Unexplained?: The Turin Shroud

[KEROUAC]

I hope this subject is ok to discuss as I realise the dangers of getting onto a topic with religious connotations. But firstly let me say I am not overly religious and have no religious agenda. I do think though that The Turin Shroud provides a good topic for discussion on a paranormal or unexplained artifact when just looking at the known facts and I genuinely believe The Turin Shroud defies normal explanation. Yes I know popular consensus regards it as a medieval forgery going on the carbon dating results but that does not add up when everything is taken into consideration. (Remember: Popular consensus also says UFOS aren't real) I have read a few excellent books on the subject notably the ones by Ian Wilson which I'd recommend and there are so many reasons put forward in forensic analysis and other means to suggest why The Turin Shroud is not a medieval forgery.

Here are just a few:

There is no evidence of painting being involved. When tested with visible and ultraviolet spectrometry the image has three dimensional characteristics not consistent with a painting.

A team of nine scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has confirmed that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin is wrong:
"There is a lot of other evidence that suggests to many that the shroud is older than the radiocarbon dates allow, and so further research is certainly needed. Only by doing this will people be able to arrive at a coherent history of the shroud which takes into account and explains all of the available scientific and historical information." –Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit which participated in the 1988 Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud. (Mar 2008 )

A 1999 study of The Sudarium of Oviedo (which can be traced back to at least 7th century) by Mark Guscin, member of the multidisciplinary investigation team of the Spanish Center for Sindonology, investigated the relationship between the two cloths. Based on history, forensic pathology, blood chemistry (the Sudarium also is reported to have type AB blood stains), and stain patterns, he concluded that the two cloths covered the same head at two distinct, but close moments of time. Avinoam Danin concurred with this analysis, adding that the pollen grains in the sudarium match those of the shroud.

Pathologists who have examined the shroud say the image of the man on the Shroud is anatomically correct and the differences in the vein and arterial blood flow conform to the proper circulation of blood in the body. The distinctive rivulets of blood flowing from the wrist wounds could only occur if the arms were stretched out approximately 65 degrees to the horizon. The thumbs are not visible as would be the case if nails or spikes were driven though the wrists. They would fold under into the palms of the hands. All of this was beyond the knowledge of the medieval period (or before) when such an image, if it was man-made, would have had to have been created.

Dirt has been found on the Shroud at the man's feet, on his knees, and on the tip of his nose. Dirt from the area of the feet is chemically consistent with the calcium carbonate soil of the Jerusalem area. Pollen specific to the area near Jerusalem and the Turkish steppes, have been found on the cloth. Why would a forger include these elements? In anticipation of forensic science maybe?

It is particularly interesting is that the man of the Shroud was crucified with large spikes driven through his wrists rather that through the palms of his hands. This contradicts all iconography of medieval and pre-medieval periods. This is evidenced by both the image and the bloodstains.

Variegated patterns in the Shroud show a pre-Medieval bleaching technology

There are just a few points which aren't easy to explain away. Let the Spanish inquisition begin.

 

[pixelsmith]

if the shroud was real, the image of the face should be distorted from wrapping around the face and then being laid flat. the image is more like a photo or painting.

 

[Aardvark]

if the shroud was real, the image of the face should be distorted from wrapping around the face and then being laid flat. the image is more like a photo or painting.

Until the method that created the image on The Shroud is known exactly, I do not believe you can come to this conclusion.

 

[dianadee13]

How do we know though that the evidence is of Christ? As many were also crucified at that time, it could be of anyone? I have no conclusions, just pondering on the evidence.

 

[pixelsmith]

Until the method that created the image on The Shroud is known exactly, I do not believe you can come to this conclusion.

it is not a conclusion. i am also pondering...

 

[Aardvark]

it is not a conclusion. i am also pondering...

Sorry about that. I read more certainty than ponder into your statement.

