Evidence for God from Science

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:Again you are wrong on the basic facts.
1. I double checked and confirmed that Ray Rogers did send Fanti an 'Image fiber'.

Yes. just read that last word again, would you? Fibre. Quite so. Fibre. Not thread. Threads are made of fibres. A fibre can be linen or cotton or wool, but not a mixture. A thread can be a mixture. I do not believe Rogers ever had access to any threads.

Rogers never had access to any threads?
I don't know if you are being deliberately funny or not...

Rogers was part of the STRUP team who had access to and performed all kinds of detailed analysis on the Shroud itself. That goes way beyond samples of any kind, whether those samples are threads or fibers.

I do not understand why you are so determined to directly contradict the unambiguous conclusions from a scientist who studied the Shroud in detail... especially when you have no evidence to the contrary.
Your bias is showing.

Unless you are going to present real evidence to support your direct contradiction of a scientist who had direct access to the Shroud of Turin itself, I don't think much more needs to be said regarding the cotton content of the Raes sample vs that of the Shroud.

I think Ray Rogers says it best.
"Samples from the main part of the cloth are SIGNIFICANTLY different from the Raes samples with regard to cotton content."

hughfarey wrote: Finally, the story of the alleged 1982 radiocarbon testing is too vague for any sensible comment.

Here's an overview of the Unauthorized 1982 Radiocarbon test.
from
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf

Unauthorized dating of Raes thread

In 1982 an unauthorized Carbon-14 dating test was conducted on a single thread
from the Raes sample. The experimental thread was provided by Dr. Alan Adler and
given to Dr. John Heller. At the time, Adler was unaware that an agreement had been
signed by STURP members not to do further testing on Shroud samples. Heller delivered
the thread to the California Institute of Technology (CalTech) for dating by worldrenowned
mineralogist Dr. George R. Rossman. Adler informed Rossman that one end
of the thread contained, what appeared to be, a “starch contaminate.” Thus, Rossman cut
the thread in half and, using what Adler described as Fourier-transform ion cyclotron
resonance mass spectrometry (FTMS), dated each end of the thread separately.
According to the Scripps Center for Mass Spectrometry in La Jolla California, “FTMS
offers two distinct advantages, high resolution and the ability to tandem mass spectrometry experiments. First introduced in 1974 by Comisarow and Marshall, FTMS
is based on the principle of a charged particle orbiting in the presence of a magnetic field.
While the ions are orbiting, a radio frequency (RF) signal is used to excite them and as a
result of this radio frequency excitation, the ions produce a detectable image current on
the cell in which they are trapped. The time-dependent image current can then be Fouriertransformed to obtain the component frequencies of the different ions, which correspond
to their m/z. Coupled to ESI and MALDI, FTMS has potential in becoming an important
research tool offering high accuracy with errors as low as ±0.001%.” (From
http://masspec.scripps.edu/information/ ... html#3.3.5.). According to isotope
ratio expert, Dr. Vernon Anderson of Case Western Reserve University (OH), “ion
cyclotron could potentially identify C-14 peaks; however, to quantify it versus C12CO2 is
difficult.”

Rossman found that the non-contaminated end of the thread dated to 200 AD
while the starched end dated to 1200 AD. Although Rossman did not publish these
data, Adler had confidence in his capabilities to accurately measure the age of the sample.
Adler stated that Rossman is the “world’s expert in it and there’s no arguing with him . .
.if he says these are the dates he got . . .” (10) In a personal conversation with one of the
authors (Benford), Rossman confirmed that he was, indeed, the person who carried out
the 1982 C-14 testing on the Raes thread provided by Adler.

If there is any validity to the Rossman C-14 tests of the Raes thread, then the
results support Rogers’ recent findings of a spliced thread in the Raes sample as well as
his observation of unilateral deposition of plant gum encrustations on only the Raes
fibers. It would further support the heterogeneity of inwoven medieval restorative threads into older, possibly 1st Century, Shroud fibers in both the Raes and the 1988 sample areas of the Shroud.

DBowling wrote:Rogers never had access to any threads?
I don't know if you are being deliberately funny or not...

Certainly not. Sure Rogers both handled and studied the Shroud as a whole cloth, but the STuRP team did not extract any threads at all - in fact they, especially Rogers, went to great lengths to cause as little damage to the cloth as they could.

Rogers was part of the STRUP team who had access to and performed all kinds of detailed analysis on the Shroud itself. That goes way beyond samples of any kind, whether those samples are threads or fibers.

