Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Original FAQ for alt.turin-shroud

0 views

Skip to first unread message

G. Swica

unread,

Aug 19, 2002, 8:33:37 AM8/19/02

Alt.turin-shroud

CHARTER:

This newsgroup was created on November 7, 1997 to provide an
open internet forum for discussion of all aspects of the Turin
Shroud -- scientific, art historical, historical, religious,
conservation-related, etc. It is unmoderated, but advertising,
binaries and off-topic posts are not welcome, in line with
Usenet practice. Single brief announcements of events or
services related to the Shroud, for example new organizations,
books, websites, lectures, tours, and activities, will however
be acceptable.

FAQ [frequently asked (argued) questions]:

Note: This FAQ is a brief summary of studies of the Turin
Shroud. It is intended as an introduction and a stimulant to
discussion.

Where to learn more about the Shroud of Turin?

Consult www.shroud.com for news about developments in Shroud
studies, available materials, recent articles and links to
other websites. There are dozens of books and hundreds of
articles on the Shroud. For a general and easily accessible
starting point, see "The mystery of the Shroud" by Kenneth
Weaver in National Geographic magazine (1980, vol. 157, pp.
730-753) or "The Shroud of Turin through the microscope" by
Samuel Pellicori and Mark Evans in Archaeology magazine (1981,
vol. 34, pp.34-43).

What is the Turin Shroud?

Of all religious relics, the reputed burial cloth of Christ
held since 1578 in Turin has generated the greatest
controversy. Even after the extensive scientific scrutiny of
the last few decades, debate still rages over whether this
linen cloth with body image and apparent bloodstains is a
medieval forgery or a relic of Christ's crucifixion. From its
first recorded exhibition in France ca. 1357, the cloth has
been the object of mass veneration on the one hand, and scorn
from a number of learned clerics and freethinkers on the other.
Appearing as it did in an age of unparalleled relic-mongering
and forgery and, if genuine, lacking documentation of its
whereabouts for 1,300 years, the Shroud would certainly have
long ago been consigned to the ranks of spurious relics (along
with several other "shrouds") were it not for the extraordinary
image it bears.

What is this image exactly?

Sepia-yellow in color, the apparent frontal and dorsal imprints
of a man's body may be discerned on this 4.3 X 1.1-m linen
cloth. Stains of a slightly darker carmine or rust color, with
the appearance of blood, are seen in areas consistent with the
biblical account of the scourging and crucifixion of Christ.
The image lacks the sharp outline and vivid color of a painting
and is described as "melting away" as the viewer approaches the
cloth. Yet the consensus of skeptical opinion up to the 1930s
(with a few surviving remnants today) was that the image was
indeed a medieval painting of Christ which had through time
taken on the appearance of an ancient relic.

How did the scientific study of the Shroud began?

When the Shroud was first photographed, during a rare
exhibition in 1898, it was discovered that the negative image
was an altogether more lifelike portrait of the body and,
especially, of the face. From the rather grotesque and murky
facial imprint visible to the naked eye, reversal of light and
dark revealed a harmonious and properly proportioned visage.
Photography also made copies and enlargements of the Shroud
image available for detailed study by anatomists and art
historians. By the time of its next exhibition in 1931, the
Shroud had attracted a considerable following among scholars;
it was inspected at that time by experts in various fields, and
a vastly superior set of photographs was taken. The scientific
inquiry into this object, whether medieval fraud or "the
holiest icon upon the holiest relic," had begun, culminating by
1978 in what was certainly the most intensive and varied
scrutiny by scientific means of any archaeological or art
object in history.

What did the scientific team conclude after the 1978 tests?

There was general agreement on the nature of the image --
degradation and dehydration of the cellulose in superficial
fibers resulting in a faint reflection of light in the visible
range. Only the topmost fibrils of each thread are dehydrated,
even in the darkest areas of the image, and no significant
traces of pigments, dyes, stains, chemicals, or organic or
inorganic substances were found in the image. It was thus
determined that the image was not painted, printed, or
otherwise artificially imposed on the cloth, nor was it the
result of any known reaction of the cloth to spices, oils, or
biochemicals produced by the body in life or death.The team
concluded that "there are no chemical or physical methods . . .
and no combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical
circumstances which explain the image adequately." A whole
battery of tests indicated that the apparent bloodstains were
indeed of real though highly degenerated blood. These
conclusions were disputed by some, notably the microscopist
Walter McCrone who examined some of the samples.

Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?

No. A single sample was taken from an edge of the cloth in 1988
and analized by three C14 labs. The result they produced was
1260-1390 AD. This result was widely proclaimed to have proven
the Shroud to be a fake, or at least to be considerably later
than the 1st century A.D. and thus not the burial cloth of
Christ. However, C14 dating is not infallible, and the result
has been challenged on a number of grounds: contamination,
isotope exchange, poor sampling strategy, failure to follow the
protocol established by a conference of experts. It is
nonetheless true that the C14 date is the main (and very nearly
the only) evidence to come from the scientific examination of
the Shroud that strongly supports a forgery hypothesis.

What other studies have been made?

Scientific scrutiny of the Shroud image actually began in 1900
at the Sorbonne. Under the direction of Yves Delage, professor
of comparative anatomy and an agnostic, a study was undertaken
of the physiology and pathology of the apparent body imprint
and of the possible manner of its formation. The image was
found to be anatomically accurate down to minor details: the
characteristic features of rigor mortis, wounds, and blood
flows provided conclusive evidence to the anatomists that the
image was formed by direct or indirect contact with a corpse,
not painted onto the cloth or scorched thereon by a hot statue
(two of the current theories). On this point medical opinion
since the time of Delage has been virtually unanimous.

The study of the Shroud image from an art historical
perspective has yielded equally strong evidence that the image
was not created by a medieval artist. There is no rubbing or
painting from the entire medieval period that is even remotely
comparable to the Shroud, nor is there any negative painting.
Similarly, the accuracy in the anatomy of the Shroud image is
not seen in even the greatest 14th-century works of art, while
the blow flows and scourge marks seem beyond the art of any
period in their realism. The wrist-nailing is unique, according
to art historian Philip McNair: "I have studied hundreds of
paintings, sculptures and carvings of Christ's crucifixion and
deposition, from the 13th to the 16th centuries, and not one of
them shows a nail wound anywhere but in the palm of the hand."
Innovation, even at genius level, is bounded by the prevailing
cultural context, and art historians are generally agreed that
the Shroud could not have come from a 14th-century milieu.

What is the history of the Shroud?

While medical and art historical studies of the body image
provided strong evidence for authenticity, inquiries into the
Shroud's history showed its case to be extremely weak. In 1900,
the distinguished scholar Canon Ulisse Chevalier published a
series of historical documents shedding light on the early
years of the Shroud in France and casting seemingly
insurmountable doubts on its authenticity.

The relic appeared ca. 1357 in Lirey, France, under mysterious
circumstances and with no documentation whatever. In 1389, the
resident bishop, Pierre d'Arcis, drafted a memorandum urging
the pope to prohibit further exhibitions of the relic because
its fraudulent nature had been discovered by his predecessor
and an unnamed artist had confessed to painting the image. To
d'Arcis, the absence of historical reference was equally
damning; he considered it "quite unlikely that the Holy
Evangelists would have omitted to record an imprint on Christ's
burial linens, or that the fact should have remained hidden
until the present time." The English Jesuit Thurston concluded
confidently in 1903: ''The case is here so strong that. . . .
the probability of an error in the verdict of history must be
accounted, it seems to me, as almost infinitesimal." However,
recent work has suggested that the Shroud was known as an icon
in Byzantine times.

Is there any middle ground between authenticity and forgery?

In 1963 the author John Walsh observed: "The Shroud of Turin is
either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ
in existence... or it is one of the most ingenious, most
unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on
record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground."
Various compromise hypotheses have been put forward, but they
have attracted no support. The verdict is still out on this
remarkable and enigmatic relic.

William Meacham
November 12, 1997

Frank Weaver

unread,

Aug 25, 2002, 10:49:11 PM8/25/02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <BA589.211887$8M1.32...@twister.nyroc.rr.com>,
"G. Swica" <GSW...@hvc.rr.com> wrote:
[snip]

You're an inspiration, Jerry. But we can't let that musty old thing
be just like that, can we? A little spit and polish, and ...
(btw, the starred sections are new. I'm seeking pro-authenticity
responses for them. Of course, as the newly elected All-Powerful
FAQ Maintainer <g>, I get to choose whose submission gets accepted.

****************************
alt.turin-shroud FAQ V2.0
****************************

Table of Contents

1. Introduction
1.1 Structure of this FAQ
1.2 Credits
1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud

2. About the Turin Shroud
2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?
2.2 What is the image?
*2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?

