I linked to that same article in my previous post. You could have just saved the pages of text and said, that is correct, that is the current hypothesis regarding the shroud
On that note, take it easy on the atheist thing and passive aggressive religious comments, it's irrelevant. There are plenty of Christians/other faiths who have the same issues with the shroud as I am bringing up. KCBid voiced his concerns briefly before, for example.
bippy123 wrote:This alone debunked the c14 dating. The vanillin tests show the shroud to also be much older then the carbon dating tests.
I was doing some reading and found a few problems with the invisible patch hypothesis:
Arguments against the Shroud of Turin invisible patch theory
1. Impossible to produce an undetectable invisible patch
There is no known method of patching a material like the Shroud of Turin that would produce a patch that could have been undetected by the people that have inspected the shroud. See the article by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (//
www.shroud.com/pdfs/n65part5.pdf) for a good discussion of this point.
By the way, afaik Antonacci is actually someone who believes the shroud may be genuine, but he was at least honest enough to explain in print why Ray Rogers suggestion of a patch is quite impossible:
In the last couple of years various parties have been claiming that medieval restorers could make repairs to textiles in a way that could fool the naked eye. For purposes of debate, let us assume this is true. However, a second assumption is still required to support Rogers above assertion, i.e. that such an invisible repair was made on the Shroud at the radiocarbon site. Such a repair would stand in stark contrast to the numerous other repairs performed on the Shroud, which are easily visible with the naked eye (and were performed after the 1260-1390 age range erroneously attributed to the Shroud.) Yet, in this case, the argument that such a masterful repair
was made to the Shroud also requires a third assumption that this repair was also kept secret for some reason from the public and from all historical record.
There would certainly be no need to keep this a secret from the public or from any private records among the owners, or any number of church officials or members, or by the masterful restorer(s). To repair the Shroud is certainly
nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, it would be something to be proud of. Assuming the repair was so excellent that no one (to this day) could even see where it occurred would be something to be very proud of. In light of this there should have been some record, as there was with most events involving the Shroud, among the notable and numerous Savoy family records, or by any other owners, custodians, priests, monks, nuns, or textile specialists or restorers.
The question of whether an assumed secretive repair was made that would fool the naked eye is actually a secondary issue. Even if you make all three assumptions (the last two of which are clearly unwarranted), they still do not address two overriding issues required to be overcome to prove a repair hypothesis. One overriding question is whether such an assumed secretive repair can also fool photomicroscopy. Since medieval restorers would not have had the extensive magnification abilities or techniques available today, it is extremely unlikely they would be able to repair cloth in a manner that would be undetected by subsequent magnification, as the Shroud has been clearly subjected to. As can be seen in the above Centro photomicrograph (and by further direct examination below) the radiocarbon site does not appear to have been repaired, but appears to be a continuation of the larger cloth (nor does Rogers illustrate, cite or allege in his paper that photomicrographs support his conclusion ).
Furthermore, there must have been a hole of some kind that required a patch or new material to be placed over it. Moreover, the patch or added material must be attached to the larger Shroud in some permanent manner. Even if you assume that some form of secretive invisible to the naked eye type of patch or reweave was made at the radiocarbon site, it must have been attached to the larger Shroud in some permanent manner that would have survived the very real stress, stretching and pull that the Shroud was subjected to from having been rolled repeatedly and stored on a spool for over 400 years.
In 2002, the backing cloth was removed which had been attached to the Shroud for centuries. An examination of the back of the cloth confirmed what the many previous examinations, photographs and photomicrographs of the front of the Shroud revealed : that the Shroud had not been patched at the radiocarbon site. The words of Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, one of the world's leading textile experts on ancient textiles and the Shroud of Turin, and who specifically led the examination and restoration of the Shroud in 2002, are particularly illuminating on these questions. Following the Shroud's lengthy examination and restoration she stated:
I would like to add here a note on the hypothetical reweaving done in the 16 century. There is no doubt that the Shroud does not contain any reweaving. The fabric is scattered with irregularities which are the result of faults made during the weaving process, and which could be mistaken for reweaving. But they are normal for fabrics of the early periods. Such irregularities are actually proof that a fabric has been woven on a hand-loom which points to an early date of origin of the fabric. Reweaving in the literal sense does not exist. Once the piece of fabric is taken off the loom the weaving process is finished. Aterwards one can only alter a fabric by using needle and thread. An example would be a hole which has been mended by imitating its weave structure. This process will always be recognizable as mending and in any case visible on the reverse of the fabric.
Professor Giuseppe Ghiberti, the Vatican Scientific Advisor for the Shroud and a participant at the 2002 examination and restoration also state's :
The truth is that there is no patch and no darn. During the last analysis made in 2002, when we carried out restoration and cleaning operations, Dr. Mechthild Flury-Lemberg (the leading world scholar on ancient textiles) examined the Shroud very carefully and concluded that there are no added threads. Beyond any doubt, there is no textile patch or darn in this linen. After 500 years, the (Holland) backcloth was completely removed and we were able to see the backside: there is no darn at all.
Moreover, you apply a patch or a darn where there is a hole, while the samples had been removed in a corner area with no scorched holes and no medieval darns. I am astonished that a scholar such as Rogers has written so many inaccuracies in his article.
//
www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf
The Vatican's own science adviser and the Vatican’s own textile expert both examined the C14 site in detail, inc. studying photo-micrographs, from both sides of the shroud after the backing cloth was removed in 2002. All that is necessary to falsify the above is to publish a single example of a fabric that has been repaired in a way that would have been undetected by the kind of examination that the shroud was given.