There was almost no direct experimentation on the Shroud itself, let alone "all kinds of detailed analysis". There was no possibility of determining the cotton content of the Shroud while actually in Turin in 1978. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it certainly isn't from any of the published papers of the STuRP team.

I do not understand why you are so determined to directly contradict the unambiguous conclusions from a scientist who studied the Shroud in detail... especially when you have no evidence to the contrary.

I'm afraid you're accepting unconfirmed conclusions without any critical examination.

Your bias is showing.

Mine? Gosh...

Unless you are going to present real evidence to support your direct contradiction of a scientist who had direct access to the Shroud of Turin itself, I don't think much more needs to be said regarding the cotton content of the Raes sample vs that of the Shroud.

1) Cotton content:
Rogers: Cotton fibers are easy to find mixed intimately with the linen fibers of all of the Raes threads. (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf)
Fanti: "The relatively small percentage of cotton fibers of (4/188=) 2.1% is in agreement with the hypothesis that cotton was a contaminant in the ambient where linen threads were prepared. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/fantir7appendix.pdf)
2) Starch:
Rogers: We expected to find starch on the Shroud, so we did not specifically look for it. (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers10.pdf)
Heller & Adler: TESTS EMPLOYED FOR THE DETECTION OF ORGANIC STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. Starch. Iodine. Iodide. (A Chemical investigation of the Shroud of Turin, 1981)

Here's an overview of the Unauthorized 1982 Radiocarbon test.

Quite. The provenance of the thread is unsound, George Rossman denies making the test, Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry is not a recognised method of dating, and the sample size was too small to produce meaningful results even if it was.

hughfarey wrote:

Unless you are going to present real evidence to support your direct contradiction of a scientist who had direct access to the Shroud of Turin itself, I don't think much more needs to be said regarding the cotton content of the Raes sample vs that of the Shroud.

1) Cotton content:
Rogers: Cotton fibers are easy to find mixed intimately with the linen fibers of all of the Raes threads. (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf)
Fanti: "The relatively small percentage of cotton fibers of (4/188=) 2.1% is in agreement with the hypothesis that cotton was a contaminant in the ambient where linen threads were prepared. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/fantir7appendix.pdf)
2) Starch:
Rogers: We expected to find starch on the Shroud, so we did not specifically look for it. (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers10.pdf)
Heller & Adler: TESTS EMPLOYED FOR THE DETECTION OF ORGANIC STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONAL GROUPS. Starch. Iodine. Iodide. (A Chemical investigation of the Shroud of Turin, 1981)

Thank You!... I say that genuinely...
I definitely plan to look thru the documents you linked to.

Here's an overview of the Unauthorized 1982 Radiocarbon test.

Quite. The provenance of the thread is unsound, George Rossman denies making the test, Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry is not a recognised method of dating, and the sample size was too small to produce meaningful results even if it was.

I think there is a difference between meaningful and precise.
I think the 1982 tests are 'meaningful' if not as precise as would have been possible with a larger sample size.

hughfarey wrote: 1) Cotton content:
Rogers: Cotton fibers are easy to find mixed intimately with the linen fibers of all of the Raes threads. (https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf)
Fanti: "The relatively small percentage of cotton fibers of (4/188=) 2.1% is in agreement with the hypothesis that cotton was a contaminant in the ambient where linen threads were prepared. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/fantir7appendix.pdf)

OK... I had a chance to look through the Fanti article...
First, regarding the main body of the Shroud itself.

Giulio Fanti studied many fibers and threads coming from the TS (Turin Shroud); in
particular fibers coming from dusts vacuumed from the back of the TS in correspondence of Face,
Hands, Buttocks, Feet and 1988/C-14 area were compared among them and with threads coming
from the 1988/C-14 area (in proximity of the “Riserva” sample).
As it is reported in a recent paper, there are cotton fibers mixed with the TS linen fibers in
the vacuumed dusts but many on them originate from the cotton contained in the filter where the
dusts were collected. It is therefore not easy to affirm if there are cotton fibers coming from the TS
studying these vacuumed dusts.
Also in STURP-3AF sticky tape taken from R. Rogers in the middle finger area, frontal TS
image, is present a cotton fiber, but it is not clear if this fiber really comes from the TS or from an
external contaminant.

The short version of the comments quoted above that Fanti was unable to identify any cotton as coming from the main body of the Shroud. This is consistent of the conclusions of Rogers concerning the lack of cotton in the main body of the Shroud.
So, Rogers and Fanti are consistent here.