 

[Schuyler]

With these kinds of mysteries doubt will always abound. The carbon-14 tests on the shroud showed a date in the early 1300's, but, of course, there are accusations of contamination if not downright conspiracy that the 'samples were switched' or that the shroud had come into contact with more recent organic material which skewed the testing. Books have been written, some with arcane detail on obscure and little-understood points. Arguments have ensued. Calls for further testing are regularly made, and the Church is benignly silent on the topic saying they don't know either.

So for every book like The Turin Shroud is Genuine; the irrefutable evidence, by Rodney Hoare, London: Souvenir Press, 1984, 1994, 188pp. ISBN: 0-285-63201-9, there is another book like Turin Shroud In whose Image? the truth behind the century-long conspiracy of silence, by Lynn Pickett and Clive Prince, New York: Harper/Collins, 1994, 212pp, ISBN:0-06-017224-X, that says Leonoardo Da Vinci did it.

For some people, the shroud is 'irrefutable evidence' that proves their faith. For others, it's proven beyond doubt to be a 12th century forgery. My guess is, we'll never know for sure.

 

[methshin]

I'm no cloth expert, but I think that a cloth around 2000 years old that had been in contact with a dead human would have deteriorated by now, that being said, I don't know what conditions it was exposed to and exactly what kind of cloth it is, but if this thing was not in a sarcophagus or kept under glass, I don't think there would be anything left.

 

[skunkape]

I suspect the shroud may possibly be the first photograph. The creator would have to understand the concept of a negative and then paint a negative image on glass. Then treat the cloth with a photochemically reactive substance, mount it to the back of the negative, and set it in a window until an image develops.
I certainly don't buy the idea that Christ's blood soaked into a cloth and produced an image. I've seen blood-soaked cloth. It doesn't reproduce detail very well.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[ondafritz]

I suspect the shroud may possibly be the first photograph. The creator would have to understand the concept of a negative and then paint a negative image on glass. Then treat the cloth with a photochemically reactive substance, mount it to the back of the negative, and set it in a window until an image develops.
I certainly don't buy the idea that Christ's blood soaked into a cloth and produced an image. I've seen blood-soaked cloth. It doesn't reproduce detail very well.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Nobody in their right mind would ever say that the blood of Jesus created the image. The only thing they say about the blood in the cloth is that it would have flowed correctly from a dead person to stain the cloth where it did.

 

[KEROUAC]

I'm no cloth expert, but I think that a cloth around 2000 years old that had been in contact with a dead human would have deteriorated by now, that being said, I don't know what conditions it was exposed to and exactly what kind of cloth it is, but if this thing was not in a sarcophagus or kept under glass, I don't think there would be anything left.

Methsin there are many surviving ancient textiles including much older from mummified remains in ancient egypt. Incidentally some horrendous carbon dating errors have been made on some of those too.

Also:

Methchild Flury-Lemberg, a leading authority on historic textiles and the former curator of Switzerland’s Abegg Foundation Textile Museum, has reported strong similarities between the Shroud’s fabric and fragments of cloth produced in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago. According to Flury-Lemberg, the cloth’s finishing, its selvage, and a very distinctive joining seam, all closely resemble unique ancient textiles found in tombs of the Jewish palace-fortress Masada. The Masada fabrics have been reliably dated to between 40 BCE and 73 CE. Flury-Lemberg’s detailed analysis of the Shroud’s fabric – an exceptionally fine quality, z-twist, 3-over-1-herringbone patterned linen cloth – is evidence that it was manufactured in the Middle East on a Roman-period Egyptian or Syrian loom.
The unique, nearly invisible seam is particularly interesting and telling. The seam is about 8 centimeters from one edge. It appears that the cloth was cut lengthwise to remove some of the fabric’s width and then expertly and very distinctively seamed in a way that preserved the selvage (the finished edges produced on the loom). This nearly invisible style of seaming is consistent with the Masada fabrics and is unknown in medieval Europe.
Previously, Gilbert Raes, of the Ghent Institute of Textile Technology in Belgium, identified the herringbone twill as a pattern that was common in the Middle East during the first century. Raes had also discovered that the Shroud’s fabric contained, within the weave itself and thus possibly introduced on the loom, microscopic traces of a Middle East cotton variety known as Gossypium herbaccum. The evolving Talmudic traditions (Mishna) permitted linen to be woven on looms used for cotton but never on looms used for wool. While loose wool and even twentieth century nylon fibrils have been found on the Shroud, no wool has been found woven into the cloth as would likely be the case for looms in medieval Europe. Because the wool and the nylon are loose, they are likely contaminants. Flury-Lemberg’s and Raes’ evidence strongly suggests that the fabric of the Shroud of Turin is a Middle East fabric used in Israel around the early 1st century AD.

