The Shroud of Turin: An Enigmatic Anomaly

[baywax]

I would think 50mg is about the mass of a single thread.

a strip (~10 mm x 70 mm) was cut from just above the place where a sample was previously removed in 1973 for examination. The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas.

10 mm width is a fair bit wider than a piece of thread.

 

[dlgoff]

10 mm width is a fair bit wider than a piece of thread.

At work today, I cut a 3 inch (76 mm) thread out of a piece of string and weighed it on a analytical balance. It weighed 10.9 mg.

I'm not sure what their threads weighed but if they were like this, then it would take about three of them to make the test. One wouldn't want to use the whole piece of fabric to do just one test. So if the shrouds fabric used heavier thread, I think it may be possible to get a date from just one thread out of the sample.

 

[nismaratwork]

Is modern thread in any way similar to course linen used in the time the shroud has been dated to? I have no idea, but it strikes me as being an issue.

 

[baywax]

The dating samples were taken from a location that contained two different threads. One was the original thread that the cloth was made from and the other was cotton that was rewoven into the shroud to repair damage and colored to match.
This was discovered only after the dating had been completed and released. One of the original scientists confirmed that this was the case by testing a remnant with UV light. the cotton threadsglowed and the original threads did not. This tainted the results of carbon dating by averaging the two threads into one date.
PBS has shown this in a show about the shroud several times.

I don't know how the 10 mm x 70 mm patch of 400 year old fabric (thus, very fragile... and light) was divided up. But I'm pretty sure it would be divided equally amongst the institutions testing it. This could have been done by cutting the swatch vertically or horizontally. This would give each team a 3.3 mm x 70 mm strip or a 33 mm x 10 mm patch to analyze. There is no mention of "threads" in the nature article

Here's the proof from the article we need to settle this tributary of discussion.

The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. If the samples had been unravelled or shredded rather than being given to the laboratories as whole pieces of cloth, then it would have been much more difficult, but not impossible, to distinguish the shroud sample from the controls.

So what they are saying is that they might have had better control if the samples were shredded but they didn't shred the clothe... they just concealed the identity of both the control and target samples.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

 

[baywax]

Does the shroud represent an example of "proto-photography"?

It plainly shows a negative image imprinted on linen. Are there any papers showing the presence of silver sulphate on the shroud? And does silver sulphate decay or transform into another chemical over time or in the presence of fire? Specifically, would the silver off of a silver pencil mixed with the egg tempura used in fine painting create silver sulphate?

 

[nismaratwork]

If I remember correctly, experiments to re-create the shroud didn't require anything like photographic media or chemicals. I think some acid and heat was all it took, along with a bit of artistic skill. I'll see if I can find that study before I hit the hay. Silver would not need to be present to create a negative image, only a negative on a photographic plate where light is a factor.

 

[dlgoff]

I don't know how the 10 mm x 70 mm patch of 400 year old fabric (thus, very fragile... and light) was divided up. But I'm pretty sure it would be divided equally amongst the institutions testing it. This could have been done by cutting the swatch vertically or horizontally. This would give each team a 3.3 mm x 70 mm strip or a 33 mm x 10 mm patch to analyze. There is no mention of "threads" in the nature article

Here's the proof from the article we need to settle this tributary of discussion.



So what they are saying is that they might have had better control if the samples were shredded but they didn't shred the clothe... they just concealed the identity of both the control and target samples.

http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

I'm not arguing how they received the samples, I'm was just showing that you really don't need to use the whole sample supplied to make a test. Just a few threads will do ya.

 

[baywax]

I'm not arguing how they received the samples, I'm was just showing that you really don't need to use the whole sample supplied to make a test. Just a few threads will do ya.

And that's amazing in itself.

 

[baywax]

If I remember correctly, experiments to re-create the shroud didn't require anything like photographic media or chemicals. I think some acid and heat was all it took, along with a bit of artistic skill. I'll see if I can find that study before I hit the hay. Silver would not need to be present to create a negative image, only a negative on a photographic plate where light is a factor.

There have been successful attempts at re-creating the effect seen on the shroud using a camera obscura... but the authors of these studies are neither photographers nor are they historians or scientists... I'll post the links later with some trepidation or at least have the links cleared by the mentor.

For now, here's something I hadn't heard of about the Shroud of Turin... these copies of the shroud were painted to depict the cherished artifact.?

