# The Shroud of Turin **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [October 6, 2009, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794 "2009-10-06T08:58:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/41 "2009-10-14T17:52:58Z")
> [@Jerseyman](#): > > What bothers me about simple fakery is that I can’t imagine the mediaeval mind thinking in terms of photographic negative images. They would more likely paint a straight representation or else find something that did have a few stains that the eye of belief would see as a miraculous image. It feels much more likely to me that the imprint is genuine enough but dates from the Middle Ages and somebody along the way decided that if it was anybody’s shroud it might as well be Christ’s. I’m more inclined to deliberate fraud, because that was common back then, there were a lot of gullible people, and it was easy money for someone who knew what they were doing. If an “artist” (con- or art-) were aware of the ways to make linen light-sensitive (which probably was not uncommon knowledge in the days before the Vatican acquired the Holy Whirlpool 24934 top-load washer) then it would not be difficult. Find a nice 3D subject, some amateurish statue in an out-of-the-way church that nobody would recognize. Spread soot or whatever on the statute; drape the cloth, then rub in the parts where you want the features to stand out. Put the cloth out on a hot sunny day for maximum UV exposure. Or maybe, wave a red-hot iron near the parts you want to stand out and it lightly burns (carmelizes?) the surface where the black soot is. When done, wash (but not with a red shirt in the same load). Voila, surface image. The richer clients may be pious but not stupid-stupid. If you preset a cloth that’s dyed, or painted, or a brass rubbing, or whatever - art was a typical means of disposing of surplus income; these guys are not going to be conned by a standard work of art. A scorched or UV-enhanced image probably looked sufficiently miraculous to fool the sophisticated mark. The faintness of the image probably added to the allure, suggesting it wasn’t fake; the usual wary customer would think an obvious fake would be a more pronounced image. Is it just me? But the picture seems to show regular striations in the image along the chest, arms, etc - almost like the cloth was pressed onto the source with fingers, giving a regular spacing of the darker aprts. Also, if this is real it’s proof of evolution. Jesus seems to have forearms so out of proportion and long they make him look like a monkey. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/42 "2009-10-14T18:08:15Z")
> [@pan1](#): > > The flaw in the skeptical view of that is that no carbon-14 appeared that had degenerated to the point of possibly being 1950 years old. It’s not like they took a couple molecules off the surface…They tested several square milimeters. > > The oldest C-14 from the test dated the shroud to the middle ages. > > For this result there would have had to be 100% molecular migration - which, I’m not a molecular chemist, but is impossible in fabric and fiber. Carbon dating measures the proportion of C14 to C12. C14 is continuously formed in the upper atmosphere by impact with cosmic rays etc.; it decays at a known rate to C12, so the ratio of C14 to C12 is relatively constant. Living plants get their carbon from the atmosphere, and fix it in their structure. Animals get it from them. Once fixed in something dead (linen fibers, bones, wood) it is not replaced, but the C14 continues to decay to C12. you can figure out when the living item stopped living by the ratio of C14-C12. The less C14, the older. This scale is pretty accurately calibrated by now. There are obvious ways to gimmick the system. A fresh infusion of new carbon (soot, wash residue, dead microbes, red dye) might dilute the original sample. Obviously, it’s very difficult to go the other way, unless you added ground up papyrus dust to your mix or something. The interesting thing about the result is that the “alleged dilution” random mix suggested by true believers does not result in a random date between the 1500’s (time of the fire) and much early, say 700AD or 300AD, but coincidentally exactly when it would have been made if it is a fraud. There are obvious triangular patches and associated scorches where the folded cloth was burned in a corner during a church fire. Nobody disputes these are repairs with recent cloth (1500’s not 1200’s?) very obviously sewen on. Coming up with the possibility that someone also did invisble weave repairs on the edges where the carbon dating sample was taken from? That sounds like desperate fishing for an excuse why the test gave the unwanted answer. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/43 "2009-10-14T22:27:48Z")
**CJJ** \* said: > [@](#): > > The second question IMO is far more interesting; was the shroud deliberately created, or did it come about by accident (as Jerseyman theorizes)? Accident seems the most likely choice–a deliberate and repeatable process would likely have produce additional “shrouds” from other famous individuals in ancient/religious history (presuming the process started accidentally, then when the image was noticed the blood et al. was added). If you search you will discover there are lots of “shrouds” and burial cloths around. This is just the most famous one. **johnpost** said: > [@](#): > > Walter McCrone made claims of finding red ochre and vermilion tempera paint. That’s the guy. He was a highly skilled specialist in microscopy, included in the Shroud investigation team. He said he found traces of the pigments above. Joe Nickel cites him often, but I rarely hear anyone else even mention this, much less refute it. I do hear plenty of claims that there is no pigment found. That’s what puzzles me. How have the Shroud Believers addressed McCrone’s claims? As far as I can tell, they haven’t. **Jerseyman** said: > [@](#): > > What bothers me about simple fakery is that I can’t imagine the mediaeval mind thinking in terms of photographic negative images. Who says they were? The negative effect could just be an artifact of the