Although the following article was not published in the mainstream media, it was authored by Ray Rogers and contains some important observations by Rogers. The article also has 2 excellent color photographs. It was published at: http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-5.PDF. Ghiberti's pronouncement on my analyses Raymond N. Rogers Fellow, University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA January 23, 2005 It is interesting that Msgr. Ghiberti thinks I am supporting the Benford and Marino hypothesis that the radiocarbon sample was taken from an "invisible reweave." Much to the contrary: I believed that it would be easy completely to refute them. It is highly embarrassing that I could not. This is the first time I have had to present information that seemed to support what I consider to be the "lunatic fringe." However, an ethical scientist absolutely must publish accurate information no matter what the emotional implications. The fact that there is any controversy over my results shows how dangerous it is implicitly to trust visual observations without any confirmation and to accept the unconfIrmed testimony of "experts." The importance of the sampling operation should have shown the necessity for careful independent observations and confirmation before cutting. I received some of the 1973 Raes threads from Luigi Gonella on 14 October 1979. If they were spurious, a person I consider to be a good scientist, Luigi, lied to me. The fact that they agreed with Raes' observations seems to confirm their validity .Their location on the Shroud shows that they must share at least some yarn segments with the radiocarbon sample. They proved to my satisfaction that the radiocarbon sample was spurious. I then received samples of the authentic radiocarbon sample on 12 December 2003. Their composition was identical to that of the Raes threads, proving the relationship between the samples. AM*STAR received the authentic radiocarbon samples from Luigi. Unless he lied again, they are authentic samples. The fact that they show identical compositions to the Raes samples seems to confIrm their provenience. Incidentally, I am not a member of AM*STAR, they did not fund my work, and they did not have any control over my methods or conclusions. I also have many fibers from different parts of the Shroud and the Holland cloth that I took with adhesive tape in 1978. I marked them in Turin, and I know they are authentic. The radiocarbon sample can be compared against real fibers from the Shroud as well as real samples from the Holland cloth, which certainly has a known age. Given valid samples that show obvious chemical differences from the Shroud, does Msgr. Ghiberti believe that I have made a mistake? There is absolutely no question that the composition of the radiocarbon sample is unique. Almost every proof of that statement has been confirmed by independent analyses with different methods. Msgr. Ghiberti does not have to rely on my chemistry to observe a difference between the radiocarbon sample and the main part of the Shroud. He can look at the ultraviolet fluorescence photographs taken by Vem Miller in 1978. They show the sampling area as a dark zone, proving that its chemical composition was not the same as the main cloth. The dark area is not a result of dirt or a shadow. I can explain fluorescence in great detail, but it is based totally on chemical composition. I do not make any claims about how the radiocarbon sampling area became spurious. I am not a textile expert, but I did find a strange end-to-end splice among the Raes threads (macrophotograph and photomicrograph attached). Anna Maria Donadoni, a conservator in Turin, showed me how separate lengths of yam were overlaid in weaving the main Shroud cloth. The splice is totally different. It is also obvious that the two ends of the splice are different: one is fluffy and white, the other is stained and tightly twisted. Although I am not a textile expert, I am a recognized expert in chemistry, and my paper in Thermochimica Acta (not a US journal but published in the Netherlands) withstood peer review. Few persons believed that the radiocarbon age determination could be in error: it was hard to convince the doubters. I have known Paul Damon, lead author on the 1989 dating, for many years, and I trust his honesty totally. I also originally believed that the age determination proved that the Shroud could not be the Shroud of Jesus. Why do the persons in Torino support nonsense with regard to the age determination? Contamination could not be the problem (it would take too much), and the papers about isotope fractionation were complete nonsense. I have written peer-reviewed papers on kinetic isotope effects, and I know the fundamentals. Indeed, I have published dozens of peer-reviewed papers on chemical kinetics, the same methods I used to show that the Shroud had to be between 1300 and 3000 years of age. I am not suggesting that anyone rely on the words of another "expert." I would suggest that any interested person study the facts. I understand how many persons can be upset by the proof that the radiocarbon sample was spurious. Honest science can accept such bruises. |