The copy was found Jan. 18, 1999 by theol. scholar Premysl Sochor in the first balcony to the right in the monasterial church of Broumov, Czechia, hidden in a framed wooden box with a glass door, under the floor of the balcony (in a height of appr. 15m). With the linen was the authenticity, i.e., a letter of the archbishop of Turin, Bergiria, giving names, year and date (4 May 1651).

http://www.shroud.com/bazant.htm

Another attempt was made to reproduce the method thought used to produce the shroud... here's a comparison which was made between the shroud on the left and the copy on the right.

A Copy of the Shroud of Turin Has Been Made, Using only Medieval Materials and Techniques by Luigi Garlascheli

http://cyberbrethren.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/shroudcompare.jpg

 

[mnafetsc]

Whenever people try to disprove the shroud they always try to argue with carbon dating, but I think there may be a much easier argument which is:

It seems quite clear that the Jesus in the shroud has long hair, just like we would expect, but many biblical scholars and archeologist believe, from the evidence they have, that the average Jewish male in the first century had short cropped hair, and the long hair and facial features we recognize as Jesus were European artist 'europeanizing' Jesus. So if this the authentic shroud of Jesus he probably should have short hair.

Regardless, the Shroud, depsite some peoples/documentary claims, is not a big deal for the faith of Catholics. As a Catholic, when I read about the latest evidence for a hoax, I merely shrugged my shoulders and went about my day without any spiritual dilemmas.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whenever people try to disprove the shroud they always try to argue with carbon dating, but I think there may be a much easier argument which is:

It seems quite clear that the Jesus in the shroud has long hair, just like we would expect, but many biblical scholars and archeologist believe, from the evidence they have, that the average Jewish male in the first century had short cropped hair, and the long hair and facial features we recognize as Jesus were European artist 'europeanizing' Jesus. So if this the authentic shroud of Jesus he probably should have short hair.

Regardless, the Shroud, depsite some peoples/documentary claims, is not a big deal for the faith of Catholics. As a Catholic, when I read about the latest evidence for a hoax, I merely shrugged my shoulders and went about my day without any spiritual dilemmas.

Your point about the features is probably valid, but your final statement is most telling; people will believe or not, and artifacts or relics should not, and are rarely central to true faith.

 

[alt]

Haven't read this thread, but there was a show in TV last night postulating that it was done by Leonardo Da Vinci, for political / profit motives aligned with the Savoy family.

It is easily the most plausable explanation I've seen so far.

It should be available on the 'iview' link by now. Have a look at it if interested - fascinating.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1...-09-23T213000.htm?program=The Da Vinci Shroud

 

[nismaratwork]

Haven't read this thread, but there was a show in TV last night postulating that it was done by Leonardo Da Vinci, for political / profit motives aligned with the Savoy family.

It is easily the most plausable explanation I've seen so far.

It should be available on the 'iview' link by now. Have a look at it if interested - fascinating.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/abc1...-09-23T213000.htm?program=The Da Vinci Shroud

I buy the method, but not the "author". Hell, if Da Vinci did everything people believe he did in secret, he'd have rebuilt all of Rome, and put men on the moon. I can imagine a contemporary artist using these techniques for the same reason, or even to instill faith without a political or profit motive!

 

[Andre]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

 

[nismaratwork]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

Oh, in so many different ways, yes.

http://www.shadowshroud.com/
http://www.news.com.au/world/shroud-of-turin-created-in-laboratory/story-e6frfkyi-1225783160791

An Italian scientist named Luigi Garlaschelli claimed he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin... Garlaschelli reproduced the Shroud of Turin using materials from the middle ages, to further his claim that the ancient Jesus Christ cloth is fake. He simply placed a linen sheet over a volunteer and then rubbed it with a pigment containing traces of acid to copy the Shroud of Turin.

regarding the same recreation: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...val-techniques-make-relic-say-scientists.html

with this:

The reproduction is on the right.

And more...

 

[alt]

Just another wild thought, maybe somedoby did that already, but the shroud is supposed to be the actual cloth placed on the body of a certain deity, no?

Now did anybody ever do the reproduceability test? Take a body, rub it in with some pigment holding creme, wrap and unwrap it with some cloth and compare the inprint to that of the shroud.