process used to try to create some sort of visual effect that was not a mere paint drawing. It was discovered by accident, and became significant to people by virtue of existing, but was not intended at all. **aruvqan** said: > [@](#): > > I don’t have a dog in this race, but I have always had serious doubts about the carbon dating … if it has gone through a fire, and probably been washed, and is in direct contact with backing fabric, why cant c14 get mucked around with? molecules are rather migratory over short distances. Slightly touching surfaces wouldn’t make a significant difference. In order to skew the carbon ratio significantly, it would have to be a sizeable fraction of the material that was converted. They did not use an obviously burned or patched bit. But it was in a disturbed area near an edge. They took one strip and made three samples, and sent them to three independent labs. They received three values that were from ~1230 to ~1360 (my numbers are rough estimates). The only way for the Shroud to be genuine is if a significant portion of that sample was not original material to the shroud. As has been pointed out, a couple people did an in depth investigation of the Shroud and have good evidence that the area used for the sample was in fact a patch, a high quality patch of material interwoven, but actually of a different material. They got serious attention from one of the Shroud investigators from the team that did the carbon dating such that he felt it was worth serious inquiry. Unfortunately, he died of cancer. **Chefguy** said: > [@](#): > > It would seem that the claim that he “is considered the world’s leading paranormal investigator” is like claiming that he’s the world’s biggest charlatan. The willingness of people to pay people without a resume large sums of money to expound upon that which doesn’t exist always amazes me. But he does have a resume. I suppose the relevant question is what kind of resume would interest you. He’s a guy who has made a study of how people defraud others and mislead themselves, and he has applied those skills to paranormal claims in order to be a counterpoint to the charlatans and promoters. **md2000** said: > [@](#): > > Also, if this is real it’s proof of evolution. Jesus seems to have forearms so out of proportion and long they make him look like a monkey. His arms don’t look long to me. If he were slightly hunched, his arms would cross over the crotch like they do. > [@](#): > > Coming up with the possibility that someone also did invisble weave repairs on the edges where the carbon dating sample was taken from? That sounds like desperate fishing for an excuse why the test gave the unwanted answer. Look into the actual claims. They have good evidence. IR pictures show different coloration of the threads in that area. The weave pattern looks different. The technique used was available during the middle ages. The sample was taken from an area that had the disturbed weave on a diagonal across the strip. The strip was cut into three pieces. Each lab reported a different age that spans about a century. That is consistent with each lab getting a sample with a different amount of the patch material, skewing each number differently. What none of that addresses is when the patch would have occured, or how much it could skew the numbers. For example, how would a 50% patch of material from 1600 skew something to get a 1300 date? What would the other 50% be? Seems to my first guess it would date to ~1000 AD. Can’t see how that gets you to 33 A.D. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [October 14, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/44 "2009-10-14T23:57:13Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **CJJ** \* said: > > **Chefguy** said: > > But he does have a resume. I suppose the relevant question is what kind of resume would interest you. He’s a guy who has made a study of how people defraud others and mislead themselves, and he has applied those skills to paranormal claims in order to be a counterpoint to the charlatans and promoters. Ah. So his expertise is in debunking paranormal claims. I misunderstood him to claim to be a guy who deals in paranormal activities (I see dead people). ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 11:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/45 "2009-10-15T11:26:48Z")
If one believes the Scriptures the shroud could not be authentic, as John Kennedy pointed out in an earlier post: Peter saw the linen cloths and a napkin for the head, that in itself would prove the burial cloth of Jesus was not one long singular cloth, but linens is plural which indicates more than one, plus the head napkin, so the imprint would be on the head cloth and little would show on the long linen, and what were the other cloths that the gospel write tell were there? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/46 "2009-10-15T11:31:39Z")
If one believes the Scriptures the shroud could not be authentic, as John Kennedy pointed out in an earlier post: Peter saw the linen cloths and a napkin for the head, that in itself would prove the burial cloth of Jesus was not one long singular cloth, but linens is plural which indicates more than one, plus the head napkin, so the imprint would be on the head cloth and little would show on the long linen, and what were the other cloths that the gospel writer tells were there? ---
