Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Energy source

Someone commented that the energy source section is too hypothetical. As I commented above, that section looks disorganized to me and almost amounts to WP:OR bringing these different items together. Thucyd is probably the best person to evaluate and trim that. There are two options: delete it all, or add it with a new section name like "Less than scientific" or "Fringe theories" etc. But then there are too many fringes out there, and that section will invite them all, so I am not sure what is the best way. Suggestions? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning quality problem

I wonder in all of these discussions about the accuracy of Carbon Dating (by the way, preliminary re-testing as of March 23, 2008 shows that the results are valid...though it will be another year before all the re-testing is complete) people are assuming both sides are of equal weight simply because both sides are involved, as if it were a matter of opinion. Inability to conclude scientifically how old the shroud is, or how it was made can be due to a number of reasons owing to decay of evidence and limits in technology. Nonetheless, the burden of proof that this is something supernatural lies with the side claiming that it IS, not with the scientific community.Rafajs77 (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if people today know a method how to produce a picture of a man to a shroud like this, without any chemical means, resting there over several centuries; and I cannot believe that any comparable knowledge did exist within the medieval society at all. As far as I know, nobody knows one mere example of a product of medieval times. Also other than photographic methods to produce such a picture were not known, especially this exact anatomy, and art production in general etc. Maybe ancient time was a little more skilful than medieval time, but not enough, too. Up to appearance of other products of medieval time comparable with this shroud, I think it is very unlikely that it is a forgery of medieval times – although carbon measuring is a very strong argument against it.

Bader http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Bader 2007 01 12

You take a man, flog him, pierce his side and feet, murder him -- not necessarily in that order, then wrap the corpse in a shroud. Instant perfect quality and perfect consistency with whatever injuries you want to inflict. No technology needed. And in both ancient and medieval times no one really cared for the value of human life, killing someone to make a better forgery is an easy decision. Thus, I'd say the shroud was made a real human -- most likely, in 14th century. KiloByte (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Slight bias in favour of McCrone?

Greetings!

Fantastic article. It gives fair and equal time to all positions, neither favouring claims of the Shroud's falsehood or its authenticity. Nevertheless, and I might add that this is understandable given the past 20 years of Shroud debate, McCrone appears to be exempt from the scrutiny applied to the findings of other scientists. One final paragraph dismisses a scientist's findings on the basis that some of his samples might have been damaged or spoiled. Given that no peer-reviewed article has supported McCrone's findings in 18(or so) years, and that several others have rather concluded his research was based upon spoiled specimens and thus clearly invalid, paragraphs discussing McCrone's analysis might have a similar disclaimer. All the same, this is a fantastic article and one the supporters and readers of Wikipedia should be proud to have.

comment:

Actually, the work of McCrone is given rather short shrift in the article. I've read his book and another based on it, and both are quite well argued and illustrated with photos of microscopic enlargements of the areas he examined. It should also be noted that it took McCrone's critics a considerable amount of time to come up with the speculation (which they later stated as a fact) that McCrone's samples were spoiled. The initial complaints were that McCrone was "tampering with the faith of simple believers" and so on. Indeed, McCrone himself, as shown in the notes reproduced in his book, assumed that the colored areas were bloodstains, but after examining them microscopically he noted "I have never seen blood behave like this before." They did, however, seem to him to look and behave like paint pigments. It's true that nobody else has reached similar conclusions, but then nobody else has conducted a similar analysis. Based on his conclusions, McCrone predicted a carbon-14 dating consistent with a 14th-century origin, which is what the subsequent carbon-14 test did in fact come up with. I'm trying to see the merit in the idea that the test must have been flawed, or that the results are contaminated with extraneous matter, but I can't see how the latter could be the case unless the contaminations were in excess of the bulk of the shroud itself. Certainly the archbishop of Turin accepted the findings (and was retired before his time by order of the Vatican). Initially, so did most of those who later denied the validity of the test. All this is of importance, and perhaps a refutation of McCrone's findings should have been included in the article.

Tom Amity129.93.17.66 03:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

comment: McCrone's hypothesis that the shroud was created with iron oxide ignores the fact that there was not found enough iron oxide on the shroud in the 1978 scientific examination to make this hypothesis a real possibility, but ignoring the facts, it is a marvelous hypothesis, but not real science. See the article by Dr. Petrus Soons article (PDF) here - [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melekali (talk • contribs) 15:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion?

I removed the following:

The Carbon-14 dating, which was intended to settle the issue conclusively, and did so for many scientists, has not quelled speculation about the possible authenticity of the shroud.

THE C14 DATING EXPERIMENTS HAVE SINCE BEEN PROVEN TO BE FALCIFIED (THAT IS BEYOND REASONABLE SCIENTIFIC DOUBT). CITATION: 'THE JESUS CONSPIRACY' BY HOLGER KERSTEN/ELMAR R GRUBER ANYBODY WHO HASN'T READ THIS BOOK AND STILL SUPPORTS THE C14 DATA SHOULD CONSIDER READING THIS. IT CONTAINS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF DOCTORING AND SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. ALSO THIS BOOK CONCENTRATES ON EVIDENCE OF THE SHROUDS ORIGENS (FROM DATA COLLECTED CONCERNING UNIQUE DESERT POLLENS FOUND ON THE WEAVE OF THE SHROUD ORIGENATING FROM PALASTINE.

Some scientists call for more radiocarbon tests of areas of the cloth containing the image, which the Holy See to date has refused. Given their expressed concerns about the destructive nature of current testing methods, it is unlikely that this resistance will change in the near future. Skeptics hold that the Vatican simply wants to avoid definite proof of forgery.

OTHERS SUGGEST THAT THE VATICAN IS QUITE WORRIED ABOUT FINDINGS THAT SUGGEST THE ORIGIN OF THE SHROUD TO BE ZERO AD!!! AFTER ALL, IF JESUS WAS RESURECTED, HOW DID THE SHROUD IMAGE FORM, DURING THE SHORT TIME THAT HE WAS PRESENT IN HIS TOMB???

Devotion to the image of the Man of the Shroud has made argument about this issue particularly heated. Because of the deeply held beliefs touched by this piece of cloth, complete resolution of the issue may never be reached to the satisfaction of all parties. If the hypothesis that the man of the shroud might have been in a state of coma is considered, the only hypothesis which allows a fully natural explanation for the formation of the image, the controversy even increases, because this touches the foundation of traditional Christianity.

Every bit of this content is mentioned earlier in the article. I think that conclusions are very un-wiki. State the facts. State all the facts. No need to restate them. No need to analyze them. The purpose of this article should not be to draw a conclusion about the Shroud but merely to present all the facts and history allowing the reader to make their own decision. Moreover, concluding with this section has the effect of shifting the tone of the article to an argument between scientific and religious theories about the Shroud, which wikipedia is not the place for. There is no concluding statement for each side. Repetition be destroyed, savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 20:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question. Is the purpose of an encyclopedia to inform or to simply report? The same question is asked of dictionaries. Some people use "infer" as a synonym for "imply". Therefore some dictionaries report that "infer" now is a synonym for "imply". The same holds for this article. The shroud is a hoax. We know that. The statements that support its miraculous origin have been refuted over and over again. And yet, this is a featured article because it does not pass judgment, but simply reports. Just as dictionaries now report that "infer" means the same thing as "imply". I'm not trying to answer the question I raise. I'm just asking -- does NPOV require that all strongly held beliefs be given equal weight. Does, for example, the article on the Holocaust give equal weight to those who strongly believe that the Holocaust never happened? Rick Norwood 23:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am answering Rick Norwood's comments above. I see a difference between informing and editorializing. In this specific case, your statement "The shroud is a hoax. We know that" is your opinion, a conclusion you came to based on the evidence and your own personal bias. However, even the most cursory examination of the article and these comments shows that many others thoughtfully disagree; the question of the Shroud being a hoax is related but different from the question of its origin. So I would object to an encyclopedia representing an opinion as fact. This also shows why your analogy to a dictionary is a poor one: a dictionary documents the current consensus of what words mean. A dictionary does not and can not enforce meaning to something as dynamic and organic as a living language. On the other hand, an encyclopedia is supposed to document facts, even if the facts it documents are a summary of opinions.155.70.39.45 21:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Holger Kersten has engaged in flights of fancy regarding Jesus (see [Lost years of Jesus] for an example], Elmar R. Gruber is parapsychologist with similar flights into the fringe world, and The Jesus Conspiracy was put out by Element Books Ltd who engages in such nonsense as Homeopathy: An Illustrated Guide. By WP:RS standards The Jesus Conspiracy is a bad joke and totally unusable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The Orthodox faith as a mere Catholic offshoot??

I was reading the article on the shroud and its proper ownership when I read the following incredible passage:

"However, it should also be remembered that the Eastern Orthodox and Russian Orthodox denominations took their origins from schism from the Catholic Church, and therefore, strictly speaking, owe their allegiance to the Pope anyway."

I'm sure this offends every single Orthodox Christian and it is my opinion (though I am not an Orthodox Christian) clearly a Catholic bias. The historical division between Western (Latin) and Eastern (Greek) Christianity was a long process in which a dogmatically unified faith begins to split into it two divergent paths EVEN starting at the close of the Early Christian era (c. 500/600) even though the official split is dated at 1054.