Can you wrap your coth in such a way that something similar to the shroud emerges?

No - and the program I referred to above, addressed this in detail, with computer imaging. Wrap a face in a cloth, and you end up going into tree dimensions. When unfolded, the image looks very little like a human face and more like a wide browed rodent.

See following reply to Nismar for more.

 

[nismaratwork]

No - and the program I referred to above, addressed this in detail, with computer imaging. Wrap a face in a cloth, and you end up going into tree dimensions. When unfolded, the image looks very little like a human face and more like a wide browed rodent.

See following reply to Nismar for more.

Even if you believe that particular technique can't be used, you can just paint acids on, and use light as in one of the links I provided.

 

[alt]

I buy the method, but not the "author". Hell, if Da Vinci did everything people believe he did in secret, he'd have rebuilt all of Rome, and put men on the moon. I can imagine a contemporary artist using these techniques for the same reason, or even to instill faith without a political or profit motive!

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

 

[nismaratwork]

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

Hmmmm... I'm not good enough with art to tell with the naked eye... I've got to find this program. If I can watch it (by hook or by crook) I'll let you know. Certainly it's possible, and access to cadavers would have been very easy... I just don't know. I admit, for all of my skepticism it would be truly amazing if this was the work of LDV... I realize it would disappoint many Christians, but it would be stunning to everyone else.

edit: Could the proportion issue be due to shrinkage of the fibers at the head of the shroud due to different conditions, or would that create a "cone-head" appearance?

edit 2: I have to sleep now, but I'll check this thread asap in the morning. I'm enjoying this a lot, and I'll msg a friend to see if he might have DVR'ed this show... it's his kind of thing.

 

[alt]

Hmmmm... I'm not good enough with art to tell with the naked eye... I've got to find this program. If I can watch it (by hook or by crook) I'll let you know. Certainly it's possible, and access to cadavers would have been very easy... I just don't know. I admit, for all of my skepticism it would be truly amazing if this was the work of LDV... I realize it would disappoint many Christians, but it would be stunning to everyone else.

I don't often get exited about TV docos but this one is a MUST, for anyone with a casual or more interest in the shroud. Also, yes, LDV would have had abundant access to, and choice of, cadavers.

edit: Could the proportion issue be due to shrinkage of the fibers at the head of the shroud due to different conditions, or would that create a "cone-head" appearance?

I doubt it. It isn't a 'cone head' as far as I can see - it's just slightly, (nearly imperceptibly)smaller complete.

edit 2: I have to sleep now, but I'll check this thread asap in the morning. I'm enjoying this a lot, and I'll msg a friend to see if he might have DVR'ed this show... it's his kind of thing.

Sweet dreams :-)

I'll have another look on the Aus ABC site. But sounds like your friend would have better chance.

 

[baywax]

I wish you'd have seen the program mentioned. (Called 'The Da Vinci Shroud'). Perhaps there's a way to get it online, though I haven't found that.

One thing that has always struck me instinctively when seeing pics of the shroud, is that there is something wrong with the head as compared to the rest of the body. And on closer inspection, and as pointed out by the program, the head is proportionately smaller than the rest of the body. The program speculated (perhaps proved, as much as such a thing CAN be proved) that LDV used 3 different bodies with which to make the shroud. One cadaver for the front (which he drove nails into, etc) and one for the back, slightly shorter than the first, which is why the front / back images are a slightly different height. The third was his own face - he would have made a mold of it and then subjected it to the same 'camera obscura' method, BUT - he got the distance wrong by a foot or so, thus the slightly smaller head in the image.

Even if you examine your two images above - the real one and the recent fake, you will see that the head of the fake, seams to be in proportion to the body, but the other isn't - very slightly, almost imperceptably, but it isn't.

I've read studies of the shroud that point out the idea that the face and neck of the frontal image on it is a hastily fashioned mask composed of "grog clay" which hand sculpts easily and dries fast...

