exact citation. Do you see how this kind of distortion makes you lose all credibility? The dialogue becomes quite worthless. This is nothing to enjoy. It is just sad. And a waste of time. Signing off... Pernimius (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
What I am noticing, very clearly, is that you are clinging desperately to a distorted interpretation by a biased non-scientist, who happens to share your POV. Adler is not necessarily correct in his interpretations, and Søvik is not taking too much trouble to be objective in his reproductions of Adler's interpretations. Søvik is also very casual about dismissing the C14 dating, despite the mountain of proper scientific evidence which supports it – another clear sign of bias. I understand that you are disappointed that your relic has been proven to be fake, but we need to adhere to solid science here, not supposition, wishful thinking and straw-clutching. Please read all the references in the two Wikipedia articles, to see for yourself how overwhelming the C14 evidence is. The subject of the image formation is still an open question, but the subject of the age is not. Wdford (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The science is complete.[edit]

The recent analysis of Shroud tests reveals a fully consistant date. With all known tests.

However wikipedia anti chr istians are preventing normal edits.

The executive summery is http:// the ub ie . Co m / Shroud Date.htm

And the full paper can be found at http:// theu bie. Com / k.htm

It appears to be the final word on the date.

Though obviiusly people have no end of things to theorize and say.

While the paper focuses on the date, it does not address the image formation in great detail however that too appears rather simple. Yet the theories of elaborate and mystical physocs is also a beautiful dream.

Info@ t he ubi e . Com

Ps please stop Racist terrorists from attacking what i write.

(racisim is not hate -- racisim is theft)

Theft of freedom, money, property, hope, truth...

All crime is theft.

All theft circulates endlessly through the economy appearing randomly in the form of violence and dispare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If the science is complete, we'll wait for it to be published in a peer-reviewed scholarly source instead of on a website whose URL you have to camouflage to get through the blacklist. —C.Fred (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Shroud of Turin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:36, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Gulio Fanti and dating of the shroud[edit]

Undid revision 813872329 by Erni120 (talk) Unjustified removal of sourced material + redundancy + Fanti's pseudo-science researches have nothing to do in the lede + go to talk page - Lebob

1 I did not delete anything 2 Pseudo-science? The methods of dating were described by four chemists: Pietro Baraldi - Department of Chemical and Geological Sciences, Modena and Reggio Emilia University Roberto Basso - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua University Giulio Fanti - Department of Industrial Engineering, Padua Universit AnnaTinti - Bologna University -

And This text has been published by a science magazine ,,Vibrational Spectroscopy” - However some criticized this dating method and I added their opinion

That's why I think you need to restore the previous version.[Erni120] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talkcontribs) 22:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This is already developed in the article and there is not need to copy/paste it in the lede where it becomes redundand. And certainly not when it is a partial copy/paste where the opinion of the archbishop of Turin, i.e. "as it is not possible to be certain that the analysed material was taken from the fabric of the shroud no serious value can be recognized to the results of such experiments" is forgotten. By the way, Fanti is not a chemist but he is known for his continuous attempts to prove that the shroud is authentic. --Lebob (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
1 So remove the mention about radiocarbon dating tests  It was already described in the text below

2 I did not add this information because Fanti described his book [He has documentation] from where he has fragments of the shroud. And exactly from Giovanni Riggi di Numana - 3 ,,But according to Giulio Fanti, professor of mechanical and thermic measurements at the University of Padua, "the technique itself seems unable to produce an image having the most critical Turin Shroud image characteristics” 4 Fanti's views do not matter. he stated that his dating is not proof that the shroud belonged to Jesus Erni120 11:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erni120 (talkcontribs)