3. History and Art of the Turin Shroud
3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?
*3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?
*3.3 How does it fit into art history?

4. Science and the Turin Shroud
*4.1 What is Sindonology?
4.2 When did the scientific study of the Shroud begin?
4.3 About the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)
*4.3.1 When and why was STURP formed?
4.3.2 What did the STURP team conclude after the 1978 tests?
*4.3.3 Who is Walter McCrone and what does his research say?
*4.3.4 Who's right, STURP or McCrone?
*4.4 Is there blood on the Shroud?
4.5 What other studies have been made?
4.6 Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?

5. Concluding thoughts: Is there any middle ground between
authenticity and forgery?

6. Where can I learn more about the Shroud of Turin?

7. Revision history

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1.1 Structure of this FAQ

The Shroud of Turin is a subject of considerable controversy between
its supporters and its detractors. Because alt.turin-shroud is a
locus of this controversy, we have tried to make this FAQ fairly
representative of both viewpoints. Each question, to the extent
possible, has two answers -- one each from a supporter of its
authenticity and a skeptic. Each answer is followed by the initials
of its author in brackets, thus: [FW]

1.2 Credits

[WM] William Meacham, an archeologist, member of STURP and
long-time defender of authenticity

[FW] Frank Weaver <wea...@world.std.com>, amateur critic
of Sindonology

1.3 Charter of alt.turin-shroud

be acceptable. [WM, November 12, 1997]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2 ABOUT THE TURIN SHROUD
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

2.1 What is the Turin Shroud?

PRO:

image it bears. [WM]

ANTI:
The 'Shroud' of Turin is a piece of linen, approximately 14 ft by
1.3 ft in size, woven in a herringbone twill pattern. Since its
first appearance, it has been claimed to be the true burial cloth of
Jesus Christ containing a miraculously produced record of his
Resurrection (hereafter called 'authenticity'). There were many
other such alleged True Shrouds (from 12 to 40, sources differ), some
of which, like the Turin 'Shroud' bore allegedly miraculous images.
All have been debunked, including this one. [FW]

2.2 What is the image?

PRO:

taken on the appearance of an ancient relic. [WM]

ANTI:
The shroud contains faint frontal and dorsal images of a man that
conforms to the conventional figure of Jesus Christ, laid out in
death in the same manner as He is frequently depicted in other
devotional images of the time. It also contains deep red 'blood'
flows from the Cruficixion stigmata and other injuries described in
the Gospels. Historical evidence indicates that the image was once a
good deal brighter than it now appears, so we are almost certainly
looking at some combination of a remnant of what the artist created
and incidental damage to the cloth over time. [FW]

*2.3 Why is the Turin Shroud a subject of controversy?

ANTI:
The idea that the shroud was authentic largely, but not entirely,
faded away with the Enlightenment, as it did for the other True
Shrouds. It was revived in 1898, when photographs revealed that the
image apparently looks more natural in negative than in positive.
Since that time, a religious cult has grown up around the cloth which
maintains its authenticity (almost always insisting that it's origin
is miraculous, as well) despite total lack of support for their
assertions and copious evidence to the contrary. [FW]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 3 HISTORY AND ART OF THE TURIN SHROUD
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 What is the history of the Shroud?

PRO:

in Byzantine times. [WM]

ANTI:
The chief historical documents concerning the shroud were unearthed
by Father Ulysse Chevalier in 1905. It first appeared in the 1350's
in the possession of a minor French knight, Geoffroy de Charny, used
it as a revenue source to support the village church he founded at
Lirey. According to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis, his predecessor
investigated, exposed the cloth as a fraud, and obtained a confession
from the forger. Geoffroy, his son, also named Geoffroy, and
granddaughter Marguerite continued to support themselves by shroud
exhibitions, despite the efforts of d'Arcis and prohibitions by both
their Pope and their King, for the next century. Records indicate
that the de Charny clan engaged in acts of fraud, deceit, subterfuge
and theft in regard to the shroud, but do not include any rebuttal to
the accusations that the cloth was a fake. In 1452, Marguerite sold
the shroud to the duke of Savoy. It accompanied the House of Savoy
to Turin when they became rulers of Italy. In 1983, former King
Umberto II transferred ownership to the Archdiocese of Turin. [FW]

*3.2 Where was the shroud before 1357?

ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its devotees, there is no believable
history of the shroud before the 1350s. They rely on rather
tendentious arguments that the 'shroud' masqueraded as an entirely
different legendary relic, the so-called Image of Edessa. That legend
however, first appears in a document universally regarded by scholars
of early Christian literature as a sixth century forgery. Even then,
it simply embellishes on still earlier forgeries dating from the fourth
century. Most remarkable, shroud devotees deny every single tangible
detail of the description of the cloth in the very legends they claim
as evidence. [FW]

*3.3 How does it fit into art history?

ANTI:
Contrary to assertions by its religious devotees, a number of art
historians have pointed to its similarity, in both style and subject,
to other 13th and 14th century devotional images. Stylistically,
they have linked it to the innovations of various Romanesque and
pre-Renaissance artists including Pietro Cavallini [1250-1330],
Cimabue [1240-1302], Giotto di Bondone [1267-1337], Duccio di
Buoninsegna [c.1255 - 1319], Simone Martini [1280-1344], and
Masaccio [1401-1428].

In theme, the shroud fits into the post 12th century focus on the
Passion and death of Jesus Christ, as revealed by the ubiquitous Man
of Sorrows imagery from 1200+, the realistic and hyper-realistic
crucifixes that began to appear around the same time, Passion Plays
(14th century onward) and the Stations of the Cross devotion (circa
1260). Prior to 1200, Jesus was NEVER shown bloodied or suffering.
In Byzantine art, he was potrayed as a divine Judge or Pantocrator
(Ruler of Everything). The shroud of Turin appeared only after the
passion/suffering theme was well estblished in both art and religious
practice. [FW]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 4 SCIENCE AND THE TURIN SHROUD
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

*4.1 What is Sindonology?

ANTI:
Sindonology, from the Greek word for shroud ('sindon') is a
pseudoscience devoted to proving the shroud authentic. It was
devised by the shroud's religious devotees to give an aura of
scientific legitimacy to their efforts.

Sindonology is not recognized as a discipline or specialty by any
scientific or academic body. There is no course of study, and
qualifications to be a Sindonologist consist basically of accepting
the authenticity of the shroud and declaring oneself a Shroud researcher.

In common with other bogus 'sciences' like UFOlogy, astrology, and
'scientific' creationism, there is almost no interaction between
Sindonology and legitimate scholars, be they scientific, historical,
or art-historical. In particular, Sindonologists take no note of the
commonly accepted findings of mainstream scholars when these conflict
with the goal of proving the shroud authentic (see, e.g., the comments
on Christian literary history in Section 3.2).

Sindonologists maintain their own network of research institutes,
conferences, newsletters and mailing lists that mimics those of
mainstream scholarship but does not intersect with it. [FW]

4.2 When did the scientific study of the Shroud begin?

PRO:

object in history. [WM]

ANTI:
With the exception of the historical research of Father Chevalier,
Shroud research was dominated by less than objective devotees from
1898 to 1973. These include various efforts by Paul Vignon and
Pierre Barbet to proclaim the image to be too anatomically accurate
to be artificial, along with rationalizations for discrepancies even
they could not ignore.

In 1973, Shroud research took a leap forward when the Turin
Commission, a hand-picked team that included an archeologist, art
historian, chemist, several forensic experts, radiologists and a
physicist, were invited by the Cardinal of Turin to examine the
shroud. They and their report are rarely mentioned by Sindonologists
because, with one exception, they all concluded that the cloth was a
forgery. [FW]

4.3 About the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)

4.3.1 When and why was STURP formed?

ANTI:
In about 1976 to 1977, two officers of the Holy Shroud Guild (a
Catholic organization devoted to worship of the shroud) named Eric
Jumper and John Jackson conceived of the idea of bringing their
particular specialties in physics and image analysis to bear on the
shroud. They founded a working group, later incorporated as STURP,
to plan this attack. Contrary to later representations by STURP
representatives, both their public statements at the time and the
testimony of observers at their early meetings confirm that the
purpose of STURP was always to prove that the shroud was authentic.
Jumper and Jackson recruited other scientists to participate, with a
strong emphasis on those who shared the founders' bias. [FW]

4.3.2 What did the STURP team conclude after the 1978 tests?

PRO:

Walter McCrone who examined some of the samples. [WM]

ANTI:
There is no dispute about what STURP concluded. The critical
question is, does it matter? It certainly does to Shroud devotees.
STURP is the gold standard of pro-shroud research, the only people
ever to have pro-shroud papers published in legitimate scientific
journals.