Some say it could be a "death mask" of Jesus. If its true then Jesus must have had very similar features to those of Da Vinci... perhaps they're related.:uhh:

Just a reminder that Da Vinci was in Turin on a commission to paint the Mona Lisa at around the same time that this mysterious master piece came into the possession of a church that Da Vinci really didn't like very much. I contend that the master used the same camera obscura techique to re-create the subtle gradations of light we see today on the mysteriously smiling face of the Mona Lisa. Her smile may be so quirky because she has been asked to sit in Da Vinci's over sized camera obscura with the full light of mirror directed sunlight illuminating her enough to record her image on a canvas soaked in a primitive solution of silver halide or perhaps silver sulphate. What may have led up to his discovery of a light sensitive solution could be, in part, the fact that he used silver point for all his drawings and layouts.

 

[alt]

I don't often get exited about TV docos but this one is a MUST, for anyone with a casual or more interest in the shroud. Also, yes, LDV would have had abundant access to, and choice of, cadavers.



I doubt it. It isn't a 'cone head' as far as I can see - it's just slightly, (nearly imperceptibly)smaller complete.



Sweet dreams :-)

I'll have another look on the Aus ABC site. But sounds like your friend would have better chance.

Here is a transcript of the show from when it aired in England.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_da_vinci_shroud/6222/DSCP/Thursday_September_9_2010/293838/

 

[nismaratwork]

Here is a transcript of the show from when it aired in England.

http://www.livedash.com/transcript/the_da_vinci_shroud/6222/DSCP/Thursday_September_9_2010/293838/

Ahhh, good! Thanks alt.

 

[alt]

Ahhh, good! Thanks alt.

Mind you, whoever typed it did so rather poorly, and a transcript loses out a lot, but anyway ..

 

[alt]

I've read studies of the shroud that point out the idea that the face and neck of the frontal image on it is a hastily fashioned mask composed of "grog clay" which hand sculpts easily and dries fast...

Some say it could be a "death mask" of Jesus. If its true then Jesus must have had very similar features to those of Da Vinci... perhaps they're related.:uhh:

Just a reminder that Da Vinci was in Turin on a commission to paint the Mona Lisa at around the same time that this mysterious master piece came into the possession of a church that Da Vinci really didn't like very much. I contend that the master used the same camera obscura techique to re-create the subtle gradations of light we see today on the mysteriously smiling face of the Mona Lisa. Her smile may be so quirky because she has been asked to sit in Da Vinci's over sized camera obscura with the full light of mirror directed sunlight illuminating her enough to record her image on a canvas soaked in a primitive solution of silver halide or perhaps silver sulphate. What may have led up to his discovery of a light sensitive solution could be, in part, the fact that he used silver point for all his drawings and layouts.

I don't know much about the Mona Lisa.

But so far as the shroud is concerned, in recent decades (centuries ?) the Catholic Church has remained rather mute about it being the real thing, ie, Christs burial shroud. Probably with good reason. Though it serves to keep the faith, bring the dollars in, etc (no disrespect intended to Catholics).

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't know much about the Mona Lisa.

But so far as the shroud is concerned, in recent decades (centuries ?) the Catholic Church has remained rather mute about it being the real thing, ie, Christs burial shroud. Probably with good reason. Though it serves to keep the faith, bring the dollars in, etc (no disrespect intended to Catholics).

Yep, they have nothing to gain by confirming its authenticity when it is unlikely to be "the real deal", especially when they can just remain mum and claim it's a matter of faith. CHA-CHING! I don't think that's disrespectful to Catholics, it's just a comment on how the Vatican works.

 

[baywax]

Yep, they have nothing to gain by confirming its authenticity when it is unlikely to be "the real deal", especially when they can just remain mum and claim it's a matter of faith. CHA-CHING! I don't think that's disrespectful to Catholics, it's just a comment on how the Vatican works.

If the shroud is an example of primitive photography by Leonardo then the church is in the possession of an extremely valuable piece of artwork. Cha-Ching indeed!

 

[nismaratwork]

If the shroud is an example of primitive photography by Leonardo then the church is in the possession of an extremely valuable piece of artwork. Cha-Ching indeed!

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

 

[baywax]

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

Do tell? What evidence is there of "hidden" artworks ?
Are the Vatican's basements a trove of ancient and hitherto unknown art? Maybe that's where all the missing anatomical parts of greek sculpture ended up.

 

[nismaratwork]

Do tell? What evidence is there of "hidden" artworks ?
Are the Vatican's basements a trove of ancient and hitherto unknown art? Maybe that's where all the missing anatomical parts of greek sculpture ended up.