Local Scientist Dates Cloth to Christ's Time Thermochemist admits he can't debunk hypothesis that Shroud of Turin covered Christ's body after crucifixion If God hand-picked someone to prove to the world that Christ's burial cloth was not a hoax after all, Raymond Rogers probably wouldn't be the first name to come to mind. Rogers belonged to the Episcopal Church for a few years and studied about Christ on his own. But he could never quite find the proof he needed to support a "deep, abiding faith" in religion. His disbelief caused a rift with his wife. They divorced. He stayed devoted to what he knew: science. "I am a scientist," he said. "This is the way I live." Over the years, the Los Alamos thermochemist gained a reputation for his work with archaeologists. That's why a priest called him in 1977. He wanted Rogers to take a look at the Shroud of Turin. Rogers had never heard of it. The priest sent booklets that told about a 1412-foot-long linen cloth wrapped around Christ after the Roman crucifixion. It bore his imprint. "They were so pious, I just about threw them out," Rogers said of the booklets. Rogers noticed a photograph that made him curious. It showed scorched spots on the cloth caused by a church fire in 1532. If the shroud was a fake -- made with paint of some kind -- the material wouldn't look like that. An expert on how heat affects materials, Rogers knew this. He agreed to join the Shroud of Turin Research Project. He brought 32 samples from the shroud, which is stored at a museum in Torino, Italy, back to his home in Los Alamos and published articles. But he quit after the leader of the project screamed at him, "Ray, you are not a soldier for Christ!" In 2000, new information prompted him to reopen the case. Some "true believers" sent him a paper that suggested the samples tested were from a section rewoven in medieval times. "I can prove they're full of blank, blank, blank," Rogers recalled thinking. "I still had archive samples from the right area." In a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta, he published startling findings on Jan. 20. In the 1980s, scientists from three universities concluded the cloth wasn't very old. The linen sheet was determined to be a medieval fake. But this month, Rogers said he determined the cloth was between 1,300 and 3,000 years old -- which could have easily put it at the time of Christ. "I was really embarrassed that I had to admit that these people were right," Rogers said. "This (patched) area was not chemically or physically similar to the rest of the cloth. I could prove it in spades." The samples used in the 1988 tests came from a section of the cloth that was rewoven in the Middle Ages, according to Rogers. Rogers said he hasn't become an instant believer, however. At 78 and battling terminal cancer, he's sticking to science. "Here you've got blood spots. You've got a real shroud. You draw your own conclusions," he said. "I am not a theologian. I don't want to be a theologian. I want to keep my objectivity toward this thing, and so I don't go past this point." Rogers admits he can neither prove nor disprove many things. He has determined the drops of blood are authentic -- but until he gets results from the DNA tests he ordered from a international expert, he cannot be sure a human shed that blood. Another problem: Jesus wasn't the only man crucified. And Rogers has struggled with the authenticity of the Bible. "I cannot accept any of the written stuff (the biblical accounts of Christ's death) as gospel," Rogers said. "But I can say the scientific evidence does not rule it out." He knows he is walking a fine line. And he's nervous about it. "I say I know a lot about the chemistry and the physics of this object. It's not like a UFO or a ghost. I could pick this thing up and look at it under a microscope, and I could take samples of it. It's not one of these spooky things. It's a real piece of material," he said. "If I could reject the hypothesis that this was the shroud of Jesus, I would have done it. But being an honest guy -- and it's embarrassing sometimes to be honest when what you're finding out agrees with the lunatic fringe or the true believers -- but to be perfectly honest, I'd have to say at this moment that I cannot prove that this is not the cloth that was used to wrap the body of Jesus that was crucified." Journey to Turin Long ago, Rogers wanted to be an archaeologist. When he was a chemistry student at the University of Arizona, he wondered why the archaeology field wasn't making more use of chemistry. He considered becoming an archaeologist, but his archaeology professors said he'd make a better living as a chemist. But he took classes with top archaeologists. When he could, he ran tests on the residues inside ancient pottery. His career took him to Los Alamos National Laboratory, where he was a chemist from 1952 to 1988. And word got around that he was willing to look at odd samples. When he could, he tested artifacts. One day, Norris Bradbury, then the lab director, stopped by to talk. Rogers said Bradbury gave him permission to analyze materials for archaeologists and museums, even though such research wasn't part of the lab's mission. The thermochemist got drawn into major discoveries. He became an expert on early-man sites in the Southwest. "I did so much of it, they elected me to be a fellow for it," he said, referring to an esteemed status given to some lab scientists. At work, explosive components of nuclear weapons were Rogers' main focus. What he learned about the radiation effects on organic materials and the chemical properties of polymers served him well with the shroud research, he said. But in other ways, he was not prepared for this high-profile artifact. "It is the most frustrating, and in some cases degrading thing, I've been involved in," Rogers said. At the lab, his colleagues were what he described as "ethical, rigorous, hard-nosed scientists," such as Enrico Fermi. When he got involved with the shroud investigation, he saw some of the "shallowest, most idiotic" science he had ever seen. "There were people who have been working on the shroud who would have sold tickets to the crucifixion," he said. "There are an awful lot of dishonest people involved in this." He says he's "an old grump," and his body doesn't feel as good as he'd like. But at least his mind is active. His fascination is swelling again. He is full of ideas for more research papers to write on the shroud. "You always have some ammunition you haven't fired yet," Rogers said. Story from REDNOVA NEWS: http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=125172 Published: 2005/02/05 21:00:08 CST |