But Harry Gove, who had associated with but not joined, STURP from
its first meeting, described their tests thus: " The Shroud had been
subjected to a number of scientific tests of dubious value carried out
in ill-conceived ways by scientists of dubious reputation."

A good chunk of the published STURP research is either trivial,
inconclusive, or of no relevance to provenance claims. Other
findings are easily compatible with, even supportive of, the forgery
hypothesis. A substantial number of the heftier STURP claims have
been called into serious question by skeptics as flagrant examples
of manipulating data to fit the desired conclusions (see Section 4.4
for an examples).

In general, their actions and public statements of its leaders suggest
that STURP was a religious crusade masked by technology to give the
illusion of science. Items like the nondisclosure agreement STURP
members were required to sign, the leaders' own flagrant violation of
that agreement at every opportunity they got to give pro-authenticity
statements, and the expulsion of the one dissident who would not
tow the party line argue that, to the extent STURP was a scientific
enterprise, it was a pathological one. [FW]

*4.3.3 Who is Walter McCrone and what does his research say?

ANTI:
Walter McCrone was a chemist, a forensics expert and the dean of
chemical microscopy. He had a lengthy background in microanalysis
and art authentication and the personal support of Father Peter
Rinaldi (aka "Mr Shroud") in joining STURP. He became STURP's
microanalyst and its only forensics expert -- until he announced the
results of his analyses. The contention that he never was a member
of STURP is later historical revisionism by Sindonologists upset over
those conclusions.

McCrone analyzed the sticky tapes STURP collected in Turin. From his
microscopical and chemical analyses and spectroscopic analyses
conducted by employees at his lab, McCrone Associates, he concluded
that the image contained iron ocher, vermilion and rose madder
pigments in a protein base McCrone believed to be tempera,
distributed in such a way as to make clear that the pigments were
intentionally applied. He also concluded that there was no
detectable blood on the shroud. The 'blood' flows were entirely red
paint. [FW]

*4.3.4 Who's right, STURP or McCrone?

ANTI:
That clearly depends on which side of the fence you're on, doesn't
it? The response of STURP leaders to McCrone's conclusions are
telling. According to McCrone's account, Jackson and Jumper
literally threatened him for his temerity in reaching conclusions
that did not support authenticity. They promised to sabotage any
attempt he made to get his reports published. As soon as the
nondisclosure agreement expired, McCrone published them anyway.

McCrone relates another incident, in 1982, in which he reports Jackson
and Ray Rogers used deceit to get his copy of the two matching sets
of sticky tapes away from him. The past 20 years have also seen
numerous unsupported assertions that he has been discredited and an
unbroken string of defamatory attacks on McCrone's character and
competence, which reportedly included death threats from some of the
less stable faithful.

The view from outside the Shroud universe is very different. I don't
make too much of the congratulatory letters McCrone solicited then
printed in his book *Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin.* On the
other hand, his work convinced Fr. David Sox, formerly vice-president
of the British Society for the Turin Shroud, that the cloth was a
forgery. Obituarists may have been too generous when they made it
appear as if he single-handedly debunked the legend. Perhaps the most
objective evaluation is that the American Chemical Society
specifically mentioned his Shroud of Turin research as one of the
signal achievements that earned him its medal in analytic chemistry
in 1998. Regardless what thec diehards would like to think, McCrone
has NOT been discredited among his peers. [FW]

*4.4 Is there blood on the Shroud?

ANTI:
It is very important to Shroudies to believe that there is blood on
the shroud. Perhaps that is because the alternative, red pigments,
is unacceptable. Skeptics aver that it really does not matter for
authenticity arguments. Nevertheless, there is no good evidence
supporting the advocates' belief.

Two points are obvious anyone even without specialized training.
First, the 'blood' is too red. Old blood quickly fades to brown,
then black. Shroud 'blood' is universally described as a bright red
or carmine-red. Also, the blood flows are preposterously dramatic
and well-defined. Anyone who has so much as tried to stanch a cut
knows that blood, well, *bleeds* into the contact cloth, quickly
spreading into an ill-defined blotch. Shroud 'blood' flows keep
their shape so well that some Sindonologists have claimed to
calculate precisely what angle Jesus held his arms on the cross from
them. Then there is the 'blood' on the head, which sits on top of
the hair like plastic first-aid wounds, instead of soaking in and
matting the hair as it would if it were genuine.