I didn't say anything about the art being hidden or unknown, just sequestered from the general public. Certainly that's true of most museums, and it's true of the Vatican. As for Greek anatomy, I'd say the only interest there would be... recreational... if the continuing sex-abuse scandal is anything to go by.

 

[alt]

Yeah... wouldn't be the only priceless piece of art they're in possession of, but at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away like medieval treasure.

But I don't even think it's on display. It's locked in some container, isn't it ? And people view that, and get all exited about it.

(Incidently, it's interesting that we can talk in critical terms in this regard about the Catholic Church, as we should be able to, poke fun at one of it's purported religious icons, molesting priests, etc, and nobody bats an eyelid. I contrast this to doing similar toward Islam - we'd probably be in trouble by now ..)

 

[nismaratwork]

But I don't even think it's on display. It's locked in some container, isn't it ? And people view that, and get all exited about it.

(Incidently, it's interesting that we can talk in critical terms in this regard about the Catholic Church, as we should be able to, poke fun at one of it's purported religious icons, molesting priests, etc, and nobody bats an eyelid. I contrast this to doing similar toward Islam - we'd probably be in trouble by now ..)

Can't argue with that last statement, but to be fair nobody ever claimed that a double-standard doesn't exist at this particular moment in history. Remember, there was a time when Christianity was of a similar age as Islam when it would have been deleterious to one's health to speak of anything like this. All religions have their... "rough" patches. We're just lucky enough that this one is happening now while we're alive to enjoy it! <-- Sarcasm dripping from that last bit.

 

[baywax]

I didn't say anything about the art being hidden or unknown, just sequestered from the general public. Certainly that's true of most museums, and it's true of the Vatican. As for Greek anatomy, I'd say the only interest there would be... recreational... if the continuing sex-abuse scandal is anything to go by.

erm,

at least this one is on display instead of being stuffed away

nismaratwork

Sorry "stuffed away" means "hidden" to me... much the same way the abuse of children in so many countries is "stuffed away" from the consciousness of millions of followers. The abuse issue is probably, in part (if not wholly) the reason for the creation of a "fake shroud". It is the equivalent to dropping a frozen fish in a safety deposit box at a bank you don't like during the summer months.

 

[nismaratwork]

erm,

nismaratwork

Sorry "stuffed away" means "hidden" to me... much the same way the abuse of children in so many countries is "stuffed away" from the consciousness of millions of followers. The abuse issue is probably, in part (if not wholly) the reason for the creation of a "fake shroud". It is the equivalent to dropping a frozen fish in a safety deposit box at a bank you don't like during the summer months.

Baywax, most museums have FAR more in their collection than they display. In fact, the majority of a collection is not presented to the public on a regular basis. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of how collections are curated, and the contrast between access to archived materials in the Vatican versus a Museum. The Vatican has a VAST collection of art, gifts over the centuries, and writings/books... most of which are impossible to see or gain access to... or nearly so. That's not an issue of HIDING or secrecy... it's an issue of hoarding. Certainly it's unseemly for a supposedly charitable group, but my issue is just with access.

Just to be clear, if I meant "hidden" or "secret", that's exactly what I'd say. If you've ever seen a museum archives... say, the MFA in Boston, there are paintings in drawers lined up like manila envelopes, back to back. The impression you get, is that this material has been stuffed into every available spot, and that gets even more severe when we're talking about museums of natural history.

 

[baywax]

Baywax, most museums have FAR more in their collection than they display. In fact, the majority of a collection is not presented to the public on a regular basis. I think this is a basic misunderstanding of how collections are curated, and the contrast between access to archived materials in the Vatican versus a Museum. The Vatican has a VAST collection of art, gifts over the centuries, and writings/books... most of which are impossible to see or gain access to... or nearly so. That's not an issue of HIDING or secrecy... it's an issue of hoarding. Certainly it's unseemly for a supposedly charitable group, but my issue is just with access.

Just to be clear, if I meant "hidden" or "secret", that's exactly what I'd say. If you've ever seen a museum archives... say, the MFA in Boston, there are paintings in drawers lined up like manila envelopes, back to back. The impression you get, is that this material has been stuffed into every available spot, and that gets even more severe when we're talking about museums of natural history.

I get ya!

I've excavated 12 years worth of artifacts for the BC Museum of Anthropology and not one of them is on display... they're all in locked drawers and dusty reports.