Perhaps most notable affirmation of union between east and west is at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, where Constantinople and Rome stood united against other eastern, oriental faiths such as Nestorian and Monophysite Christianity. But the division has due with linguistic social, political and theological differences of the two sides, including the nature of papal authority. And it should be noted the a cultural division between a Greek East and a Latin West was even the case for an earlier Roman empire, and aids in explaining the the eventual division of the Mediterranean wide Christian Church into its western and eastern halves.

Many Orthodox would see the above comment in the reverse--it is Catholicism that is the splinter group and it was the blatant assertion of papal authority in the later Middle Ages that was the problem, notably in emeding the Nicene Creed by unilaterally asserting the filioque clause. This was felt to be in violation of the ecumenical spirit in which the creed was made (in this case, the first two Councils: Nicea I and Constantinople I)--something established by an Ecumenical council could only be changed by a another such council and not by one part of the Church, viz., the Roman see, unilaterally.

Part of this relates to the nature of Apostolic sees in the Western vs. Eastern Mediterranean: the West just had one: Rome. The East had four: Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria (though the latter three would come under Muslim dominance after the seventh century). Thus the east tended to regard Apostolic authority in a more collegial light compared to western Europeans who saw Rome as THE Apostolic See. Likewise, the political authority of the papacy in the west was naturally much greater as it filled a power vacuum owing to the collapse of WESTERN, secular Imperial Roman authority in the fifth century. No such thing occurs in the Eastern Church as Roman Imperial authority survived in the person of the Byzantine emperor and as the Eastern Roman Empire evolves into Byzantium, a continuation of the Roman world into the Middle Ages.

What the above is saying, is that, the legalised imperial Church established in Rome by Constantine the Great in the early fourth century, went East to Constantinople (along with all other organs of Imperial Roman state, including the Emperor. Rome then became merely a Bishopric, with the Bishop of Rome appointed by the Emperor.

Only long after the loss of Imperial power in the West, did the Bishop of Rome start calling himself "Pope", defying Imperial authority. Rome was now beyond the reach of Imperial power to be taught a lesson. A naval fleet was in fact launched by Constaninople to assert the Emperor's authority, but this was lost on the way there.

The Catholic Church is therefore a splinter organisation of the Apostolic Church which could trace its roots back to St Peter arriving in Rome. That Church went back east with Constantine. The Vatican is a remnant of an Imperial Church which went native amongst the flotsom and jetsom of the barbarian kingdoms which subsumed the former Western provinces of the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.152.121 (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The book to read on this, among others, is Peter Brown's, The World of Late Antiquity (1971; 1989). Another is Roger E. Olson The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform (1999).

But the idea that Eastern Orthodoxy is nothing more than an "eastern Protestantism" is really preposterous. Historically, they should be better seen, in my opinion, as two equivalent branches of an earlier faith without necessarily seeing one as subordinate to the other. The above comment ought to be scrapped.

Likewise, for the sake of argument on both historical and ethical grounds, IF the shroud is the one identified with Edessa (and a big "if") and thus was stolen from the east then it belongs to the east and the appeal to Papal authority in my mind is odd way to just a theft, let alone a sacking of venerable city, Constantinople (which John Paul II apologized for).

I removed the sentence that said, "However, it should also be remembered that the Eastern Orthodox Churches do not owe any allegiance to the Pope." It seemed to be making the argument that any Orthodox claim to the shroud would be illegitimate due to their lack of allegiance to the pope. Definately not NPOV. MishaPan 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for removing this. I don't really understand what it was ever doing in this article anyway.—mako (talk•contribs) 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin ink on the pages of the Codex unexplainably changes

It appears that this edit has changed the external link appropriately but has incorrectly quoted what is actually written on the pages of the Codex. --Rednblu 17:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Posterior image

I removed the sentence that said, to effect, that when the backing of the cloth was removed in 2002 and it was photographed "a posterior image of the figure" was revealed on the underside of the cloth. The deleted material was confusing because the "posterior image" ie "the back view" of the figure has always been visible when the cloth was displayed. tThe cloth shows both front and posterior, lengthwise.

The term "posterior" usually refers to a figure. In this case it was the backside of the cloth that was revealed, not the backside of the figure. One might presume that if there was an image on the reverse of the cloth, it would mirror that on the front of the cloth, perhaps fainter. I would like to insert the appropriate sentence to make up for that which I have deleted, but cannot do so as I am unfamiliar with the report and, to my recollection, have not seen a photo of the underside of the cloth. Would it be possible to say that a mirror image was revealed?

--Amandajm 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Proportions

OK! I'm old and ignorant of 21st century practices.... but please will one of you explain to me why, within this article, a ratio is expressed as 1:1 and then the next ratio/proportion (well is it a ratio or what?) is expressed as 0.75 or 0.90 or some such. Are these decimal quantities supposed to mean the same as 1:75 and 1:90? Or do they really mean 0:75 and 0:90? Or do they mean 100:75 and 100:90? Or perhaps 25:75 and 10:90?

I have no doubt that you know what you mean. But just let's have some consistency and some consideration for the mathematically challenged!

--Amandajm 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It means 1:0.75 or 1:0.9 - what would be expected with thought.

--211.31.41.70 11:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section - original research?

Another problem with the validity of the shroud according to some is that the image of the supposed Jesus does not match with biblical accounts. They say that the Bible says that Jesus was flogged so severely by the Romans that his face no longer looked recognizable and it was so disfigured that it did not even look human. This would be consistent with the severity of Roman torture as outlined by authors such as Livy, Titus, and Julius Caesar. So if the Biblical account of Jesus' beatings are accurate then the image that we would see on the shroud would be near impossible to identify as a human let alone the face of Jesus. However, this argument is without merit. This text does not occur in the Gospels. The reference is rather to the "Song of the Suffering Servant" in the prophet Isaiah (52:14), written eight centuries before Christ, which is used in the Liturgy (e.g. on Good Friday) as a prophecy of the sufferings of the Messiah. It is decidedly not an eyewitness description!

Note to this author: Livy states that flogging should occur upon the back and the chest, and predominantly upon the back. It was not usual to flog the face, especially in Palastine. Interestingly did you read reports that the Roman centurians placed a CAP of thorns upon his head!!! If you find a theologist who can translate the original Greek bible in to modern English, I bet you will find no reference to extream facial flogging? The crown of thorns mentioned in the apostle gospels is actually mistranslated and should be a cap of thorns. Did you not read also that the Pilate was anxious not to offend Jewish sentiments, especially on a Friday before Sabbath?

Are there any objections to my deleting this passage, which strikes me as a pretty obvious example of Original Research?--CJGB (Chris) 15:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Bad grammar, and it's analysis (original research)... it's completely off topic, if nothing else. /Blaxthos 23:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Who dated the Shroud?

I should be grateful if editors from here could look at Edward Thomas Hall. Can you source, or disprove, the claim that he helped to date the Shroud, please? BlueValour 23:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

See the article. The peer-reviewed papers exposing the error are considered conclusive. It's all very simple: somehow the testers were daft enough to take all their samples from one tiny portion of a corner of the shroud which had been patched due to fire damage in 1532. So, they were measuring carbon-14 decay in a medieval patch! Sometimes the blockheadedness of scientists is truly amazing. JDG 05:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Im sure they did their best with what the Vatican offered. For one thing, the threads were taken from three different areas. six sampleswere colected, at the last minute, the Vatican refused to let three of them be tested for whatever reason. But its a bit hard to believe even three different areas were all mended. But the areas were not chosen by the researchers, rather by the Vatican, so that would be who you are calling daft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Note to this author: There is no question of Prof Halls involvement. He's an author of the Nature paper on the C14 experiment isn't he!! Professor Hall was indeed the Professor in Charge at the Oxford University laboratory that took 1/3rd of the TS sample cut in 1988. To not know this means you don't know the key players involved in the experimenting. You ought to read the Nature paper on the shroud dating experiment. It can be found using the NCBI database: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. Read a book on the shroud that mentions the experimenters like Prof Hall, Prof Riggi, Dr Tite etc. By the way, I don't know where you sourced your claim that they dated a patch. The original book published concerning the allergations of fraud shows clearly that the samples were not taken from the patch. Read that book 'The Jesus conspiracy' by Holger Kersten 1992, its where Rogers gets most of his ideas.

There's an error in this statement. The samples for analysis were not chosen by the research team, but by officials at the Vatican. December 2006

mention of photographic negative in 1st paragraph

Codex, I apologize for clashing with you a bit here, but I feel quite strongly that this clause ("Some believe it is the cloth that covered '''Jesus of Nazareth'''

Biological and medical forensics/SUNY

In the biological and medical forensics section it is mentioned that studies were done at State University of New York (SUNY), however SUNY is a state wide university system not a single institution; I feel that it would make sense to name the actual school, however I've not been able to find any information at which of the SUNY schools this study was done. Thehatinthecat (talk) 19:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, the source only said SUNY. There is an unrelated web reference to: "Andrew Merriwether, PhD, SUNY-Binghamton andym@binghamton.edu" in Anthropological Applications of Ancient DNA: Problems and Prospects by CJ Mulligan - 2006 so one could guess Binghamton if you are personally interested, but that would go beyond the source. It seems that he also wrote a paper in 2008 with a few other people: The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma [2] There are other unrelated places where one finds: D. Andrew Merriwether, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Anthropology and Biology, Binghamton Univeristy. But I am not sure if adding that will tell a user a lot more. History2007 (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

More data is required and more questions should be asked and answered.

1) If the previous 3 RC tests were in fact adulterated or missampled, then why hasn't the shroud been resampled and tested under strict quality control standards such as ISO17025?