**Author:** ![President\_Johnny\_Gentle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f9b8f/32.png) [@President\_Johnny\_Gentle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/President_Johnny_Gentle)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/47 "2009-10-15T20:17:24Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > **CJJ** \* said: > > What none of that addresses is when the patch would have occured, or how much it could skew the numbers. For example, how would a 50% patch of material from 1600 skew something to get a 1300 date? What would the other 50% be? Seems to my first guess it would date to ~1000 AD. Can’t see how that gets you to 33 A.D. This is a reasonable estimate for a 50-50 mix. Making a bunch of simplifying assumptions (including a 5730 year half-life for Carbon-14), a 400-year old object should contain about 95.3% of its original C-14. A 700-year old object should contain about 91.2%. If 50% of the material were 400 years old, there would need to be material containing 87.1% of the expected C-14 in order to match the observed proportion. This must come from a sample which would be around 1150 years old. Another interesting question: what if the proportion of the 400-year old cloth were much higher? How much of it would be required for the cloth itself to be 2000 years old? We would expect a 2000-year old cloth to have about 78.5% of the expected C-14. A mixture of approximately 25% of this with about 75% of the newer material should do the trick here. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/48 "2009-10-16T19:43:27Z")
So a sample that was 1//4 2000 year old material and 3/4 400 year old material would resemble a sample that was 700 years old (i.e. circa 1300 A.D.)? ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/49 "2009-10-16T23:25:55Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > So a sample that was 1//4 2000 year old material and 3/4 400 year old material would resemble a sample that was 700 years old (i.e. circa 1300 A.D.)? The point being - AFAIK they used a pretty small sample. It would be odd if they got the right mix. It would be odder if all 3 tests got exactly the same mix. I still don’t understand why there would be invisible weave on the edge. You would think they would a a fairly large chunk of cloth, in which case the edge would be all 1 sample. If the second and original pieces match that well, they must have been made at the same time, same method, roughly same source material? ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2009, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794/50 "2009-10-19T19:35:07Z")
So I got around to checking Wiki. They discuss my previous questions about McCrone and his findings. **md2000** > [@](#): > > The point being - AFAIK they used a pretty small sample. It would be odd if they got the right mix. It would be odder if all 3 tests got exactly the same mix. My question was about how a patch from mideival times on cloth from 33 AD could mix to give results from mideival times. The answer: If a large amount of patch material from 1600s were mixed with a small amount of material from 33 AD, then it could average out around 1300s. YMMV. > [@](#): > > I still don’t understand why there would be invisible weave on the edge. You would think they would a a fairly large chunk of cloth, in which case the edge would be all 1 sample. If the second and original pieces match that well, they must have been made at the same time, same method, roughly same source material? The Catholic Church imposed severe restraints on the testing. They limited the material to one small sample site that was on the edge of the cloth and did not bear any of the image. They were very protective of the image part and the cloth as whole. They were originally going to have samples at six labs, that became three labs from one source sample. So the fact that all three labs got similar results removes the effect of any post sampling contaminations and improper test procedures. But the three independent labs got connected bits of cloth, so it is reasonable they would get similar results. What was insteresting was that the three dates were skewed across about a century (1260 - 1390). What is interesting about that is that the people who detected the possible patch project a seam line of the weave between the original linen and cotton from the patch runs diagonally across the sample site. That would mean each lab received a slightly different amount of each material. > [@](#): > > By ultraviolet photography and spectral analysis they determined that the area of the shroud chosen for the test samples differs chemically from the rest of the cloth. They cite the presence of Madder-root dye and aluminum-oxide mordant (a dye-fixing agent) specifically in that corner of the shroud and conclude that this part of the cloth may have been mended at some point in its history. > > A 2000 study by Joseph Marino and Sue Benford, based on x-ray analysis of the sample sites, shows a “probable” seam from a repair attempt running diagonally through the area from which the sample was taken. These researchers conclude that the samples tested by the three labs may potentially have been contaminated by this possible repair attempt. They further note that the results of the three labs show an angular skewing corresponding to the diagonal seam: the first sample in Arizona dated to 1238, the second to 1430, with the Oxford and Swiss results falling in between. They add that the variance of the C-14 results of the three labs falls outside the bounds of the Pearson’s chi-square test, so that some additional explanation should be sought for the discrepancy. To the contrary J. A. Christen applied a strong statistical test to the radiocarbon data and concludes that the given age for the shroud is from a statistical point of view correct.[55] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html#](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html#) > [@](#): > > Sue Benford and Joe Marina, from Ohio, suspected the 1988 sample was from a damaged section of the linen shroud repaired in the 16th century after being damaged in a fire. > > Rogers said: “I was irritated and determined to prove Sue and Joe wrong.” > > However, when he came to examine threads taken in 1978 - luckily from the same section as the 1988 sample - he found cotton in them. > > He said: "The cotton fibres were fairly heavily coated with dye, suggesting they were changed to match the linen during a repair. > > "I concluded that area of the shroud was manipulated by someone with great skill. > > "Sue and Joe were right. The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken. > > “It consisted of different materials than were used in the shroud itself, so the age we produced was inaccurate.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-shroud-of-turin/512794.md?page=2)