The first chemical tests on the 'blood' were conducted by Turin
Commission member Dr. Giorgio Frache and his colleagues Eugenia
Rizatti and Emilio Mari. All are forensic serologists (blood
experts) at the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Modena, Italy.
They conducted batteries of the standard forensic tests for blood,
all of which came out negative. Several other Turin Commission
members did light and electron microscopy that failed to find signs
of corpuscles or other cellular traces of blood.

Walter McCrone is also a qualified forensic investigator. He
conducted yet more diagnostic tests for blood on the STURP sticky
tapes, duplicating some of the work of Frache, Rizzati and Mari plus
adding some new tests. Other scientists at McCrone Associates
conducted spectroscopic tests, such as X-ray diffraction, capable of
distinguishing the molecular strctures in which elements are bound.
They found that the XRD spectra for the iron in the tapes was similar
to what is expected of inorganic iron (i.e., iron earth pigments) but
very different from iron bound in blood.

The claims to have 'proven' that the 'blood' is real blood rest
mainly on the work of joseph Heller and Alan Adler.
After STURP's leaders had conned McCrone's tapes from him, they were
turned over to Heller and Adler for reanalysis. In truth, every one
of the tests they claim to have performed is poorly conceived,
non-specific for blood, and riddled with possibilities for false
positives, For test after test, Heller and Adler failed to perform
the necessary followup work to confirm that they had really identified
blood and not something else. As one skeptical investigator showed,
all of their results are consistent with iron ochre and rose madder
pigments in a tempera binder -- all three of which McCrone says he
found on the shroud.

There are a few more bits of claimed evidence, but, in short,
shroud 'blood' has repeatedly failed every single specific diagnostic
for blood that was available at the time. It manages to pass only
poorly-conceived tests that do not necessarily identify blood, would
not be acceptable evidence in court, and were interpreted with
blatant uncorrected bias in order to find what Heller and Adler (and
STURP leadership) wanted to find. [FW]

4.5 What other studies have been made?

PRO:

since the time of Delage has been virtually unanimous. [WM]

ANTI:
If 'anatomically correct' means there is no distortion so bad it
can't be rationalized away by a determined advocate, then the shroud
image can be said to be anatomically accurate. Even some of its
devotees, admit that the legs are about 5 inches longer in front
than in back; that the figure is so tall one Sindonologist suggested
Jesus had a rare genetic disorder that produces gigantism; that the
arms are too long (must have been pulled from their sockets); the
fingers resemble Freddy Krueger on a bad day (optical distortion);
the thumbs are missing (reaction to the nails pulled them out of
sight); the bloody right footprint is in a physiologically untenable
position, and so on for other deviations from normal anatomy.

On the other hand, the observed elongation of the body, arms, legs
and fingers is typical of French Gothic figure art c. 1200-1400.
The missing thumbs are a fairly common convention in medieval art.
The apologia of deLage, Barbet and Vignon illustrates the
Sindonological dictum that the data must be rectified with
authenticity, or else!

Since 1978, one other significant scientific project has been
undertaken. In 1988, portions of the shroud were radiocarbon dated
by three laboratories. All three announced a date consistent with
medieval origin, with the combine conclusion being that the shroud
dates from 1260 - 1390 CE with 95% confidence.

In addition, Nicholas Allen of the Technical Institute in South Africa
has continued to conduct research, primarily into his own theory of
the creation of the shroud image.

In the mainstream scientific world, however, the shroud has been a
dead end since the C-14 results were announced. Sindonologists, of
course, continue to conduct research of a sort. It generally is
closer to apologetics and creative rationalization than scientific
work. [FW]

4.6 Doesn't the carbon-14 dating prove the Shroud is a fake?

PRO:

the Shroud that strongly supports a forgery hypothesis. [FW]

ANTI:
Obviously, it is very important to diehard devotees that the C-14
dating be invalidated. To that end, the bulk of Sindonological
research since 1988 has been devoted to rationalizing it away. Their
numerous proposals range from the unsupported to the preposterous.

From the strictly scientific viewpoint, the C-14 dating is not
necessary. It's more like overkill. Contrary to the frequent
assertions of devotees, there was more than sufficient evidence that
the shroud is a medieval hoax before it was dated. The carbon
dating corroborates the historical records corroborates the artistic
and iconographic arguments corroborate the carbon dating. Conversely,
there has never been a shred of reliable evidence for authenticity.
[FW]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there any middle ground between authenticity and forgery?