2) If the Shroud does in fact prove to date from the time of Jesus, then what proof do we have that the image represents 'the' Jesus and not another Jesus or any other male.

3) The traditional way Jewish (or other) males wore their hair in the first century AD was to adopt the typical Roman style of short hair and clean shaven, this is contrary to the image.

4) The facial features of this male are typically anglo saxon and do not match the typical male facial features of males from the 1st century period in Palestine.

5) There does not seem to be a another similar shroud of anyone else in existence, which begs the question, why is this shroud the only one known to exist?.

6) What percentage of the 'Pros' are believers and what percentage of 'Cons' are non believers. The subjective views expressed often cloud objective judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.71.198 (talk) 01:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Burden of Proof

The burden of proof lies on those who claim the shroud is genuine. Every relic is a fraud unless proven otherwise. The Catholic church is well known of its habit of faking and manufacturing relics. There is enough wood fromthe True Cross to build up a ship.

I would say without no doubts whatsoever that the Turin shroud is a fraud. Knowing how the Catholic church manipulated people in the Middle Ages, it is another of those frauds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.237.141.27 (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If I were to walk down a street in New York to buy a Rolex, I would come across fake and real Rolexes. Sometimes people make copies while at other time they do not. The issue is whether a specific item is real or not. To slander an organization of millions upon millions of people over petty emotions is not very educational to anyone. Perhaps you should focus on learning about the Shroud of Turin from others who have studied it thoroughly, instead of slandering people. Try some of the recommended reading. What you will find is that in the case of the Shroud, almost 99 charateristic determine its authenticity from physical evidence to documentary evidence. The only serious challenge was Carbon 14 which proved to a result of poor sampling. For those who know the detail, both from a historical and physical sense, they can say, the cloth is authentic. Read "The Resurrection of the Shroud"...Very detailed and substantive proof is demonstrated JimfromGTA (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the policies of Wikipedia, it is not what any specific users think that matters, but what the current state of affairs may be in WP:Reliable references. Hence in Wikipedia the personal opinion of any user has exactly the same weight as that of any other user: zero. So this issue can not be debated among us. Wikipedia simply requires a summarization of the claims in reliable references. And there are plenty of those on both sides of the table, as reflected in the article. If you look on Amazon.com you will find several books that argue for and several that argue against authenticity. It is not the task of Wikipedia to ignore one set of books and list the others, but to summarize the arguments presented. History2007 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

History2007: No problem with multiple points of view, as long as we keep it to non slander discourse. To disprove the shroud you have to establish how one could fake around 99 characteristics that exist in the shroud and its historical documentation and, then determine a method that someone hundreds to thousands of years ago could do and then establish the author, just in case you are inventing a fake to an original. To date no one has come close to doing this. The probability of faking the interwoven charatceristics of this nature is beyond the trillions to one. So while I agree with discussion, everyone is so confused now they don't even understand the 99 characteristic that validate its validity. "The Resurrection of the Shroud" is the first authoritative effort at doing this that I have seen so I quote it. It documents the proof, gives roughly 700 reference to authorative research and discusses the critics and how they fail to make the grade. So this to me, stands above others that I have read.

Examples of the characteristics that proves the shroud: The man in the shroud wears a crown of thorns. The 1st Century documents say Jesus wore a Crown of thorns. The man has a pierced side. The 1st Century documents tell how the piercing got there. The man has no broken legs, even though Roman tradition breaks the legs to hasten death. The 1st Century documents state that Jesus' legs were never broken because he was already dead. The linen is manufacured by 1st century processes. The 1st century documents specifically identify a Jewish shroud which would have been made with 1st centruy processes. The limestone found on the shroud is traced to the tomb historically identified as the tomb of Jesus. and on and on. 99 of these things.

So the condition of the man can be explained by the 1st centruy documents and the microscopic detail identifies it as having been at the location of the 1st century events. Pretty straight forward, except in th world of emotional logic.

JimfromGTA (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Shroud shows a man who had a thornbush smashed on top of his head, quite different from the artistic depictions of the renaissance. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The artists, who were not at the event would have painted their "best guess". So the use of a thornbush would have made sense, since this was about a mockery and torture. Also illustrates that anyone trying to replecate would have done a crown, rather than a thornbush. Another indication that this is not a fake. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearing up of the Blood stain issue

I found this article on http://www.historian.net/shroud.htm, which seems to show good scientific evidence that blood stains are present on the shroud, and also scientific evidence that conclusions made by McCrone in his 1981 paper were flawed due to a lack of perspective because he limited his experimental analysis on the cloth. I think someone should change the sections of the article citing McCrone to also include further experiments that disprove McCrone's conclusions. Here is the article in brief.

Image on the Shroud

The shadowy image on the shroud is, of course, its most unique and enigmatic feature. It displays the complete dorsal and frontal image of a severely abused and crucified individual of Semitic characteristics who was laid on the proximal portion of the cloth with the distal portion folded over the head and extended over the body thus creating, through some as yet unexplained chemical or physical process, two "head to head" images of the back and front. The ghostly, sepia colored image is nearly imperceptable close-up but discernable at a distance. It was not until the first photographs were taken of the shroud in 1898 by Turin Councillor Secondo Pia that the negative plates revealed the startling "positive" of the clear picture of the "man in the shroud." The image is of a male, almost 6’ tall, bearded, severely abused and scourged with the distinctive "dumbell" markings of a Roman flagrum. Bloodstains are evident from wounds in the wrists, feet, about the head and brow, and the left thoracic area with pooling under the small of the back and under the feet. The image of the "man in the shroud" also displays signs of beating about the face, swelling under the eye and shocks of his beard having been ripped from his face (a common form of abuse to Jews by Romans). The debate on the authenticity of the shroud focuses on whether this image was transferred to the linen by some means from a real corpse or whether it was artificed by a clever forger.

Chief among the proponents of the image as a "painting" was W. C. McCrone, one of the most respected names in particle analysis. McCrone reliably detected iron-oxide particles throughout the shroud using only optical technique and attributed it to the base of artist’s paint. (McCrone, W. C., The Microscope, 29, 1981, p. 19-38; McCrone, W. C., Skirius, C., The Microscope, 28, 1980, pp 1-13.) Particular attention in this regard was given to the purported "bloodstains" of the image.

FACT: The shroud linen contains particles of iron-oxide.

The debate on the authenticity of the shroud became centered on whether the reliable presence of iron oxide was relevent to the shroud image and the "bloodstains" on the cloth and the precise nature and origin of the iron oxide. A part of the answer to this was provided by x-ray fluorescent analysis performed by STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) scientists R. A Morris, L. A. Schwalbe and J. R. London which determined there was no relevence between concentrations of iron oxide particles and the varying densities of the image. (Morris, R. A., Schwalbe, L. A., London, R. J., X-Ray Spectrometry, Vol 9, no. 2, 1980, pp 40-47; Schwalbe, L. A., Rogers, R. N., Analytica Chimica Acta 135, 1982, pp 3-19)

FACT: Iron Oxide is not responsible for the image on the cloth.

These findings stimulated additional attention to the bloodstains on the cloth. Were these genuine bloodstains or were they "painted" with some form of iron-oxide containing red pigment? This issue was addressed by experts in blood analysis, Dr. John Heller of the New England Institute and Dr. Alam Adler of Western Connecticut State University. Drs. Heller and Adler went far beyond the mere optical examination of McCrone. Applying pleochroism, birefringence and chemical analysis, they determined that, unlike artist’s pigment which contains iron oxide contaminated with manganese, nickel and cobalt, the iron oxide on the shroud was relatively pure. They discovered, through research into the procedures of flax preparation and linen manufacture, that pure iron oxide is normal to the process of fermenting (retting) the flax in large outdoor vats of water.

FACT: The iron oxide, abundant on the linen of the shroud is not the remnant of artist’s pigment. ' Dr. Adler then proceeded to apply microspectrophotometric analysis of a "blood particle" from one of the fibrils of the shroud and unmistakeably identified hemoglobin in the acid methemoglobin form due to great age and denaturation. Further tests by Heller and Adler established, within scientific certainty, the presence of porphyrin, bilirubin, albumin and protein. In fact, when proteases were applied to the fibril containing the "blood," the blood dissolved from the fibril leaving an imageless fibril. (Heller, J. H., Adler, A. D., Applied Optics, 19, 1980, pp 2742-4; Heller, J. H., and Adler, A. D., Canadian Forensic Society Sci, Journal 14, 1981, pp 81-103)

FACT: The bloodstains on the cloth are not artist’s pigment but are real blood.

FACT: The bloodstains were applied to the cloth prior to the formation of the image.