 

[KEROUAC]

if the shroud was real, the image of the face should be distorted from wrapping around the face and then being laid flat. the image is more like a photo or painting.

There is a theory that the image was formed by some kind of radiation coming out of the body rather than direct contact. This I believe was based on study of how the image was formed. I admit I don't know the specifics but it's in the Ian Wilson book. There is evidence from some people at Hiroshima that radiation can create these kind of images.

How do we know though that the evidence is of Christ? As many were also crucified at that time, it could be of anyone? I have no conclusions, just pondering on the evidence.

I agree with you there and I am not putting forward any firm views on the identity of the man but I'm just saying how is it possible that this shroud was made when looking at the known facts?

 

[aNorthernSoul]

The carbon-14 tests on the shroud showed a date in the early 1300's, but, of course, there are accusations of contamination if not downright conspiracy that the 'samples were switched' or that the shroud had come into contact with more recent organic material which skewed the testing.

From what I understood, the most common theories(?) I've heard is that the sample they tested was taken from a portion of the shroud that was repaired after damage was done from a fire.

From: http://shroud2000.com/LatestNews.htm

A snippet...

Unlocking the mysteries of the shroud is a difficult and tedious process. Access to the shroud has been very limited. It was kept under lock and key for centuries, and was officially willed to the Vatican in 1983 by Umberto II, the last King of Italy. However, it had been preserved in the Turin Cathedral since 1578. Although, the Vatican has been supportive of efforts to verify the origins of the shroud—because of its theological significance and historical ramifications—the church has proceeded with extreme caution. In 1988, church officials gave small samples of the shroud to three independent laboratories to scientifically determine its age using the Carbon-14 dating technique. But, as often happens with such testing, the studies only stirred up more controversy. Even though the three labs each determined that the cloth was 600-700 years old dating to about 1350 A.D., the Grizzly Adams show will reveal new scientific evidence that proves the C-14 test was in fact done on a rewoven and patched area of the shroud after a fire destroyed portions of the burial cloth in 1532. The C-14 date is accurate for the patch but not the shroud.

I have also heard claims that the image on the shroud is actually more like a hologram in that a tiny portion of the image will actually recreate the entire image... though I don't know how that would be proven... I think I heard that stated by a researcher on Red Ice or something....

I found this interesting though... it's a blog discussing the three Hebrew letters found...

From: http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/11/shroud-of-turin-news-september-2008.html

A snippet....

Using photos taken of the shroud in 1931, Soons enhanced them to improve the details and translated the grayscale images into depth data. He also worked with computer expert Bernardo Galmarini to produce from those images three-dimensional holographs of the shroud. Among his findings from the images, Soons discovered an oval-shaped plaque or medallion placed at [Left: Dr Soon's depiction of what he believes are the three Hebrew letters on the Shroud.]
the bottom of the face that displays the word "lamb" in Hebrew. To know the meaning we go to religion" and the Gospels, said Soons, a Catholic. The word lamb, he noted for example, is used just before Communion, when the priest says, "this is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world." I agree that on the hologram below the beard of the man of the Shroud there are three Hebrew letters, which itself is further evidence that the Shroud is that of Jesus, because why would, or even could, a forger add three Hebrew letters to his forgery, such that they could only be detected by 21st century science?
However, there are problems with Dr Soons' claim that the letters are, from right to left (as Hebrew is) `ayin-'aleph-nun: 1. there is no such word as `ayin-'aleph-nun, in my three Hebrew / Aramaic lexicons and another I consulted; 2. While the two Hebrew / Aramaic lexicon pages Soon's shows are too blurry for me to distinguish the letters, one of them (Klein's "A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English"), clearly has the Hebrew letter tsade in large print at the top of the page, indicating that the key words on that page start with tsade, not `ayin; and 3. The Hebrew word for "small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats" is another word tsade-'aleph-nun (ts'n):