Published online: 28 January 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050124-17 muse@nature.com: To know a veil Philip Ball Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game, says Philip Ball, but don't imagine that they will convince anyone. The most recent scientific study of the Turin shroud will not surprise anyone with even a passing interest in this mysterious bit of cloth. Retired chemist Raymond Rogers claims that the sample used for radiocarbon-dating studies in 1988 - which suggested that the shroud was a medieval forgery - is quite different from the rest of the relic. Rogers, who worked on explosives at the US Los Alamos National Laboratory, presents chemical arguments for the shroud being much older than those datings implied. It is, he says, between 1,300 and 3,000 years old. Let's call it somewhere around the middle of that range, which puts the age at about 2,000 years. Which can mean only one thing... But it would be unfair to imply that Rogers has steered his study towards a preconceived conclusion. He has a history of respectable work on the shroud dating back to 1978, when he became director of chemical research for the international Shroud of Turin Research Project. At the time, he says, he suspected that taking the job was " a good way to destroy my scientific credibility". And when he found that some of his findings did not fit with what some wished to hear, he was reproached: "Ray, you are not a soldier for Christ." "That," he says, "is the kind of goal-directed approach I had feared." Cloth of old Rogers has spoken of "the pseudoscience surrounding the shroud". Future studies, he says, "must be carefully planned and executed, and they cannot involve management by dilettantes". He has complained about the uncooperativeness of the shroud's guardians in Turin, saying that because of this, "competent scientific efforts to understand the shroud have a bleak future". This should not, perhaps, make anyone terribly distraught. The scientific study of the Turin shroud is like a microcosm of the scientific search for God: it does more to inflame any debate than settle it. Believers' ability to construct ingenious arguments is more than a match for the most exhaustive efforts of science. The shroud literature leaves no stone unturned in casting doubt on 'evidence' that the relic was faked, while embracing with blind rapture every argument for its authenticity. So why study it at all? And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made. It does not seem to have been painted, at least with any known historical pigments. And the relic is surrounded with legend and linked to Cathar sects, shady secret societies and papal conspiracies. If all this sounds like a popular current novel about hidden codes and religious mysteries, that may be no coincidence: among the flaky theories about the shroud's origin is one that it was created by Leonardo da Vinci, using a primitive photographic technique to record his own image. You couldn't make it up (although people do). The photographic hypothesis has been developed (so to speak) in some detail, notably by South African art historian Nicholas Allen. He has even used medieval materials to create faint photographic images on linen cloth saturated with silver nitrate. But Allen failed to convince other shroud scholars, who reasonably asked how an invention as marvellous as photography could have remained otherwise unknown until the nineteenth century. Besides, this is a crowded field. Among the wilder entrants is the idea that Christ's image was burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy from his body. Winding sheet The international team of scientists who convened in 1987 to put a date on the shroud probably did not expect to banish such fantasies. But by applying radiocarbon dating to the fabric, they were at least employing the most definitive of archaeological tools. Or so they thought. The textile sample was cut from the shroud in Turin Cathedral in April 1988, under the supervision of textile experts, representatives of the laboratories in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich selected to perform the analyses, a conservation scientist from the British Museum, and the Archbishop of Turin. The three measurements indicated with 95% confidence that the shroud's linen dated from between AD1260 and 1390. This, the researchers said, was "conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval"(1). Needless to say, the ink was barely dry before others started to quibble. Professor of history Daniel Scavone collected examples of erroneous radiocarbon dates and problems with the method that were "well known to the 14C community". And microbiologists Leoncio Garza-Valdes and Stephen Mattingly proposed in 1996 that bacteria and fungi on the fibres had skewed the dates, by a thousand years or so. Patch work Rogers has pursued another objection. Originating as it did from a couple who research 'pyramid energies' and 'the existence of the soul', the suggestion that the carbon-dated fragment was taken from a patch repaired in the sixteenth century did not look promising. The shroud was indeed damaged by fire and patched up in 1532, but those patches, called the Holland cloth, are obvious. Rogers thought that he would be able to "disprove [the] theory in five minutes". But he now says that there is something in it. Luigi Gonella, the Archbishop of Turin's scientific adviser, provided Rogers with