Working independantly with a larger sample of blood containing fibrils, pathologist Pier Baima Bollone, using immunochemistry, confirms Heller and Adler’s findings and identifies the blood of the AB blood group. (Baima Bollone, P., La Sindone-Scienza e Fide 1981, 169-179; Baime Bollone, P., Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 23, 5, 1981; Baima Bollone, Jorio, M., Massaro, A. L., Sindon 24, 31, 1982, pp 5-9; Baima Bollone, P., Gaglio, A. Sindon 26, 33, 1984, pp 9-13; Baima Bollone, P., Massaro, A. L. Shroud Spectrum 6, 1983, pp 3-6.)--comment unsigned

It should be noted that none of the "FACT"s listed above are actual facts, they are mere opinions from various sources. Check out WP:NPOV for how these things should be handled. DreamGuy 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"Mere opinions" published by experts represents the bulk of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.158.93 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Actualy this cite worthless "A problem with a blood type AB for an authentic shroud is that it is today known that this type of blood is of relative recent origin. There is no evidence of the existence of this blood type before the year AD 700. It is today assumed that the blood type AB came into the existence by immigration and following intermingling of mongoloid people from central Asia with a high frequency of the blood type B to Europe and other areas where people with a relatively high frequency of the blood type A live.[72][73]" wiki itself completely debunks this book.: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Blood_type_diet "Another study from 2004 concluded that: "Assuming constancy of evolutionary rate, diversification of the representative alleles of the three human ABO lineages (A101, B101, and O02) was estimated at 4.5 to 6 million years ago."[22] This finding directly contradicts D'Adamo's assertion of blood type evolution." 69.106.224.58 (talk) 05:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I vote for deleting of this pseudoscience (in this relation) from a non genetic or genealogy scientist (pseudo-healer). There is realy no reference. --Perhelion (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC) small referenc on this racistic POV Talk:Blood_type_diet#POV, Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_19#AB_blood_group_origin --Perhelion (talk) 02:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

To much writing

It seems that this article has a lot of writing and it can be confusing for the person getting info off it, from expierience I know.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikomosi (talk • contribs)

It's an encyclopaedia! What you may mean is that this needs restructuring with a clearer introduction, and possibly being split into distinct pages dealing with individual themes. For myself, I find details about the original validation of the shroud in the 1400s to be disappointingly absent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.243.238.49 (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

History

The paragraph on history before 14th century is highly inaccurate. There is a documentation trail that supports the movement of the Shroud from Edessa to Constantinople to France. Updated the paragraph with references. The pollen evidence provides independant physical evidence supporting this. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this issue can be discussed of course, but the "history section" is just a summary of the main history article and the key issues belong on the talk page there, with just a summary here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The summary stating there is NO documentation is JUST PLAIN INCORRECT. The reference you use is OBSOLETE (Humber, Thomas: The Sacred Shroud. New York: Pocket Books, 1980) as it predates the physcial evidence findings associated with the pollen (1982) and limestone (1986) related to the Shroud. The author, being unaware of the physical evidence would not make the connection and arrive at a false conclusion.

So this is not a discussion but a correction. Documentation does exist as well as physical evidence. The Constantinople sermon of 944 includes reference to an image that is NOT a painting, similar to the Shroud of Turin. This is a significant linkage AND material evidence that is missing your summary. This has been presented with references. There is evidence in historical documents, physical pollen evidence and a logical sequence of events. All referenced. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What the update was:

Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century, the linkages to the Shroud of Turin are subject to historical debate as they lack detailed records documenting the transfer of possession. Because pollen from Edessa and Constatinople has been found in the Shroud, it is likely the cloth passed through these locations. In August 15, 944, Gregory of Hagai Sophia Cathedral gave a sermon the on shroud from Edessa wherein he described the cloth and indicated that it was not a painting, a characteristic of the Shroud of Turin. (ref. copy of sermon: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf). It is recorded that the burial cloth of Jesus was taken to France by the French and Venetian knights of the Fourth Crusade in 1204. Theodore Ducas Angelelos reported this to Pope Innocent III, around 1205, while Nicolas D’Orrante, abbot of Casole confirms this in 1207. In 1356, Geoffrey de Charny, a French knight and descendent of a prominent knight of the Fourth Crusade, displayed a burial shroud that he claims is the burial shroud of Christ (ref: http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/history.htm). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimfromGTA (talk • contribs) 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Da Vinci

There's a Discovery Channel program talking about this artifact being yet another masterpiece from Da Vinci, using photographic-like techniques. -- 122.116.168.158 (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

While an interesting hypothesis, keep in mind that the Shroud has roughly 99 charateristics that establishes it likelyhood that it is authentic. Does the documentary address the microscopic physical evidence such as the 58 types of pollen from the Jerusalem area, the limestone traceable to the tomb of Jesus, the 1st century manufacturing processes, the existance of blood, the 3D nature of the image, etc. What about documentary evidence that Da Vinci actually did this?

One item confusing everyone is that the Carbon 14 tests were proof of inauthenticity and therefore the shroud must be a fake. Extensive testing on the C14 sample has shown there was poor sampling practice involved and the C14 test results are invalid. Given this is consistent with the rest of the evidence on the shroud, the conclusion is that the C14 must be redone properly to end the back and forth debate.

Keep in mind that poor science focuses only on one or two pieces of detail and while it's interesting, fails to pass detailed review and can be misleading. That's the problem of the Da vinci hypothesis, it only focuses on a narrow range of evidence. JimfromGTA (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim, none of those characteristics can be used to verify the authenticity of the shroud. It would have been very easy for a clever forger to fake them, such as dabbing some blood onto the cloth. Also, some of them (such as the pollens claim) are not generally accepted, either because of sloppy handling or not following proper scientific methods. Logicman1966 (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's easy to do yellow journalism and armchair science. The STURP team reviewed lots of evidence and well as others. Included with this is the pollen and limestone samples. The pollen evidence was independantly examined and confirmed by people at the Hebrew University. At no time did they speak of fraud. In fact, the person taking the pollen samples was working with the STURP team at the time and studied it for 9 years to come up with the exhastive list of pollen from Jerusalem, Mediteranian, Italy, France.

In a scientific debate, the "easy to fake" hypothesis is unacceptable because you must provide proof of fakery and how this was accomplished in context of over 99 characterstics associated with the shroud. This has NOT been done to the best of my knowledge, so your statements are not scientific but part of normal "conspiracy theory" stuff...yellow journalism. For instance, the cloth has a 3D image interlaced into the very cloth fibers and people have for years been unable to replicate this. The shroud is very complex, not a simple "artist's" trick.

Just to put this to bed please provide the following: List of frauds, what was found fraudulent, the physical evidence that determines this, who perpetrated the fraud and docummentation indicating this, and witnesses that confirm the fraud took place and who peer reviewed the fraud findings.

Logicman, I haven't heard any of this, perhaps you have. It will be informative to us all. JimfromGTA (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Logicman, did not respond to the challenge (that I left here and on his talk page), to list any frauds and authoritative sources to support such list. Because Logicman was unaware that the "simple artist's" theory was tried and failed, I suspect he needs to do some more homework.

I recommended to Logicman to read "The Resurrection of the Shroud" which does a good thesis on the science. The results of the C14 study that dated the shroud to the medieval period were still under study at time of the book's writing, so this was not included in the book. The C14 controversy was put to bed in 2002 by a STURP scientist who had ACTUALLY EXAMINED THE CLOTH. After studying the sample used in the C14 test, this scientist stated that the C14 sample was taken from a medieval repair area of the shroud. So the C14 recorded the repair material and misdated the origin of the Shroud (repair material newer than original linen cloth). So proper testing of the Shroud's C14 has not been done, and the age from this technique not yet known. JimfromGTA (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim: I think you should not get upset on the da Vinci issue. Two separate points:

• Given that the da Vinci theory was not invented by Logicman, he is not responsible for its existence. He is an editor commenting on it. I do not know the details of the de Vinci theory, so I can not comment on it, but I can assure you that under Wikipedia rules, it is almost impossible to exclude that theory from the article. The theory is supported by Professor Larissa Tracy and there is a book on it. When a theory is supported by some academics who are generally considered sane and there are books on it, it usually can not be excluded. But the article has several pro-authenticity views and books such as Antonoci's book for balance.

• From your obviously pro-authenticity perspective, I would have guessed that you would have tried to include the da Vinci theory, because it shows that there is no agreement among the forgery proponents about the date and method of forgery. Some argue it was forged in one century, some argue it was forged in another century by a different person. So from your perspective you should like that.

So I think you should just let it be. Cheers History2007 (talk) 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are right. There is no consistent fraudulent hypothesis that works. Cheers JimfromGTA (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the Shroud Authentic?

Richard Sorensen has written an Article called "Summary of Challenges to the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin", 2007. It covers history, science and discussion about fake theory. As he says, "no one has yet been able to disprove the Shroud of Turin" nor establish how a medieval artist from before Da Vinci time (circ 1300's when Shroud displayed in France) could have made the image. His conclusion is that "the evidence for its veracity is very strong and convincing".

(All quotes from article by Richard Sorensen): http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sorensen2.pdf

A treatise type book which goes through in enormous detail, the background of the Shroud and its science is the book by Antonacci, Mark : The Resurrection of the Shroud, M. Evans & Co., New York 2000. He refers to more than 99 charatersitics that Shroud has, with over 700 references to authority. One thing that is evident from Mark's writing is that if one wants to "fake" the Shroud then there is a mountain of evidence that any "fakery" needs to overcome...ie. must meet the 99+ characteristics that the Shroud has. The reason for the "fakery" theory failure is you must account for these all these characteristics, not just fake one parameter. Note: Does not include science evidence demonstrating faulty C14 sampling, as research by the STURP scientist who physically examined the testing evidence had not yet been published. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Particles, specifically pollen and limestone give guidance to the history of the shroud. The limestone evidence points directly at the historical tombs in Jerusalem while the pollen evidence demonstrates where the shroud has been to: Jerusalem / Israel, Edessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. A good study of this is found at: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/11/re-there-is-compelling-evidence-it-is.html

In addition to physical evidence, the historical documentation confirms that a shroud of Jesus visited these places. For instance, the Bible establishes Jesus place of and season of burial. The limestone and pollen match this evidence. Historical records record the shroud of Edess being at Edessa. Pollen from Edessa is found on the Shroud of Turin. Documents record the shroud of Edessa being at Constantinople. Pollen from Constantinopke is found on the Shroud of Turin. Various parties report the Shroud is taken from Constantinpole and transfered to France. French pollen is found on the Shroud of Turin. From this point on in the 1300's there is no dispute over the Shroud of Turin because it is well documented. So the combination of physical and documentation interwoven establishes that the Shroud of Turin is likely the Burial Shroud of Jesus. Other evidence supports this, as well. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Carbon 14 testing that gave a dating to the medieval timeframe was a significant divergence from the historical and physical evidence. As such, the results of this testing suggested a medieval fake. Because the C14 evidence was contradictory to the physical evidence, considerble debate persued. Part of this debate led to the examination of the C14 test sample by one of the original SURP scientists, Raymond N. Rogers, a chemist. After physically examining fibers of the shroud, he held that the C14 sample was likely taken from an area where medieval mending (new material added during the repair) had taken place. Other scientists have added their opinions.