Regarding the C-14 Area and Raes Samples.
Let me quote you

Thibault Heimburger examined a thread from the Raes sample, and concluded that about 15% of the fibres were cotton. Giulio Fanti did the same and concluded that about 5% of the fibres were cotton. Roberto Villareal did the same and concluded that all of his piece of thread was cotton.

Unlike the main body of the Shroud, there is no question that there is cotton present in the Raes samples. What we see from your quote above is that the cotton is not evenly distributed among the Raes samples. (Which is also consistent with the variation we see in the 1988 Radiocarbon tests). Both Rogers and Fanti observed cotton in the C-14 and Raes samples but the amount of cotton they observed differed, because... the amount of cotton differed in the samples that they each analyzed. Your quote demonstrates quite nicely the variation in cotton content throughout the Raes samples as observed by multiple people. Which we would expect to see in a repaired area.

So I think Fanti's analysis is actually consistent with Roger's conclusions that:
"Samples from the main part of the cloth are SIGNIFICANTLY different from the Raes samples with regard to cotton content."

DBowling wrote:"Samples from the main part of the cloth are SIGNIFICANTLY different from the Raes samples with regard to cotton content."

Well, fair enough. At least we are agree on our facts, if not the opinions we derive from them. I think the variation in the amount, distribution and provenance of the cotton on the Shroud is too great and unsubstantiated to confirm that the radiocarbon corner was significantly different from the rest, and you don't. They are both reasonable conclusions. The question, as with so many questions regarding the Shroud, is moot, which is why I never declare that a medieval origin is certain, nor care to change other people's minds on questions of opinion - only on their facts.

If we put cotton to bed for a while, we might look at the Riani and Atkinson paper, which very cleverly, I think, establishes a chronological gradient across the radiocarbon sample area, the older samples coming from closer to the corner. The finding is entirely statistical, and based on a number of assumptions which although perfectly reasonable, are unverified, but I think sound. The gradient is small - about a hundred years from one end to the other, but statistically significant. If true, the findings confirm the accuracy of the radiocarbon laboratories and the cohesion of their separate results. The paper says nothing at all about the absolute date of the Shroud, of course.

Wow, there are over 2,100 posts on G&S concerning the Shroud. Untold numbers of readers. The posts are often very long. A team of scientists using some of our best technology is both astounded and baffled by it. It has never been even close to being replicated - only crude similarities. There are over 400,000 Google results for the Shroud of Turin. My how that "medieval faker" got exceptionally lucky, eh? Making fools of his contemporaries and modern scientists. The results having produced elements of photography and astonishing details, and yet these techniques were never used again in ANY art? OR, the artist didn't even know what he had done - but still was unintentionally clever and astoundingly brilliant? NO other such artifacts found - EVER? The level of detail alone reveals some unknown technique of great planning - this could not have been just some hack hired by someone to fool the illiterates of the region. And all of these things are tied to a long-held belief, documented going back many centuries, into a pre-scientific era, that also just happens to have been asserted to be the burial garment of Christ. What are the odds of ALL of that? Unless some new test shows something far beyond what we now know, I'd say the continued debate is a waste. And if it is authentic, for those who don't want to believe in the event it is tied to, NO amount of evidence will ever convince them.

Philip wrote:Unless some new test shows something far beyond what we now know, I'd say the continued debate is a waste. And if it is authentic, for those who don't want to believe in the event it is tied to, NO amount of evidence will ever convince them.

Possibly. And vice versa. There is no need to enter the debate if you don't want to. I think DBowling and Kurieou and I are having a constructive discussion in confirming that our differences lie in the overall conclusions we draw, rather than errors of fact or logic. That's worthwhile for me.

hughfarey wrote: If we put cotton to bed for a while, we might look at the Riani and Atkinson paper, which very cleverly, I think, establishes a chronological gradient across the radiocarbon sample area, the older samples coming from closer to the corner. The finding is entirely statistical, and based on a number of assumptions which although perfectly reasonable, are unverified, but I think sound. The gradient is small - about a hundred years from one end to the other, but statistically significant. If true, the findings confirm the accuracy of the radiocarbon laboratories and the cohesion of their separate results. The paper says nothing at all about the absolute date of the Shroud, of course.

I don't know if this is the particular article that you were referring to:
http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/RianiWeb.pdf

But I thought that the conclusion from this article regarding the 1988 radiocarbon tests was interesting:

Due to the heterogeneity of the data and the evidence of a strong linear
trend the twelve measurements of the age of the TS cannot be considered
as repeated measurements of a single unknown quantity.