a few threads from the piece cut for dating, which he compared with the samples he collected during the Shroud of Turin Research Project. The radiocarbon sample, but not other parts of the shroud, seems to have been dyed with madder, a colorant not widely used in Europe until after the Crusades, Rogers writes in Thermochimica Acta (2). This suggested that the fabric could have been inserted during repair, after being dyed to match the original, older cloth. Well, maybe. Perhaps more compelling is that most of the shroud lacks vanillin, a breakdown product of the lignin in cotton fibres. There is vanillin in the Holland cloth, and in other medieval linen. Because it decomposes over time, this suggests that the main body of the cloth is considerably older than these patches. By calculating the rate of decay, Rogers arrives at his revised estimate of the shroud's age. Facing faith There is no explanation, however, of how the 'repaired' threads used in radiocarbon dating were woven into the old cloth so cunningly that the textile experts who selected the area for analysis failed to notice the substitution. This is by no means the end of the story. Will scientists ever accept that trying to establish the true status of the Turin shroud is a vain quest? The object itself is too inaccessible, and its history is too poorly documented and understood, to permit irrefutable conclusions. And of course 'authenticity' is not really a scientific issue at all here: even if there were compelling evidence that the shroud was made in first-century Palestine, that would not even come close to establishing that the cloth bears the imprint of Christ. References Damon P. E. et al. Nature 337, 611-615 (1989). |
lamonitor.com, Thursday, January 27, 2005 |
Terra Chile, Sept. 28, 2002. Scientists criticize secret Sheet restoration Santa (www.mundomisterioso.com/article.php?sid=950) ******************************************************************************************************************* |
Pescanova. August 20, 2002. Several scientists state find errors in the dating of Shroud of Turin (in spanish). http://www.elcorreogallego.es/periodico/20020820/Cultura-Sociedad/N130465.asp |
MORE QUESTIONS BEING RAISED ABOUT SHROUD OF TURIN TEST Friday, August 30, 2002 NEWS - FAITH & VALUES 01D By Dennis M. Mahoney THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH Illustration: Photo Two Northwest Side researchers believe their theory casting doubt on a 1988 test of the Shroud of Turin was the catalyst behind a new examination of the shroud that is under way. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino have questioned a 1988 test of the shroud that concluded that it could not have been the burial cloth of Jesus because was a product of the 14th century, not the first century. Marino, a former Roman Catholic monk who has been studying the shroud for more than 20 years, and Benford, who has been researching the shroud since 1997, presented their theory at an international conference in Italy in 2000. For centuries, the shroud has been revered by many Christians. Kept in a church in Turin, Italy, it contains the image of a man who was crucified and scourged. Benford and Marino believe the section of the shroud that was used in the 1988 carbon-14 testing contained material woven into it to repair damage caused when a piece was cut for a relic. That occurred in the 16th century, they said, and a mixture of cloths from different eras skewed the test results. Carbon-14 testing determines the age of materials by measuring the amount of radioactive carbon-14 in them. Benford and Marino don't dispute the test findings; they say only that the sample used was flawed. They have said samples from other parts of the shroud should have been used. Some consider the 1988 test result to be proof that the shroud is a fake. Barrie Schwortz, a Los Angeles imaging expert who was part of the team of scientists that examined the shroud in 1978, supports the Benford-Marino theory. Schwortz said a textile expert at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York concluded that ''invisible reweaving'' -- similar to what Benford and Marino say happened to the piece of shroud used in 1988 -- was done so well in medieval times that it could go undetected for years. Ray Rogers, another member of the 1978 team who works at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, also said in a recent paper that the sample used in 1988 was invalid. The 1978 team of 31 scientists studied the image on the cloth but concluded: ''The question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.'' Although he accepts the Benford-Marino theory, Schwortz said it apparently has nothing to do with the current examination of the shroud. Recently, the National Committee for the Conservation of the Shroud revealed that 30 patches sewn onto the cloth in the 16th century after it was damaged by fire had been removed, and that the shroud was being examined again. The committee also said the backing cloth had been removed, and a new one sewn onto the shroud. The details of what is being done to the shroud are unknown, but the committee reportedly will make an announcement next month. Schwortz said there is enough scientific evidence to discount the 1988 test result. ''We need to set aside the conclusions based on that one test, and probably in the future allow for additional and better testing,'' he said. Benford and Marino are not professional researchers; Marino works in the library at Ohio State University and Benford is executive director for an education-related nonprofit organization. But both said most scientific evidence leans toward the shroud being a first-century artifact. But, Marino said, ''You can never get to 100 percent (sure). We don't have Jesus' original dental records or blood type to check.'' Benford said there has been such an emphasis on the shroud's scientific aspects ''that the big picture has not been fully explored.'' Marino agreed that the shroud has a spiritual aspect and said its image of what Jesus may have looked like is unnerving for some, because it is a reminder of his words about an afterlife. "People don't want to think about death and judgment,'' he said. ''We're so earth-oriented, most of the time we don't think about those things." "And this is a thing that brings us to the threshold of the other side. And that's scary for people.'' dmahoney@dispatch.com |