It has been concluded the C14 test sample dated the repair, not the shroud as a whole. A good discussion of this is found at http://www.factsplusfacts.com/carbon-14-now-we-know.htm. The result of Raymond Roger's initial effort is that the C14 sample is no longer acceptable as an indicator of the Shroud age, rather, a retesting is required to validate any aging conclusion from C14 testing. JimfromGTA (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Giovanni Riggi

Jim: Given your interest, a useful item beyond the above would be to find some sources that would satisfy WP:Reliable and tell us something about one of the lost key figures here, namely "Giovanni Riggi". It was Riggi who selected the sample to be cut in Turin:

Riggi and Gonella reportedly spend two hours arguing about the exact location on the Shroud from which the sample should be taken. During the event, it is Riggi who seems in charge of the operation.[3]

Riggi seems very important to the sample, yet he is not talked about that much, either in the articles here or in the books and literature. So here is the one man who makes the sampling decision and then he is almost forgotten about. I would be interested to know who he was.

Apparently he suddenly died of a heart attack in 2008, but I do not know much else. There is an article on another Giovanni Riggi in Wikipedia but that other person is alive, is in the US, and not related to the Shroud. So a new article on Giovanni Riggi (textile expert) would actually be interesting. But it will need research that satisfies WP:Reliable. But if you want to shed more light on the issue, your efforts here will be appreciated. I have a feeling that the local expert thucyd may also have info, and it will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Ian Wilson who wrote "The Blood and the Shroud", Riggi chose samples from a highly "handled" area (reference http://www.shroud.com/wilson.htm):

"when on April 21 1988 Professors Riggi and Gonella selected from where the radiocarbon dating sample was to be cut, they could hardly have chosen a more ill-advised location. You have only to look at the numerous depictions of Shroud expositions over the centuries to see that the particular corner that they selected, and its opposite number, were the very points by which the Shroud was invariably held up before the faithful by umpteen generations of clergy. Because this corner had more handling than any other part, it was therefore the area that would have received the greatest amount of microbiological contamination from those hands. Gonella and Riggi's choice thereby broke one of the most elementary rules for radiocarbon dating samples - if at all possible avoid any area carrying a high microbiological contamination risk.

Second, when the laboratory personnel who collected their Shroud samples from Turin returned with these to their laboratories, we know that all three took photos of the portion they had received. But Oxford photographed theirs only from the cloth's 'face' side, Zurich only from the underside, and Arizona, who had received their sample in two bits anyway, photographed only one of the portions. So none of them properly documented their entire sample (a sample they were irrevocably about to destroy), from both sides. Nor did they remember to include a measure in the photo, despite this being standard in any archaeological photography"

The point of the above quotes is to illustrate that the area selected by Riggi was indeed an area where repair would have been done. In addition, photographs exist of the selection, even if they did not follow archaeological procedure.

So you are correct that Riggi was involved in the sample taking.

As to his history I am not familiar. Ian Wilson gives a bit of a bio at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n67part9.pdf wherein he recounts the sampling procedure and states a video exists of the event. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

While I think an article on Riggi may be useful, I would think that as a first priority you would change the Shroud of Turin article to reflect that it is likely authentic, and NOT a fake as your summary would indicate. For example Wikapedia says: "In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud, at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, with 95% confidence concluding that they date from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390[7][8]. Some controversy has arisen over the reliability of the test".

Again, the historical, physcial, and now the fact that C14 sampling poorly done, all indicate its authenticity. So your article leaves a false impression that needs changing. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim: It would be against Wiki-policies to change the shroud article to say that it is authentic, for there are several differing opinions. Wikipedia does not work that way. There are clear references that say this is a highly controversial topic, with no clear conclusion. And I can not agree that just the fact that Riggi was there means that he took the wrong sample. The ONLY fact I can see is that we do not have enough facts about Riggi. It would be interesting to learn something about him in any case. All these experts that pontificate on both sides of the table do not seem to have looked into him at all. That is a missing fact, but no grounds for a conclusion yet. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

With regards to Riggi, read the info I referenced. Regarding the Shroud, they know exactly where they took the samples, for they have pictures and a video tape. Ian Wilson tells you in books and articles. So there are NO missing facts. The poor sampling was established by a leading chemist, who physcially examined the evidence. Further the site of the selection is visually demonstrated. Whatever Riggi's background, this does not change the Shroud evidence. If you go further into Roger's work you will see that he confirmed that the cloth was likely made outside of the middle ages because of the lack of vanillin. So he not only disproved the medaeval fakery theory but at the same time physically established the the C14 testing reflected "newer" repair material.

The statement following from Wikapedia's Shroud of Turin article is VERY misleading:"In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud, at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, with 95% confidence concluding that they date from the Middle Ages, between 1260 and 1390[7][8]. Some controversy has arisen over the reliability of the test". This may have been a reasonable statement in 1988, but is no longer the case. After the work of Rogers and others, the 95% confidence level statement is NO LONGER valid.

Your bias of the article is towards fakery with this type of statement.' The perponderance of the microscopic, subject matter, existance of historical documentation, and lack of demonstratable alternative theories, etc. demonstrates that there should be a strong bias towards authenticity. Only the C14 sampling is without conclusion as a retest is needed to overcome the poor sampling issue. That's the current situation. So while because of the C14 issue you may be reluctant to conclude the Shroud authentic, you don't have to present it as a fake. You need to update your article. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually the lead statement about the testing was not written by me, but I think by Thucyd who seems to know much more about the topic. I am really no expert on this topic, I just cleaned up the mess that existed before. And regarding authenticity etc. I think there are several users, e.g. Logicman above who think the change you suggest would tilt it towards the pro-authenticity view, so as long as no one agrees, that probably means balance. The Wilson comment can certainly be added to the Testing article, and it may make a good addition. But as an outside observer to this field I see Joe Nickell and Ian Wilson both as self-appointed experts, with opposing views, both of whom have little formal education on these issues. Nickell studied English and Wilson studied history. Then they both awarded themselves degrees in this topic. I do not think either of them could tell you the simplest facts about the structure of the periodic table yet they talk about chemistry. One just has to ignore what they say on scientific issues. So as an observer, I would like to know where Riggi went to school, what he studied, what he knew, who picked him as the cutter. Knowing those would be interesting to me as a reader. But that is probably another story. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead statement with the 95% confidence level is inaccurate. At one time maybe it was ok but not today. You give a bias of fakery that is incorrect and does not reflect the preponderance of evidence. The article needs an update..

FYI, Rogers is a reputable scientist who published his work which is specifically available on line. It has nothing to do with Ian Wilson.

JimfromGTA (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Rogers is solid, but there are those who disagree with him, and if you have another suggestion for that sentence please provide it here for others to comment, then we cqn see. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead on Carbon dating

Thucyd: The lead, as you modified it, seems ok to me, but I really think that you are now walking on the line. Remember, accurate means very little in Wikipedia, it is a question of what the other editors think. At the moment, there are 1,000 editors out there who are ready to swear on the grave of their loved ones that the shroud is authentic and 1,000 more who are ready to swear the opposite on the graves of their loved ones. So the way you have it seems "ready for a fight" so if you can tone it down a little it will probably avoid that headache. Now, I bet you can find info on Reggia, publish it and then we can reference it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In his last book (The Shroud, 2010) Wilson describes Giovanni Riggi di Numana as an "Italian microscopy specialist [...], a close friend of Turin's overall scientific coordinator Professor Luigi Gonella" (P. 56). According to Wilson, "it was only at this point [21 april 1988] that Gonella and his close friend Giovanni Riggi proceeded at length to deliberate on the best location from which to take the sample that was apportioned between the three laboratories. Some have claimed that the debate between the two scientists took two hours. However long it took, the eventual choice was the top left corner. Riggi, immaculate in a white coat, and with his own appointed cameraman filming his every move, snipped off a three-inch-by-half-an-inch sliver, from which he trimmed a section of seam, then divided the rest so that each of the three laboratories received a portion weighling roughly fifty miligrams" (p. 87). And according to Wilson ( and others, Gérard Lucotte for example but I am not 100% sure), Riggi took unofficial samples of the Shroud, which were analysed for DNA. (p. 291).Thucyd (talk) 19:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

While I haven't researched at length, I believe there were two sample areas. 1 was for C14 in the area that was widely handled and subject to repair, and the other was around the head for blood DND testing.