2. Even more difficult to produce an undetectable invisible patch without magnifying capability
Even if it was possible to produce an invisible patch today the difficulties would have been much greater in the sixteenth century before the widespread availability of magnifying glasses and before the development of the compound microscope. Not only does the lack of magnifying capability add another layer of difficulty, why would somebody create a patch that was only detectable with magnifying capability when no such capability was widely available?
3. Not possible to create 16th century fabric that matches 1st century fabric in the 16th century
It would have been difficult if not impossible in the 16th century to create a new piece of fabric that so precisely matched the characteristics of a 1st century piece of fabric that the new material would not have been detected during the very careful examinations that the shroud has undergone particularly in 1982 when the cloth was carefully examined by STURP and in 2002 when the shroud backing was removed and restoration work was done on the shroud.
A common way of doing what is called "invisible mending" today is to take material from an inconspicuous place on the garment because it is difficult to match the existing threads well enough to fool the eye. If this was done on the shroud the C14 date wouldn't have been affected so that new material for the patch would have been required.
4. Detailed microscopic examination of C14 sample is consistent with overall shroud
A microscopic examination was done of the C14 sample material by Arizona scientists (Rachel A. Freer-Waters and A. J. Timothy Jull) and the area was observed to match other areas of the shroud in weave size and pattern.
The provenance of the sample they examined and photographed microscopically is well documented. The Arizona scientists made careful measurements of various properties of their shroud sample and found that they matched precisely the data about the shroud.
One of the main pieces of evidence put forth by Rogers that the C14 samples were done in an area where there was an invisible patch was that the C14 test area had traces of dye that weren't present in the main shroud. Freer-Waters and Jull did not find any signs of dyeing that was reported by Rogers on their C14 sample. Overall this paper provides a complete refutation of the Rogers' paper and it provides overwhelming evidence that the C14 test area was representative of the overall shroud.
5. Patch area was very carefully selected
The area for the patch was carefully selected after a month of careful study. There is no way that the scientists and scholars could not have seen that the samples they removed were from a patch.
See //freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm for a discussion of this.
6. Why invisible patch when so many conventional patches already?
There is no apparent reason why somebody would attempt an invisible repair of the shroud when the shroud had numerous conventional patches already.
7. No documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch
There is no documentation of an effort to create an invisible patch on the shroud in existence today despite the fact that much of the history of the shroud was well documented and that history is available today.
8. Consistent banding through the C14 sample area
The threads in the C14 sample have the same density pattern as the threads in the adjoining areas.
This argument was put forth by Antonacci among others. This goes back to the reference earlier: //
www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf. The argument is that there is a density pattern in the shroud that produces a kind of banding pattern when the shroud is carefully observed and that this banding pattern passes through the C14 sample area without any breaks or variations. This means that the individual making the hypothetical invisible patch to the shroud not only needed to make a patch with undetectable ends he needed to make a patch with threads that precisely matched the density of surrounding threads. The level of difficulty to make such a patch would be extreme even today. That such a patch would have been made in the 16th century is obviously nonsense. I didn't find a good visible light photograph to demonstrate this (Antonacci references them in his article but the on-line article doesn't have them) but here is the radiograph of the area:
9. Consistent C14 results throughout the sample area
At least some of the invisible patch theory involves the notion that C14 sample site consisted of a mixture of old and new threads. The C14 test results were significantly consistent with each other. If the C14 sample area consisted of a mixture of fabric from different times the sample area would need to have consisted of the same ratio of old and new thread throughout the sample.
This is a strong argument against the idea of a local reweave where part of the original shroud remained. The hypothetical patch not only needed to be undetectable by normal microscopic examination but the patch area need to have retained the same amount of original material throughout the sample area.
10. Schwalbe and Rogers: PHYSICS AND CHEMISTRY OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN A Summary of the 1978 Investigation. The most relevant part of the Schwalbe/Rogers paper with regard to this issue may be contained in note 6 of their report:
6. Morris et al. [9] were concerned that the detected trace elements may not have been uniquely associated with the Shroud. The ambiguity arose because the Holland backing cloth could not be removed from the Shroud for the measurements; technically, their data pertain to the double-cloth system. However, thirteen threads, removed from non-image, non-blood areas of the Shroud in November 1973 [41], were brought to America following the Turin study. X-ray fluorescence measurements were made on these with isotope sources of 55Fe, 109Cd, 145Sm, and 57Co for counting periods of 500-1000 min. These results showed roughly the same relative concentrations of calcium,strontium,and iron that were observed in the original 1978 Turin data. In addition, they showed smaller traces of potassium, chlorine, and possibly lead. The small sizes of the thread samples precluded quantitative estimates for these traces, but the later results suggest that the reported Turin measurements do pertain to the Shroud. It sounds like the purpose of the original X-ray fluorescence testing of the thirteen threads was to establish that the results from the X-ray.
In that Quote, STURP member Rogers is himself claiming that STURP's own X-ray fluorescence tests were made on both the main shroud itself (inc the backing cloth) AND also on 13 threads from the Raes sample, with the result that the relative concentrations of Calcium, Strontium and Iron were found to be similar for both the Raes threads (without the backing cloth) and the main body of the shroud (with it’s backing cloth).
That’s what STURP themselves were claiming in 1980.
That was ten years before Rogers and STURP knew that C14 results would later show the shroud to date from the 13th-14th century.
So in 1980, Ray Rogers on behalf of STURP was writing to say that their X-ray fluorescence results confirmed that the Raes threads were indistinguishable from the rest of the shroud. But then 25 years later, when Rogers wanted to discredit the C14 dates, he was writing to say that threads claimed to be from the C14 sample, which came from right next to the Raes threads and were therefore expected to be entirely similar to the Raes threads, were now claimed to be so completely different as to indicate an invisible patch from some unknown material that had been added 1500 years after he believed the shroud was made!
.
.