In other words, the Raes sample/C-14 area is not homogeneous regarding either composition of the cloth (ie amount of cotton) or age.

Yes, I agree with that as far as it goes, but there are two inevitable corollaries to this paper.
a) the inhomogeneity is quite small, to give only 100 years difference across the sample.
b) the closer you get to the corner of the cloth, the older the shroud appears.

Incidentally, I was surprised to find that George Rossman still works for Caltech. He has given me permission to quote him:

“Every statement about my testing the shroud is total fabrication. It did not happen.
I have no idea how or why they chose my name, but it was either a gross mistake on their part or a deliberate lie.”

“Sue (I believe it was Sue) claimed to have a tape recording of a conversation with "me" in which there is a discussion of the alleged unauthorized dating experiment. We asked for a copy of the tape (to prove it was not me on the tape] but it was never sent. If you can find the tape (if such a recording actually exists), you may be able to have someone identify the voice of the person describing the alleged activity (if any such activity actually took place).”

hughfarey wrote:Incidentally, I was surprised to find that George Rossman still works for Caltech. He has given me permission to quote him:

“Every statement about my testing the shroud is total fabrication. It did not happen.
I have no idea how or why they chose my name, but it was either a gross mistake on their part or a deliberate lie.”

“Sue (I believe it was Sue) claimed to have a tape recording of a conversation with "me" in which there is a discussion of the alleged unauthorized dating experiment. We asked for a copy of the tape (to prove it was not me on the tape] but it was never sent. If you can find the tape (if such a recording actually exists), you may be able to have someone identify the voice of the person describing the alleged activity (if any such activity actually took place).”

I was totally unaware of the mystery and intrigue behind the 1982 Unauthorized tests until I read your post and decided to do some Google searches.

I found the following excellent article which explores the questions surrounding the 1982 tests.
The 1982 Carbon Dating Of The Shroud Of Turin
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/04/ ... ud-of.html

Yes, it's by Jason Engwer, with whom I have corresponded from time to time, most recently (yesterday) to tell him of my contacting George Rossman.

Yes, I found that link too: http://triablogue.blogspot.com.au/2014/ ... ud-of.html

The 1982 sample seems more left of field. I feel something did happen, who knows what, and certainly whether significant. If they were considered reliable, then when the 1988 dates came out something more would have been said. I'd think.

Really, I feel like a great many people involved with the shroud have acted like complete fools. Maybe we'd be in better standing if an entirely different team handled the shroud and dating. Because, I don't care about the skill of people involved, nor do I respect anyone as authoritative really, and what I've read at that link leads me to write everyone off including the RCC who were rather childish themselves in allowing a dating but telling the testers they must only take a snip here and one only.

It should have never been allowed, until and when, the RCC were willing to allow proper tests to be done (rather than on the corner-most bit) -- or modern technology had caught up to the point where less material was needed as I believe is now the case. As it stands, the carbon dating can't be trusted for the full shroud because people (dumb "experts") stuffed up in the sampling.

So with that, I hold no date with any seriousness. The latter dating has holes in, and the 1982 earlier dating it just really a small push-back, what mud can be dug up to question the 1988 dating. What I find significant are the features of the shroud. Hugh, if you're going to be the one who nails replicating it, then I hope you have ideas as to how to generate enough energy to produce the radiation necessary.

The feature I found to be the smoking gun against painting pigment ideas and the like, is the actual thinness of the picture. That it is also a negative, and apparently, you've got to stand around 10 feet away otherwise you can't really make out the picture (good luck painting Mr Fraud Artist).

We can draw the line at how it came to be (e.g., "it's a miracle!"), we can even place to the side the age for a moment along with any technology limitations of the past. Because, this image is wholly fascinating in itself. Everything should be on the table. It does appear to me like a burnt in radiographic-like image, so if it were me then I'd focus first on just replicating the thing with ANY technology we have, perhaps a computer simulation even of extreme radiation bursts, then answer questions as to "how" it happened separately.