JimfromGTA (talk) 02:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, so Riggi had "his own" cameraman. Was there a 2nd independent camera? And yes, Riggi did take separate samples for himself which he put in a safe deposit box and said that he had the Cardinal's permission to take new samples. And was he a professor? Professor of what? I just can not figure out where Riggi got "all this muscle" to be the person who takes his own samples, has hi sown cameraman, seems in charge, etc. The picture is just unclear: the man with most muscle is the one least talked about. Of all the people there, Riggi was the only one to have his own camera, do the actual cutting and separation and walk off with his own samples. So next question: Did Riggi own the Cathedral? Was he a Savoy? Who was he? History2007 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet another example of why Wikipedia should be shut down ....

POV from unknown Catholic-doctors publishing in journals that either don't exist or that no reputable scientists publish in. Any fool with a theory (and a few references from a made-up source) can post "factual information" on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.203.245 (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim & Thucyd: I think this means that the lead is now somewhat pro-authenticity in the eyes of some readers. Again, Wikipedia is as much about "public perception" as it is about facts. So if you don't mind I will tone down the lead to be less pro-authenticity, else this type of anti-authenticity backlash will continue and will result in wasted efforts in very long debates. Not that the debate could not be handled, but why invite it? History2007 (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. A person gives an emotional logic appeal and you are jittery. Not one logical argument. Not one illustration of incorrect information, just broadbrush diatribe. Interesting. My interpretation is you are paying too much attention to "emotional thinkers". Let them present a reasoned arguement with references to facts, just like the rest of us. JimfromGTA (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not just that person. I think there are many people who would be against a blanket assertion of authenticity, and can present arguments about it at length. In any case, a lead that even looks like it supports authenticity would not be OK based on Wikipedia policies, given the many referenced arguments out there that support forgery, e.g. da Vinci etc. So the article can not have a pro-authenticity tilt. And this is a highly emotional topic, so in debates logic will be a secondary issue for sure. History2007 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I am OK with the intro. In my opinion, the intro and the article are much more accurate and less biased than NY Times  : " A Faded Relic of Christendom Reappears" (sic and sic...). Thucyd (talk) 08:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thucyd, actually someone edited that and as I commented in the summary, the temporal ordering that Ford did seemed logical to me. I hope you don't mind if I touched that up. Now, regarding the NY Times, biased is a relative term, e.g. the NY Times article on Renminbi may read really well in the southern parts of Manhattan, but Xinhua would declare it to be flatly biased. Now, who am I to say if NY Tmes or Xinhua is right, all we can do in Wikipedia is say that NY Times said X and Xinhua said Y and leave it there. History2007 (talk) 12:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

photo

put in a decent photo of it, that shows something other then his face please, and other then those old ones from 1988, like the full size ones in churches.

Intro

My problem with the intro is that it states that the carbon testing has 95% accuracy the shroud is dated to the medieval timeframe. This is incorrect. Based on the Rogers examination of the material, the C14 dated the "handled" portion of the shroud and that the material chosen is "new material...that is repair material from a middle ages repair". We know this from Rogers efforts regarding chemistry and scientific testing, and from video / photographic evidence of where the sample was selected. So to state that the shroud with 95% confidence that it is from the middle ages, is completely incorrect. Rather, all that has been measured is a medieval repair, not the general age of the cloth. This one incorrect statement leads to a false impression that the shroud is a fake. Such an impression is completely false and needs to be corrected.

Roger's paper appears on the web at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

His conclusion is:

After 25 years of scientific study, I believe that three statements can be supported on the basis of established laws of science and direct observations on the Shroud of Turin.

1. The radiocarbon age determination made in 1988 used an invalid sample, and it gave an erroneous

date for the production of the main part of the cloth.

2. The hypotheses that have appeared since the announcement of an AD 1260-1390 date that invoke

radiation of different kinds to explain the image and the date can be categorically discarded.

3. The characteristics of the image can be explained by reference to highly probable, well-known

chemical reactions. No miracles are necessary to explain the image."

Published Paper: SCIENTIFIC METHOD APPLIED TO THE SHROUD OF TURIN A REVIEW Authors: Raymond N. Rogers, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM and Anna Arnoldi, Department of Agrifood Molecular Sciences, University of Milan, Milano, Italy JimfromGTA (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim, the intro carefully says that the sample tested was found 95% accurate according to the labs. And that the non-representativeness has been claimed. The material you have can be added to the C14 article, and then summarized in the main body as well. Is that Rogers and Arnoldi paper peer refed?. And saying flat out that the shroud is agreed by all to be authentic and that chemical reactions explain it would make the article inconsistent, given that there are references to statements that it is not explained and is the most controversial item in history. Those are solid publications. History2007 (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Your summary:

How can you have 95% confidence level in 2010, when such a person as Rogers (25 years of experience with the Shroud) has clearly stated that it gives an "erroneous date for the production of the cloth." You need to temper your statement because, while it is "factually correct" for 1988, it is misleading after the work of Rogers.

What really happened is that the sample was from repair material of the middle ages. So your intro should refer to C14 testing in 1988 as establishing a middle ages dating but that the sample selected tested middle age repair material and therefore is not representative of the whole.

I would recommend you tone down the 95% confidence statement and insert a reference to middle ages repair material.

Just building on your summary, then:

In 1988 a radiocarbon dating test was performed on small samples of the shroud. The laboratories at the University of Oxford, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, concluded that the sample they tested dated from the Middle Ages, between AD1260 and AD1390.[5][6] The samples tested have since been questioned and two peer-reviewed articles have contended that the radiocarbon samples were of Middle Ages repair material and not representative of the whole shroud.[7][8][9][10][11] JimfromGTA (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no big difference between what there is and what you have, so I can change that. Now, Rogers was very respectable, but just one person. But if Rogers was right, the question is: how did the sample get cut from the repairs? How did all these guys there make such a dumb mistake? That was why even asked about Riggi. Did Riggi make such a big mistake due to his lack of knowledge? Was Riggi a practical joker and switch the samples as the largest practical joke of that decade? How did they do that? The key person there is Riggi, the person that is "least" talked about. I found out that he was a big time stamp collector but other info is sketchy. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"how did the sample get cut from the repairs" Likely, people felt it would be the least intrusive with respect to the handling of the cloth. Understandable and sensitive to the owners. But, from a science point of view, a Big mistake. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Jim, but that is "your personal opinion" and a guess at best. It can not be included in Wikipedia unless some WP:Reliable reference says that. Unless you were there when Reggi cut it and are not telling. Even then you need to publish it first in a WP:Reliable source. I think several of the people who were there while it was cut are still alive, and if pushed they may look into it more. Why don't you call up Barrie Shwortz and get him to write an article, or call Antonoci and ask him to do another book on that. That is the ONLY way that info can come into the article - with a WP:Reliable reference. History2007 (talk) 14:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you History2007...(I was just conjecturing on a talk page.) JimfromGTA (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, carbon dating was done on samples of the cloth and the results of the tests were published by three independant, reputable labs. Rather than rampantly speculating how all 3 labs may have tested the 'wrong parts of the cloth', why don't those making the excuses arrange to have it retested with samples that meet their specifications? It is not wikipedia's job to placate poor losers by lending legitimacy to their inane rationalizations. Even the Catholic Church has accepted the results of those radiocarbon tests and makes no claim that the shroud is legitimate.
--K10wnsta (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think there is general agreement in the world that the 3 labs acted professionally and their results were scientific. There is an entire article on the carbon topic as well. As for retesting, one can only speculate about the motives of those in authority. However, one somewhat obvious point needs to be perhaps mentioned, namely that "by itself" a successful carbon dating can not prove the authenticity of the shroud, for even if the carbon testing had come back with a date of around 29AD to 37AD, it would be ne no proof because it could have been the burial cloth for another person who was crucified using the same Roman techniques 12 months before or after Jesus. Under that scenario the flowers and pollen samples would still be from April in Jerusalem, etc. Hence carbon testing can only disprove authenticity, not prove it by itself. But we need a reference that repeats that argument before we add it. History2007 (talk) 05:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the Shroud of Turin

I propose a big edit :

“The historical records for the shroud can be separated into three time periods: prior to 1357; the second part of the 14th century; and thereafter.

There are no definite historical records concerning the shroud prior to the 14th century. Although there are numerous reports of Jesus' burial shroud, or an image of his head, of unknown origin, being venerated in various locations before the fourteenth century, there is no historical evidence that these refer to the shroud currently at Turin Cathedral.

The 14th century is subject to debate and controversy among historians. Historical records indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the small town of Lirey, France around the years 1353 to 1357.

The history from the 15th century to the present is well understood. As of the 17th century the shroud has been displayed in Turin (e.g. in the chapel built for that purpose by Guarino Guarini).

In 1532, the shroud suffered damage from a fire in the chapel where it was stored. A drop of molten silver from the reliquary produced a symmetrically placed mark through the layers of the folded cloth. Poor Clare Nuns attempted to repair this damage with patches. In 1578 the House of Savoy took the shroud to Turin and it has remained at Turin Cathedral ever since.

Repairs were made to the shroud in 1694 by Sebastian Valfrè to improve the repairs of the Poor Clare nuns. Further repairs were made in 1868 by Clotilde of Savoy. The shroud remained the property of the House of Savoy until 1983, when it was given to the Holy See, the rule of the House of Savoy having ended in 1946.

In 1898, the shroud is photographied for the first time by an Italian Amateur, Secondo Pia.