Turin Shroud Undergoes New Tests By Rossella Lorenzi, Discovery News Aug. 23 New tests on the Shroud of Turin are being carried out this summer in a secret experiment in the Turin Cathedral's new sacristy. In an effort to solve the mystery shrouding one of the most controversial relics in Christendom, the Vatican confirmed that thirty triangular patches had been removed from the Shroud. The patches were carefully sewn onto the cloth by nuns in 1534, after a fire had blackened parts of it. The modern operation, which also includes the replacing of the cloth's backing, was conducted by Swiss textile expert Mechtild Flury-Lemberg between June 20 to July 22. "There is no mystery. The interventions and new tests on the Shroud have been carried out in agreement with the Holy See," Marco Bonatti, spokesperson for the Shroud's custodian, Severino Poletto, told reporters. He added that the new tests were "non-invasive" and that the results, along with pictures, will be made public in mid-September. Scientific interest in the 14-foot-long linen cloth, remarkable for its smudged outline of a body, began in 1898, when it was photographed by lawyer Secondo Pio. The negatives revealed the image of a bearded man with pierced wrists and feet and a bloodstained head. In 1988, the Vatican approved carbon-dating tests. Three reputable laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Ariz., concluded that the shroud was a medieval fake, dating from 1260 to 1390, and not a burial cloth wrapped around the body of Christ. But now many believe that the Vatican's unexpected and radical intervention on the cloth could be a prelude to important announcements. "We are wondering if Flury-Lemberg is now doing secret C-14 testing," shroud scholar Sue Benford told Discovery News. In collaboration with Joseph Marino, another renowned scholar, she has just published two scientific articles claiming that the 1988 carbon dating tests were altered by the presence of invisible patches dating back to the 16th century. Independent tests carried out on some of the fragments used for the C-14 tests showed that 40 percent were 1st-century fibers and 60 percent were 16th-century material. Their study has been supported by the research of Ray Rogers, a retired chemist from Los Alamos National Laboratories and former member of the STURP team of American scientists that examined the Shroud in 1978. "There seems to be ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the radiocarbon analysis. The reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth was produced," he writes in a scientific review of the methods applied to the Shroud. "At this point, we definitely urge the Vatican to do more C-14 dating using the material they must have collected from beneath the 30 patches," said Benford. The shroud has survived several blazes since its existence was first recorded in France in the 14th century, including a mysterious fire at Turin Cathedral in 1997. Kept rolled up in a silver casket, it has been on display only five times in the past century. The next display will be in 2025. |
From the Times News Service, London, August 21, 2002 ITALY: EXPERTS ATTACK LATEST TESTS ON TURIN SHROUD By Richard Owen A FRESH attempt by Catholic officials to prove that the Turin Shroud is genuine and not a medieval fake has provoked a row after experts said that the tests could damage the cloth. The shroud, preserved in Turin Cathedral, is held by many Christians to be the cloth in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after the Crucifixion. Venerated for centuries as the Holy Shroud, it preserves the image of a tall man with crucifixion marks which only came to light when the 4.37m-by-1.11m (14ft4in-by-3ft7in) cloth was first photographed at the end of the 19th century. Carbon-dating tests conducted in Oxford, Zurich and Tucson, Arizona, in 1988 indicated that the shroud was a forgery and had been made between 1260 and 1390. Two years ago Vatican officials said that there would be no further tests in the foreseeable future. However, members of the official Committee for the Conservation of the Holy Shroud have disclosed that testing has begun again. They said that the cloth's backing and around thirty triangular patches used to mend the shroud in the 16th century after it was damaged by fire, had been removed in a "secret experiment". They added that the committee as a whole had not been consulted and instead the testing had been authorised by a small number of church "insiders". Officials in Turin confirmed that the shroud had been removed from its case and would not be on display while the experiment was in progress. They said that the operation was being conducted by the Swiss textile expert, Mechtild Flury-Lemberg. Supporters of the latest move said that there was a "plausible theory" that the 1988 tests on tiny fragments taken from the shroud had been "skewed" by the possible fusion of the original 1st-century cloth with the fibres of later additions, giving a "confused and inaccurate" carbon dating. Removing the patches would enable scientists to test the original cloth with less likelihood