PRO:

remarkable and enigmatic relic. [WM]

ANTI:
Expressing the possibility of forgery in hyperbolic terms is a
rhetorical tactic much loved by the pro-shroud contingent.

Contrary to their hyperbole, the evidence is not only overwhelmingly
in favor of medieval forgery, much of that evidence is very simple
stuff that requires only the application of common sense and clear
thinking. By contrast, supporting authenticity requires the building
of ever more baroque ad hoc rationalizations to rationalize the
problems created by the last round of rationalizations.

Some twenty years ago, Joe Nickell and Walter McCrone both
demonstrated incredibly simple and, in retrospect, obvious methods of
making a shroud. Two different methods, to be sure, but all the
rationalizations of Sindonologists amount to little more than blanket
denials of their achievements. The shroud artist need not have been
very clever at all.

What is certain is that the shroud's religious devotees need to
believe in its authenticity for reasons of their own, As a famous
scientist (Theodosius Dobzhansky) once said, "No evidence is
powerful enough to force acceptance of a conclusion that is
emotionally distasteful." [FW]

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 6 WHERE CAN I LEARN MORE ABOUT THE SHROUD OF TURIN?
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

PRO:

ANTI:
http://www.shroud.com is the largest site on the Web devoted to
a pro-authenticity view of the shroud. There are many other
credulous sites, e.g.:
http://www.shroud2000.com
http://www.shroud.it
http://dmi-www.mc.duke.edu/shroud/
http://www.shroudofturin.com/

Many fundamentalist and conservative Catholic websites also have
shroud sections.

There are also many pro-authenticity books. Any of the ones written
by Ian Wilson provide a general overview while at least acknowledging
the existence of serious weaknesses in the pro-shroud argument that
need explaining. His most recent is "The Blood and the Shroud"
(Simon and Schuster, 1998).

On the skeptical side, some Web sites are:
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptics/shroud/
http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html
http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud
http://www.uiowa.edu/~anthro/webcourse/lost/shroud/menu.htm

Skeptical books and articles are harder to get. There is no mass
market for popping balloons. Essential reading is "Inquest on the
Shroud of Turin" by Joe Nickell. Walter McCrone has also written a
book, "Judgement Day for the Shroud of Turin," that is a more
difficult read. Both are available from Prometheus Books
(http://www.prometheusbooks.com). For articles, try "Unraveling the
Shroud of Turin" by Stephen Schafersman, available at
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptics/shroud/as/, "The Shroud of Turin:
A Critical Appraisal" by Marvin Mueller (Skeptical Inquirer, Spring
1982) and "Debunking the Shroud of Turin: Made by Human Hands" by
Gary Vikan (Biblical Archaeology Review, Nov/Dec 1998).

- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 7 REVISION HISTORY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------

August 25 2002: Version 2.0
New structure and format
Table of contents added
Existing sections reorganized
Skeptical comments added
Eight new subsections added

November 12, 1997 : First revision
author: William Meacham

Written by William Meacham and Frank Weaver
Edited and maintained by Frank Weaver
Last revision 25 August 2002

- --
Frank Weaver Encrypted email preferred
wea...@world.std.com PGP KeyID: 33935039
On a keyserver near you
Lagers and porters and beers! Oh my!
-- Dorothy, "Wizard of Brews" (1939)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQEVAwUBPWtR1ayjdWYzk1A5AQHUDQf+LSWWCVfkkbZZKji8jU7SRUFgaxT+T13y
eBMT+/OX+eBxOEzMpK2gD1MaKNpHxjCubLOKFTqZ8ws7UoAiY9pTaDqmvBdoJJDw
UFsXzX7cIn3zIyzB9komN6404d2MEH04F52eRWBsFQDhCLgE7TyNx0geBbb0kX0S
7lc7Qiw6DxE0iYF9zTEiyV9CjqE+TNMPlfqhy3/wbnfjJSiwu5c/V6XvFwWVn2dM
1A5Mf2GwxhEWa5WSwnNubW05aqCZNRlwn2oBHtXvzon8xK2BwcvubYHGsibrpQGG
W25MjgdJDx4xRb43hJWXwptx4c+hqybQfQBRQaBhynAWQaXA6Q3wIw==
=PZ28
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

0 new messages