80 years later, in 1978, a team of scientists, called STURP, performed a set of experiments on the shroud.

In 1988, the shroud underwent a radiocarbon 14 dating test.

A fire, possibly caused by arson, threatened the shroud on 11 April 1997, but a fireman saved it from significant damage. In 2002, the Holy See had the shroud restored. The cloth backing and thirty patches were removed, making it possible to photograph and scan the reverse side of the cloth, which had been hidden from view.”Thucyd (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What is to be gained from deleting all the other material, removing any references to Lirey, Gulio Clovio, etc.? Why delete all that referenced text? Given that Lirey is central to the claims of Joe Nickell and associates, removing it means that someone will just add that back, because it will be a "glaring omission" from the article. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There is sill a reference to Lirey. In my opinion, two or three sentences about Pierre d'Arcis and Clement VII are welcome.

Catholic encyclopedia (1913) is completely out-of-date.

My remarks on this para : "Historical records indicate that a shroud bearing an image of a crucified man existed in the small town of Lirey, France around the years 1353 to 1357 [OK] However, the correspondence of this shroud with the shroud in Turin, and its very origin has been debated by scholars and lay authors, with claims of forgery attributed to artists born a century apart [No refs and da Vinci Thesis in the main article ?]. Some contend that the Lirey shroud was the work of a confessed forger and murderer.[I would like to read the primary source...] Professor Larissa Tracy of Virginia also argues that the shroud in Turin is a forgery, but that it was forged by Leonardo da Vinci, who was born in 1452 [From a popular book, no peer-reviewed article] . Professor Nicholas Allen of South Africa on the other hand believes that the image was made photographically and not by an artist [not by an artist ?, "believes" is not appropriate]. Professor John Jackson of the Turin Shroud Centre of Colorado argues that the shroud in Turin dates back to the first century AD. [Why Jackson ?]. Thucyd (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the tone of what you propose is somewhat "pro-authenticity" and that may be part of my problem. A few things that should be more empahsized, and I mentioned below:

• The fact that it is totally unclear if the "shroud talked about" is the same oen as in Turin needs to be more clearly stated, and teh Cath Encyclopedia made tat point. It was true then, it is true now. Do you have a more modern ref that says the same thing? The quote was there to emphasize that point. Giulio Clovio's painting is quoted as a good element in establishing the fact that the one in Turin is the same one taht he painted, given the level of detail.

• Pierre d'Arcis and Clement VII are clearly failures on my part to do a complete job there. Please provide those sentences and we can use them. They are in fact important and tie into the Lirey story.

• I think Sebastian Valfrè and Clotilde of Savoy should remain to show that there were a whole pile of repairs.

• I mentioned 3 professors to show that there is no agreement among three academics as to the date of the shroud. If you can find 5 academics that give 5 dates even better. That paragraph should probably be expanded and please feel free to suggest an expansion.

Overall, each of those items had a reason for being there. History2007 (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to do an update, then please correct the first statement. "There are no definite historical records concerning the shroud prior to the 14th century." The statement is out of date (you use a 1980 reference). The pollen evidence revealed in 1982 and confirmed by the Hebrew University indicates that the shroud in Turin was in Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. Historical documents exist that relate to this evidence (examples: the sermon in Constantinople, knights templair veneration per your article). There are numerous documents, but because the possession of the Shroud has changed, they are called "different" shrouds. The problem with historical documentation is NOT the lack, but the connectivity. We know that physical evidence already tells us the trail and that the shroud of Edessa is likely the same shroud as Turin. We are just waiting to see the documentation catch up.

The statement you use is incorrect and needs updating. It is based on the assumption that if we put on narrow blinders we will only see documentation that relates to the last phase of the shroud. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I am not an expert on this topic, but as a "reader" of these popular articles and books, I see their reasoning less than logical. And the technical publications do not agree with the popular books - for or against authenticity. Some problems:

• Assuming (and that is an assumption) that Danin was right and Frei was correct that the shroud had been in Edessa and Jerusalem, how is it known that it was in Jerusalem before Edessa? Is there proof of the temporal order of when it was there based on Danin? No.

• As for Image of Edessa, how is it known that it was the same shroud? Guesswork, it seems.

• How is it known that any of the shrouds discussed prior to the painting of Giulio Clovio are the same as that in Turin now? Clovio had very good details, others did not.

Technically speaking, you are proposing one model that can satisfy a set of assertions, but that is not the only model. The model may make a lot of sense to some group of people, but proof is another story. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It is NOT an assumption that Frei was right. This is a fact as peer reviewed and proven until disproven. The fact that approximately 3-4 Phd's (ie. Hebrew University) have looked in detail at the pollen evidence and NOT yelled fraud, tells you that the pollen existed. In fact the Hebrew University guys were so convinced by Frei's evidence that they used the pollen evidence to develop their hypothesis surrounding the flowers in the shroud. So Frei's evidence has been confirmed by more than one Phd and accepted under close inspection.

Complimenting the pollen evidence, has been the rare type of limestone evidence, by the American scientist, who traced the unusal limestone back to the tombs in Jerusalem.

So we KNOW the shroud has visited these places, the pollen and limestone tells us that. Now that we know the shroud has visited these places, we look for indications of existance of documents that confirm this.

The markings on the shroud are very similar to the descriptions in the Bible. The pollen and limestone puts the shroud in the same location as the Bible describes and at the time of cruxifiction (pollen from Easter flowers specific to Jerusalem). Further, the linen of the Shroud of Turin, according to Rogers, was manufactured in accordence with Jewish custom (specifically same as Masada). From this one can conclude that the Shroud of Turin has a high probability of being the burial cloth of Jesus as it meets at least these FIVE major criteria: (1) demonstrates detailed documented description (2) time: Easter (pollen) (3) specific location...Jerusalem tomb (limestone evidence) (4) specific location: Jerusalem (pollen and limestone evidence) and (5) material: linen made by the Jews....process found only at Massada...a Jewish historical site.

In this case the relevent historical documents are the New Testaments, a 1st Century document that reflect the timing, location, and descripton evidence that match the Shroud of Turin.

The sermon at Constantinople the day after shroud of Edessa was taken from Edessa in 944, describes the shroud of Edessa in a manner that the Shroud of Turin exists today...(example...talks about the blood and "not a painting"). To be authentic, based on the 900's document, it would have to have visited Edessa, and Constantinople and met the New Testament descriptions. These very specific FIVE requirements are evidenced in the Shroud of Turin: (1) Edessa (pollen) (2) Constantinople (pollen) (3) blood on cloth (Confirmed by STURP) (4) image that is not a painting (Confirmed by STURP) (5) matches New Testament description (otherwise the Archbishop would not have believed it to be the shroud of Jesus).

In this case the relevant historical document is the sermon at Constantinople from 944. See sermon at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/guscin3.pdf The translation is located in the second half of the document.

We also have some documentation which traces the Shroud from Constantinople to France from 1204 onwards. Your reference to the knights templar document is one where it suggests that the Knight Templar assumed the shroud in 1204 from Constantinople. There are other references. So again, the physical evidence tells us where the shroud of Turin has been and the documents confirm a shroud of Jesus that was highly revered passed through these locations.

Therefore, the statement that no documentation exists prior to 1400's is factual incorrect and misleading. Documents exist. A review of each indicates that the Shroud of Turin meets major criteria for being the item described in the documents. And I have only touched the surface in my brief summary.JimfromGTA (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a classic case of WP:OR. History2007 (talk) 07:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Did I prove my point? My efforts are to logically argue the evidence to demonstrate why my ascertions are correct. My own summary is NOT OR, but is a case of taking the established evidence and summarizing it into a concise summary. Mark Antonelli provides much of the background for this in his dissertation. Mark talks of the matching to the Bible, the pollen, the limestone, the blood, the "not a painting", the sermon at Constantinople. In Mark's case he cross references everything to authoritative documents such as STURP research (more than 700 references), so his information is "rock solid" as you would say. Rogers talks about the linen. Wikapedia talks about the Kights Templar.

So I am not inventing ideas, but rather summarizing and establishing how specific factors are present in the Shroud. And establishing why you have a signficant mistatement in your History section.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are really interested in documentation, look at Mark Antonelli's book. He clearly brings together many different pieces of evidence to establish how the Shroud of Turin is most likely the Shroud of Edessa. He goes into how the art changed after the arrival of the shroud of Edessa in Edessa. He talks about the fold marks in the shroud and that they come from folding the cloth with the face outwards (just like the Edessa painting). He also shows a full naked body shroud in a picture of the shroud of Edessa (this matches the Shroud of Turin imagery). So historical documentation exists. And it is relevant. I am not an OR as you say, but a person who is summarising to make a point.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose Mark, or are his statements universally accepted? History2007 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question is too broad. On any specific matter, there can be concessus or disagreement. Mark's basic approach is to go through all of the evidence available and detail its background complete with 700 references to authoritative research. Out of a book of 328 pages that cover thousands of pieces of evidence, exhibits, information and various hypothesis, I am sure there are various areas that people disagree with Mark. What Mark does well is document detail and reference.