of contamination. Two American shroud scholars or "sindonologists", Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, told Il Messaggero, the Rome daily, that independent tests conducted on some of the fragments of cloth used in the 1988 carbon dating showed that 40 per cent were 1st-century fibres and 60 per cent were 16th-century material. That would have produced a "median date" of around the 13th century, they said. Emmanuela Marinelli, a leading expert on the shroud, is angry about the decision to remove the patches and the cloth's backing. "This is bound to cause damage of some kind. It is at odds with the great prudence with which it has always been handled until now." The existence of a Holy Shroud was first recorded at Edessa (now Urfa in modern Turkey) in the 2nd century and again at Constantinople in the 10th century. In the 14th century the "burial cloth of Christ" was allegedly brought to France by Crusader knights. A linen cloth purported to be the shroud was later entrusted to an order of nuns in Chambery, who repaired it after a fire in 1532. |
ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome Code: ZE02082021 Date: 2002-08-20 Scientists Find Errors in Dating of Shroud of Turin Believe That Medieval-Era Mending Skewed Results ROME, AUG. 20, 2002 (Zenit.org).- New studies reveal that the 1988 carbon-14 dating analysis of the Shroud of Turin did not take into consideration the mending done to the cloth in the Middle Ages. "The mending was medieval, not the shroud," wrote Orazio Petrosillo in the Roman newspaper Il Messaggero. Petrosillo is the author of several books on the cloth widely believed to be the burial linen of Jesus. Petrosillo explained that during the Middle Ages it was very common to use a type of sewing -- invisible to the naked eye -- to reinforce fabrics of artistic or historical value. According to Petrosillo, whose thesis is based on studies by U.S. scientists Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, researchers from laboratories at Oxford, England; Tucson, Arizona; and Zurich, Switzerland, examined the shroud in 1988 without realizing it was mended with linen in the 16th century. That study concluded the shroud was made sometime between 1260 and 1390. The new thesis was articulated after scientists presented fabric experts with a series of photographs of one of the small pieces of cloth of the shroud taken in 1988 for carbon-14 dating, as well as a section which was not used. The three experts agreed that there are different weaves in the sections analyzed. According to Beta Analytic, a radiocarbon-dating service, a mixture of 60% of 16th-century material with 40% of first-century material could lead to a dating of the 13th century. The calculation of percentages is based on the observations of the three fabric experts. Petrosillo also quotes the study of chemist Ray Rogers, who was part of the Sturp group of U.S. scientists that examined the shroud in 1978. Rogers had linen fibers of both the area of the cloth taken to carry out the carbon-14 analysis (cut out by the Belgian fabrics expert Gilbert Raes in 1973) as well as other parts of the shroud. Both in the section extracted by Raes as well as that used in 1988, the fibers are impregnated by a dark yellow substance, whose color varies in density from one fiber to another. However, the fibers of the rest of the shroud do not have this substance. According to the experts, it is a type of yellow vegetable glue, often used in the past. Rogers has verified that there is an invisible mend in the piece taken out by Raes, like those made in the 16th century. In fact, a thread of Raes' section was dated with the carbon-14 method at the California Institute of Technology. Half the thread turned out to be covered by starch. The thread was divided into two equal parts: the part without starch turned out to be of the third century, while the part with starch was dated in the 13th century. Petrosillo concluded that the shroud continues to raise scientific questions calling for new and more adequate study. |
Below are various articles in the media about the theory that there was a 16th century patch in the area from which the 1988 C-14 sample was taken. The full text is provided as well hot links to the articles are where available. Please note that some hot links, which are provided where available before the full text, are sometimes not functional after a period of time. |
IL MESSAGGERO Friday, August 9, 2002, page 8 (Translated from the original Italian.) Other polemics The 1988 dating is questioned Two scholars: there are also invisible seams on that linen cloth. The radiocarbon test may have been altered «According to the 14C test the cloth appeared Medieval. Perhaps only some threads were.» by Orazio Petrosillo ROME - Medieval was the darn, not the Shroud. Just while 30 visible patches are removed, some scholars direct their attention to the invisible darns on the Turinese Sheet. They were widely used in the Middle Ages for very precious cloths, just like the one venerated as the holiest of relics. Therefore, the result of the dating tests of the Shroud with the radiocarbon method (14C), carried out by the laboratories of Oxford, Tucson and Zurich in 1988 and dating the Shroud cloth between 1260 and 1390, has been altered by the presence, just in the area of the dating of the small linen samples, an invisible darn dating back to the 16th century. Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, two American sindonologists, claim this. A series of pictures of one of the samples taken in 1988 for the radiocarbon dating and of the remaining part that was not used were submitted to three textile experts, independently and without saying the samples had been taken from the Shroud. All the three experts recognized a different weaving on one side of the samples. According to the calculations of Beta Analytic, the largest provider of radiocarbon dating in the world, a mixture of 60% of material, from the 16th century, with 40% of material from the 1st century would carry a 13th century dating. The proportion of more recent material has been evaluated on the basis of what the three textile experts observed. Interesting observations have been carried out by Ray Rogers, a chemist who was a member of STURP, the group of American scientists who examined the Shroud in 1978. Rogers has linen fibres (which the Shroud is made of) coming both from the same area of the sample for the 14C analysis (they had been cut by the Belgian expert Gilbert Raes in 1973) and from other areas of the Shroud. In only the Raes' corner, where the 1988 sampling had been carried out, the fibers appear coated and soaked by a yellow-brownish amorphous substance, whose color varies in intensity from one fiber to the other. On the contrary, the fibers coming from the other parts of the Shroud do not have such a coating, which is almost certainly a yellow-rubber vegetable, very likely the gum-arabic, once used for textile applications. Moreover, Rogers has observed a superimposition (splice) in the center of a thread of the Raes sample: it is an invisible darn, widely used in the 16th century. In 1982 a thread of the Raes sample had already been dated with a radiocarbon method at the California Institute of Technology (CalTech). Half of the thread appeared covered with starch. The thread was divided in half: the non-starched part turned out to date from the 3rd century A.D., while the starched end gave a date of the 13th century A.D. This is a message for the Holy See to plan a new 14C test with serenity but in a multidisciplinary context and with a particular attention to the representativeness of the sample. |
ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome Code: ZE02082021 Date: 2002-08-20 Scientists Find Errors in Dating of Shroud of Turin Believe That Medieval-Era Mending Skewed Results ROME, AUG. 20, 2002 (Zenit.org).- New studies reveal that the 1988 carbon-14 dating analysis of the Shroud of Turin did not take into consideration the mending done to the cloth in the Middle Ages. "The mending was medieval, not the shroud," wrote Orazio Petrosillo in the Roman newspaper Il Messaggero. Petrosillo is the author of several books on the cloth widely believed to be the burial linen of Jesus. Petrosillo explained that during the Middle Ages it was very common to use a type of sewing -- invisible to the naked eye -- to reinforce fabrics of artistic or historical value. According to Petrosillo, whose thesis is based on studies by U.S. scientists Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, researchers from laboratories at Oxford, England; Tucson, Arizona; and Zurich, Switzerland, examined the shroud in 1988 without realizing it was mended with linen in the 16th century. That study concluded the shroud was made sometime between 1260 and 1390. The new thesis was articulated after scientists presented fabric experts with a series of photographs of one of the small pieces of cloth of the shroud taken in 1988 for carbon-14 dating, as well as a section which was not used. The three experts agreed that there are different weaves in the sections analyzed. According to Beta Analytic, a radiocarbon-dating service, a mixture of 60% of 16th-century material with 40% of first-century material could lead to a dating of the 13th century. The calculation of percentages is based on the observations of the three fabric experts. Petrosillo also quotes the study of chemist Ray Rogers, who was part of the Sturp group of U.S. scientists that examined the shroud in 1978. Rogers had linen fibers of both the area of the cloth taken to carry out the carbon-14 analysis (cut out by the Belgian fabrics expert Gilbert Raes in 1973) as well as other parts of the shroud. Both in the section extracted by Raes as well as that used in 1988, the fibers are impregnated by a dark yellow substance, whose color varies in density from one fiber to another. However, the fibers of the rest of the shroud do not have this substance. According to the experts, it is a type of yellow vegetable glue, often used in the past. Rogers has verified that there is an invisible mend in the piece taken out by Raes, like those made in the 16th century. In fact, a thread of Raes' section was dated with the carbon-14 method at the California Institute of Technology. Half the thread turned out to be covered by starch. The thread was divided into two equal parts: the part without starch turned out to be of the third century, while the part with starch was dated in the 13th century. Petrosillo concluded that the shroud continues to raise scientific questions calling for new and more adequate study. |
IDNUMBER 200208210163 BASNUM 3762503 PAPER The Ottawa Citizen DATE 020821 PDATE Wednesday, August 21, 2002 EDITION Final SECTION News PAGE A1 / FRONT LENGTH 963 words STOTYPE News HEADLINE A fresh attempt to prove Shroud of Turin is no fake BYLINE * Randy Boswell SOURCE The Ottawa Citizen; with files from Citizen News Services The Ohio woman who appears to have discovered a critical flaw in the 1988 carbon dating of cloth samples from the Shroud of Turin says her insights into the controversial Christian relic were communicated to her by Jesus Christ himself. Sue Benford, who co-authored a research paper in 2000 with her partner Joseph Marino, a respected shroud scholar, told the Citizen yesterday she's "excited" that their findings could help refute the 1988 tests that have led most experts to conclude the shroud was a medieval forgery and not the burial cloth of Christ. Roman