Thanks. I'm afraid I don't care for the various 'radiation' hypotheses, and will not be buying an excimer laser machine just yet. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) The problem of how a dead body can emit sufficient radiation to degrade cloth. This breaks down further into:
1.a) A miraculist explanation. I think it true that most of the adherents of radiation hypotheses have resort to a supernatural occurrence, beyond the scope of science to understand, probably related to the Resurrection. While nobody should be so bold as to say that this is impossible, holding such a view precludes any sensible further scientific investigation. If the image was caused by a miracle, then no radiation was necessary, even if it looks like it, nor any other rational method. If the image is the result of a miracle, it was not even necessary for Jesus to be in the tomb at the time at all. Maybe the reason there is no mention of the Shroud in the Gospels is that the image did not miraculously appear until much later, maybe when King Agbar first got to see it, or shortly before it became the image of Edessa. All this being the case, attempting to quantify exactly how much, what type and for how long any radiation needs to be applied to simulate the image becomes purely academic.
1.b) A rational explanation. Attempts to account for radiation from a dead body are ongoing, but not yet satisfactory. There may be geological or meteorological factors which have to be combined with the condition of the body, and the condition of the cloth, but evidence is slight, and experimentation difficult, although Giulio Fanti has been making some suggestive smudges using a 'plasma ball' (the coronal discharge hypothesis) and Giovanna de Lisle produced some interesting images she claims to be the result of geological disturbances. If I lived in a more seismically active area I would attempt to pursue this line of thinking.

2) Where does the radiation come from? There are numerous conflicting hypotheses and some experimental evidence.
Gus Accetta swallowed some radioactive compound and produced an image. The radiation seems to have come from every part of the body (carried around by the blood stream) so that the image intensity at any one spot depends on how much 'body' there is underneath it, as well as how much radiation was emitted by various tissues. Surface detail is impossible, and voids lead to severe anomalies, such that the nose is very faintly represented, even though it protrudes from the face, because of the largely empty space inside it.
Hugh Duncan painted a model with luminous paint and produced a light image from that. The overall shape was well represented, but surface detail unrepresented at all.
Giulio Fanti's coronal discharge comes from the skin surface there is no good reason why this should produce the variation in intensity as observed on the Shroud.
John Jackson seems to think that 'radiation' is a bit like smoke, and just hangs about in the air, so that a cloth falling through it acquires some of it on its surface. The resulting image would depend entirely on the vertical thickness of the space through which it fell. The Shroud image does not show this correlation, particularly in the legs.
Alan Whanger thinks that X-Rays may be involved, but is hazy about where the X-rays come from. To image the bones of the hands, for example, the X-Rays there would have to come from the genitals, but to explain the complete absence of ribs on the image, the X-Rays there would have to be a surface phenomenon.

3) What kind of radiation was it? Everything from light to X-rays to microwaves, gamma rays, and neutrons have been postulated, all without a shred of evidence to support them. The best so far has been Paolo di Lazzaro's excimer laser, squirting pulses of radiation of huge energy but for minute periods. This has had the correct 'searing steak' effect, scorching the surface but leaving the inside rare. Other offerings have not, to my knowledge, achieved as good a simulation of the way the image appears.

3) How was the radiation collimated? Radiation, like light from a candle, travels from its source in all directions. Regardless of its type or origin, this could only result in a very blurred image. I think there is universal agreement among radiation hypothesists that somehow the radiation only moved vertically up and down. Some attempts to explain this as a gravitational effect have not, to my mind, been satisfactory.

4) What was the configuration of the Shroud when the radiation reached it? By far the easiest, and apparently the most biometrically accurate, way of explaining the image is if the Shroud was completely horizontal. The celebrated "image intensity/cloth-body distance" correlation only works well in this configuration. Draping, enfolding or wrapping the body seems to contradict one or more aspects of the image as it actually appears.

So, yes I'm backing the 'pigment ideas and the like', mostly because I personally can explore this field myself! All the problems of the configuration of the body and the cloth, and whether the body was in rigor mortis, buckled up or lying flat, or suffering from Marfan's syndrome, or the cloth was horizontal, drapped or wrapped, are completely removed by the idea that somebody just put the image on with a brush, or pounce, or imprint of some kind. But there are plenty of problems to explore - how much iron oxide do you need to make an image, for example, and was there a lot more when it was first made? And what is the relative contribution of the degraded cellulose (or starch, if you follow Rogers) compared to pigment? And how does paint degrade cellulose anyway? All these are problems to be solved, and I'm happily fiddling about trying to solve them.

I don't get hung up on all the rather naive estimates of the thickness of the image. If it's made of scattered particles, then it is as thick as a particle, and if it's made of degraded cellulose, then it's as thick as the depth of the degraded cellulose. There is some dispute as to what that thickness is, but I don't think it's so fantastic as to be incredible.