"ts'n ... small cattle, sheep and goat ... flock, flocks of sheep and goats" (Davidson, 1966, p.638); "s'n ... flock, sheep. ... the generic term for `small cattle' comprised mostly of sheep and goats" (Harris, et al., 1980, p.2:749); "ts'n ... small cattle, i.e. sheep & goats" (Holladay, 1971, p.302) and "small cattle, sheep, sheep and goats, flock" (Strong's Concordance 6629); "ts'n ... flocks, small cattle, i.e. sheep and goats" (Tregelles, 1949, p.698).​

But ts'n is a collective plural and (apart from Ex 12:21 which should be "flock" as per The Interlinear Bible and Young's Literal Translation), is never rendered "lamb" in the Bible, the latter having its own Hebrew word seh. I have emailed Dr Soons advising him of these problems.

I had thought the third (left-most) letter was gimel which made a word tsade-'aleph-gimel. I had then found what I thought was that word in one of my Hebrew lexicons, and it meant, "you will come out," which may have been the very Hebrew or Aramaic word that Jesus used when He commanded Lazarus to "come out" from the tomb (Jn 11:43). But alas, on closer inspection the word in my lexicon is tsade-'aleph-waw and the left-most letter on the Shroud does not look like waw. I will keep working on this, trying to accurately identify the letters and then check to see if they spell a Hebrew word. Of course it may be that the three letters are not a word but an acronym.

Dr. Soons also discovered several areas of the images in which data seemed to be missing.

My guess is, we'll never know for sure.

I'm with you there.

 

[KEROUAC]

That's interesting aNorthernSoul. I wasn't aware of that but I have read about various other images and flora being found on the markings of the shroud including some Roman lepta coins placed over the eyes:

In 1978, scientists, including Dr. John P. Jackson and Dr. Eric J. Jumper, while working with NASA's VP-8 3-D Image Analyzer, discovered what appeared to be raised button-like shapes over each eye.

About 1980, the Rev. Francis Filas, S.J., of Loyola University in Chicago and Michael Marx, an expert in classical coins, examined the area over the right eye and detected patterns of what appeared to be the letters UCAI (from TIBERIOU CAISARUS). They also found a lituus design (an auger's staff). Father Filas concluded that this was a lituus lepton coin minted by Pontius Pilate between 29 and 32 CE. Over the left eye, Father Filas also identified what he believed to be a Juolia lepton with a distinctive sheaf of barley design. The Juolia lepton was only struck in 29 CE in honor of Tiberius Caesar's wife, Julia.

Subsequent computerized image enhancement analysis at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University's Spatial Data Analysis Laboratory supports, though cautiously, the existence of the lituus lepton over the right eye and an outline of a coin over the left eye.

By overlaying polarized images, Alan Whanger at Duke University identified both coins. Alan found 74 points of congruence with an existing lituus lepton and 73 points with a Juolia lepton. But such identification is highly interpretive and other researchers do not find the same level of congruence.

The UCAI Problem

Though the lepta (plural of lepton) minted in Palestine were Roman produced coins, the inscription of Tiberius Caesar would have been written in Greek as TIBERIOU KAISAROS. Was the C, where a K was expected, a misspelling? This was a problem that seemed to preclude positive identification until an actual lituus lepton was found with the aberrant spelling. Several have since been found. This anomaly seems to give credence to the coins identification