With respect to Edessa, Mark brings together an array of well researched evidence that points to the shroud of Edessa as being the Shroud of Turin. This comes from reviewing various forms of historical information including art, documents, coinage, and physical evidence such as Turin cloth folds and pollen. All of these aspects, FYI, are cross referenced to the person doing the original research.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

So then we need to have a sentence that says something like: "Author Mark Antonelli has proposed that the shroud of Edessa and the Shroud of Turin are the same item." That's as far as the WP:RS allows. This association is supported by some other authors, but is not universally accepted, so to assert in the article that the two shrouds are definitely the same item would be WP:OR. Wdford (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually there are N shroud references prior to the 14th century, and it is generally agreed that N > 1, and the value of N is debated. It may be anywhere between 1 and 4. I was going to do more research and touch that up, so give me a few days. However, after Clovio's painting it ispretty certain that N = 1, since it has been in Turin since. But the "Shroud tourism" a as the Savoy fled around Europe and took it with them has not been addressed here either. In fact much of this really belongs in the History of Shroud article with just a summary here. History2007 (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to update the History section, you may want to include key document evidence:

(1) Bible (shroud matches description, time, location, and Bible provides very detailed story background).

Description: Turin has following imagery: crucifixtion, legs not broken, crown of thorns, wounding in side, Roman flagulation wounding, etc. These are all descriptive elements within Bible historical record.

Time: Easter pollen found by Frei and confirmed by Hebrew University. (Bible talks of time of cruxifiction and burial at Easter).

Location: Jerusalem pollen (Frei, Hebrew University) and limestone (American scientist)(Bible talks of burial in Jerusalem tomb).

(2) the sermon at Constantinople (Turin matches "not a painting" descripton, location matches Turin's physical evidence..Edessa and Constantinople pollen).

(3) Theodore Ducas Angelelos, around 1205, reported to Pope Innocent III, that the shroud was taken by French Knights in 1204. (explains transistion in ownership)

(4) Hungarian Pray Manuscript, you reference in the Wikapedia "News" section, that also confirms the cloth taken in 1204 by French Knights. (confirms Theodore's report).

(5) Evidence points to Shroud of Edessa being the Shroud of Turin based a critical review of art, documentation, coinage, folds in the shroud match a "Edessa face" presentation, and existance of Edessa and Constantinople pollen (Mark's and other author's ascertions).

and others that you may think are relevant, prior to 14th century. There's lots of detail.

You may want to include Mark's statement that the pollen confirms Shroud's middle east history (pg153 of Mark's book). Why, because it demonstrates key evidence matches the various documents to the Turin shroud and visa versa.

As you have said, Mark is not alone in his writing. I use him for convenience because he qualifies under Wikapedia rules, but am aware that others have demonstrated similar evidence.

I can help you with original research references if you wish.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC) (minor correction) JimfromGTA (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Proven Fake

Come on, people. The "shroud" is a proven fake. If you hang your faith on it, you commit to ignorance. Here's yet another source. NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 15:27, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

NoNonsense: I reviewed your attachement and found it to ramble on and on and didn't make much sense. Would you please list out one by one, the precise points you wish to make about the shroud being a "proven" fake.

Would you also please include references to the STURP testing and findings and how your information concurs or disagrees with leading scientists. Further, please advise how much "direct time" your source has spent inspecting the cloth before he drew his conclusion.

FYI, the STURP were a team of recognized scientists from major universities who studied the shroud. They provided most of the evidence that is discussed today. They spent more than 25 man years in direct inspection of the cloth and doing tests against various hypothesis.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The carbon dating, which as you know occurred after the STURP research concluded nearly 30 years ago, is alone enough to impeach that effort. The fact that the shroud-faithful are in denial and carping about the dates from fabric provided by the church doesn't cut any ice. People still trump up "evidence" that there was no moon landing, that God created the world in October of 4004 BC, etc.

I of course will not respond as you demand about direct contact time. Your demand in fact shows your bias. The current author asserts that the "shroud" has an anatomically impossible image on it in the following easily visible ways:

• the head is misproportioned, both from normal and from the body
• one forearm is significantly longer than the other
• the posture of the body is also impossible

If you'll just open your own eyes, you'll be able to see that the "shroud" matches the painting style of its day, rather than accurately rendering a human form.

The shroud article, as well as ancillary supporting articles violate NPOV under the guise of adhering to it. Their specific failing is Npov#Giving_.22equal_validity.22. --NoNonsenseHumJock (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

NoNonsense:

There have been two peer reviewed scientists who have demonstarted that the carbon dating did not apply to the cloth as a whole, but to a repair section that had a middle ages repair in it. Secondly, it has been demonstrated that there is not been enough Vanilin in the cloth to be middle age material according to a STURP scientist. There should be 37% vanilin, but 0% exists. So the cloth was NOT manufactured during the middle ages. The linen was manufactured according to a Jewish process that has only been found at Masada (1st Century process). The overall age of the cloth has not been determined. Another C14 sample is required.

There was NO paint pigment when the cloth was directly examined by STURP. So your source strikes out, because his theory of painting did not get past first base. It also tells me that your source and yourself are NOT familiar with the science of the Shroud. You need to study the STURP findings because they were so thorough and represent most of the evidence.

As to the dimension arguement, I would need to understand how one measures correctly body lengths when

(a) someone has been severly beaten about the body and head and then cruxified for hours hanging from a cross and then laid to rest.

The body probably contorts under severe stress while writhing from the various forms of torture. Body parts dislocate and muscles contort, while head swelling from beatings occur, etc., etc. It is little wonder body proportion became distorted. Nasty stuff.

(b) how to project the mathematics of a body wrapped in a shroud when it is unknown how much pressure was applied by the wrapping and

(c) what was the impact of the 2nd shroud piece on the head...pressure of wrapping. Love to read the evidence, but NOT mumble jumble that you cross referenced to.

FYI, STURP reported on this in detail. Dr. Heller, Professor of Internal Medicine and Medical Physics at Yale, stated that "It was evident from the physical, mathematical, medical, and chemical eidence that there must have been a crucified man in the Shroud" (ref. Heller, Report, pg. 210).

NoNonsense, in order to win the argument, you have to come up with multi parameter theories to describe the cloth because there are so many factors involve. Most critics have not succeded because they present hypothesis that are unidimensional. When multidimensional arguements commence, the critics fail.

The reason I ask for a comparison to STURP is because most of what people talk about was covered under the STURP review and to have a reasonable discussion, one needs to start with a factual baseline. Unfortunately most people who are critical do not understand the findings of STURP. Further, because they are not disciplined to review STURP, they get confused and jump to conclusions.

I recommend you first read Mark Antonelli's book. He presents the evidence in a thorough manner referencing approximately 700 sources, then come back with a multi dimensional debate. Love to discuss with you.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you and Jim will probably be able to debate this for long. And that is a clear indication of the fact that this is a controversial topic. In fact as the refereed articles and books say, "the most researched" and "the most controversial" artifact in history. But before Jim responds, I would like to point out to Jim that before he asserts 100% validity based on Mark Antonoci's book, he must remember that if the 100% validity argument of Mark Antonoci had been generally accepted the Pope would have quickly issued an encyclical asserting the authenticity of the shroud last week when he was in Turin. The fact that the Pope did not issue that statement, means that he does accept Antonocci's argument in full. The Church would have been the first to jump to the defense of the shroud had there been 100% proof as Antonoci claims. A similar situation exists with respect to the newer "out of proportion figure" arguments, in that had they been 100% watertight they would have been published in multiple scientific journals, instead of websites here and there. I think it is clear that there are multiple levels of disagreement on this topic, not just across the table, but "around the table":

• There is top level disagreement among those claiming authenticity vs forgery.

• There is disagreement among those claiming authenticity: e.g. they disagree on whether the body had been washed, and whether this is the same as the image of Edessa.

• There is disagreement among those claiming forgery: some think it is out of proportion, others think it is the image of da Vinci himself; others say it is not a painting but the body of Jacques de Molay.

And it is not clear what falsifiability criterion, in a scientific sense, can be applied to many portions of the debate. Clearly, if next week someone finds a new writing in English on the back of the shroud that says "Made in the People's Republic of China" that will end the debate. But given that there is no access to the artifact itself and most analyses are done at a distance, it seems that for every argument to date, people have presented a counter argument, or a loophole. I think that fact has to be acknowledged as you two debate this. History2007 (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

History2007: There will always be disagreements about artifacts at the top level. That's the nature of academia. To cover this all off in absolute detail is likely impossible.

I form my opinion based on the physcial and documentary evidence. I ask basic questions:

Why does the shroud look like detailed description from 1st century documents and appear to match physically described events found in the same documentation?

Why does the shroud have microbiological evidence from Jerusalem and Israel?

Why does the microbiological evidence match the timeframe of the 1st century documentation storyline?

Why is the shroud made of 1st century material (Madessa)?

The ONLY answer that makes sense is that the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus. Matches description, microbiology, and material evidence.

The next question is how did the cloth get to Turin.

As best can be told from the evidence is:

Shroud was in Jerusalem, Edessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. This is a logical path to travel given the nature of the cloth, and documentation and microbiological evidence that exists to complement this.

So there is a reasonable theory and evidence to support the Shroud = Authentic hypothesis.

There is far more evidence and detail to support this theory than the critics. Most critics have unproven hypothesis, that on close inspection, doesn't get past 1st grade science.

The question remaining: Is it a fake?

No one has proven this hypothesis to date. The basic problem is no one knows how the image got there. It's more like photograph, and definitely not paint. So all the paint theories can be dismissed.

According to leading scientists, the C14 tested middle age repair material. So the c14 testing needs updating before it is acceptable.

So my conclusion, is given the balance of evidence, and given no one has demonstrated how it could have been faked, and how the microbiology got there and who did it, its only reasonable to conclude the shroud of Turin is highly likely authentic.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)