Catholic officials in Italy have confirmed that new experiments are being performed by a Swiss textile expert, apparently to test the Benford-Marino theory: that the cloth sample chosen in 1988 - and which yielded a date of origin between 1260 and 1390 A.D - was actually a blend of original material almost 2,000 years old and newer threads woven into the shroud as recently as 400 years ago to repair damaged or pilfered portions of the sacred object. Ms. Benford, a former nurse who now runs a nonprofit educational organization near Columbus, said it was a "divine revelation" in March 1997 - followed by months of arduous research with Mr. Marino - that produced their theory that the 1988 study was fundamentally flawed. "I was working at my computer when a voice told me to go watch TV," said Ms. Benford, 45, who began flipping channels until she happened upon a show about the Shroud of Turin. "I was just stunned," she said, because she instantly recognized that the face on the shroud belonged to the same man whose voice had instructed her to watch television, and which later explained to her why scientists had mistakenly concluded the shroud was a fake. "I don't want to sound like a nut case, but that's what happened," she said. "I was given the answer." The couple's theory was presented at a conference in Italy in August 2000, around the same time the Vatican announced there would be no further testing on the age of the shroud in the immediate future. But members of the official Committee for the Conservation of the Holy Shroud have disclosed to the Italian newspaper Il Messaggero that testing has begun again. They said that the cloth's backing and about 30 triangular patches used to mend the shroud in the 16th century after it was damaged by fire have been removed in a "secret experiment." They added that the committee as a whole has not been consulted and instead the testing has been authorized by a small number of church "insiders." Officials in Turin also confirmed that the shroud has been removed from its case and would not be on display while the experiment was in progress. They said the operation is being conducted by Swiss textile expert Mechtild Flury-Lemberg. As startling as Ms. Benford's story might seem, the central argument she and Mr. Marino have advanced has also been embraced by a prominent U.S. scientist who first studied the shroud in 1978 and still possesses samples of the cloth. Ray Rogers was part of an international team 20 years ago that performed a chemical analysis of shroud fibres and determined that the image on the cloth was not painted. That finding ruled out an obvious hoax and left open the possibility that the shroud was authentic. But most of the scientific community - including Mr. Rogers himself - were later convinced by the 1988 carbon dating that the cloth was a fake after all. Mr. Rogers, a retired chemist living in Los Alamos, New Mexico, told the Citizen yesterday that he dismisses Ms. Benford's story about speaking with Jesus. But the observation itself - that old and new fibres had been mistakenly mixed in the 1988 experiments - is valid, he says. "When I first saw Benford and Marino's study, I said they're full of it," recalls Mr. Rogers, who re-analysed his shroud threads based on the Ohio couple's hypothesis. "But I have to agree with what they're proposing. The 1988 radio-carbon analysis was probably the very best ever done, but it was done on the worst, most stupidly selected sample of cloth." The 1988 sample, explains Mr. Rogers, comes from the lower left corner of the shroud which, it appears, has been "cleverly rewoven" over the centuries to disguise the fact that cuttings have been taken from the outer edge of the cloth from time to time. But several threads studied by Mr. Rogers in 1978 came from a section of the shroud slightly closer to the famous image of a crucified man that appears in the middle of the cloth. Some of those threads had been expertly "spliced" to connect older and newer fibres. In 1982, says Mr. Rogers, one of the threads from his samples was carbon dated - unbenownst to himself and against the wishes of Roman Catholic officials who had authorized the chemical analysis. Nevertheless, that test showed an age difference of more than 1,000 years between the newer and older fibres - and suggested the original portions of the shroud dated from around the year 200 A.D. "I have not been able to find any information on the accuracy and precision for the dating method used," says Mr. Roges. "However, the dates determined are so different that I could believe a real difference between the ends of the threads." The shroud, preserved in Turin Cathedral, is held by many Christians to be the cloth in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after the Crucifixion. Venerated for centuries as the Holy Shroud, it preserves the image of a tall man with crucifixion marks which only came to light when the 4.37-metre-by-1.11-metre cloth was first photographed at the end of the 19th century. DOB 20020821 UPDATE 020821 NDATE * 20020821 NUPDATE 20020821 |
From the Times News Service, London, August 21, 2002 ITALY: EXPERTS ATTACK LATEST TESTS ON TURIN SHROUD By Richard Owen A FRESH attempt by Catholic officials to prove that the Turin Shroud is genuine and not a medieval fake has provoked a row after experts said that the tests could damage the cloth. The shroud, preserved in Turin Cathedral, is held by many Christians to be the cloth in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after the Crucifixion. Venerated for centuries as the Holy Shroud, it preserves the image of a tall man with crucifixion marks which only came to light when the 4.37m-by-1.11m (14ft4in-by-3ft7in) cloth was first photographed at the end of the 19th century. |