Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 06-05-2003, 04:34 PM

From the post of mfarber:

Quote:

Does this Middle Eastern Jewish face (left) look anything like the European face on the Shroud(right)?

The above is written under a photo of a rather round-headed (allegedly) Jewish man side-by-side with the long figure (long head, long body) of the Man of the Shroud of Turin. It really proves nothing: there's so much intra-group variation in physiognomy (among modern American/Israeli Jews compare Sandy Koufax with Ariel Sharon) that the appearance can only tell us so much. Most scholars who have looked at it believe the features of the Man of the Shroud are compatible with a 1st Century Jewish origin for the Man. But that only establishes the POSSIBILITY.
Cheers!

Secular Pinoy · 06-05-2003, 04:39 PM

Thanks for the links. I see that you've been debunked before, and there's no need to retread it again.

Unbeliever · 06-05-2003, 05:18 PM

There is a very interesting discussion of the shroud in the book The Second Messiah, by Robert Lomas. It might be worth a look. And I'm curious to see what others think about the hypothesis he puts forth.

Principia · 06-05-2003, 05:20 PM

Well, since we're just posting rehashed arguments, let's try these simple rebuttals to the blood claim that leonard(e) posted:

Quote:

Giorgio Frache, a forensic serologist, Guido Filogamo, a radiologist, and Alberto Brandone, a physicist, were all members of the Turin Commission, which examined the shroud in 1973. Along with their colleagues, Frache and Filogamo applied a variety of chemical and microscopic tests to shroud 'blood' sherds that consistently yielded negative results for blood. Brandone's contribution could not identify blood per se, since it analyzed only elements. But he did note that some elements that would be expected in blood, such as sodium and phosphorus, were not found. Obviously, there is a chance that the result of any one of these tests is mistaken. It is, though, a small one, as these tests became standard precisely because of their reliability. The odds that ALL of the tests run by four separate groups gave false negatives, however, is negligible.

The largest group of tests claimed to show positive for blood were conducted by STURP members Alan Adler and Joseph Heller. None of the tests they chose are specific for blood and none of them are used by forensic chemists for that purpose. Here, the probability of false positives is most important.

AAMOF, forensic investigator John F. Fischer showed, in a paper presented at the 1984 conference of the Society of Investigation (but you can read his summary in Appendix A of Joe Nickell, "Inquest on the Shroud of Turin") that ALL of Adler's and Heller's results could be duplicated with a mixture of iron ochre and rose madder pigments in egg tempera. This is especially significant in light of some of McCrone's other analyses, which found among other substances iron ocher, rose madder, and a proteinaceous binder he believes to be tempera paint medium. In light of Fischer's demonstration, the probability that Adler's and Heller's tests generated false positives is very nearly one.

There is also a DNA replication analysis conducted by Victor and Nancy Tryon. The technique is somewhat controversial, and Tryon explained the pitfalls thus. "I have no idea who or where the DNA signal came from, nor how long it's been there." It is, he says, not necessarily the remains of blood. "Everyone who has ever touched the shroud or cried over the shroud has left a potential DNA signal there." [Time, April 20, 1998]. In light of Dr. Tryon's doubts as to the source of the DNA signal, it's best to consider this analysis inconclusive.

Finally, there is the claim by Perluigi Baima-Bollone that an antigen-antibody test detected blood type AB. Prof. Baima-Bollone has not, however, published this result in the professional literature where it can be evaluated. His research has appeared instead in a now defunct shroud fanzine. In addition, Baima-Bollone has an interesting history. In addition to the shroud, he also identified brown stains on a 10th century fake relic as being human blood type AB [http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm] and allegedly validated the miraculous blood of Saint Januarius
[http://www.spectrometer.org/path/blood.html]. Baima-Bollone seems to have become a 'go-to' guy for confirming miraculous blood. Personal Aside: Let's hear leonard(e) expound on the specificity of immunological tests to albumin

In sum, McCrone's negative tests for blood are supported by multiple batteries of chemical, spectroscopic and microscopic analyses by others. They are contradicted by tests that are either inconclusive, undocumented, of dubious value, or from dubious sources.

From here

Principia · 06-05-2003, 05:30 PM

For more references on debunking Shroudies, I'd suggest the latest FAQs on USENET:

1 out of 3

2 out of 3

3 out of 3

Enjoy!

PS: of course, one should not make light of mfaber's efforts. Good job!

Peter Kirby · 06-05-2003, 05:37 PM

There is a section on the Turin shroud in my review of Gary Habermas.

best,
Peter Kirby

leonarde · 06-05-2003, 06:36 PM

Partial post:

Quote:

In sum, McCrone's negative tests for blood are supported by multiple batteries of chemical, spectroscopic and microscopic analyses by others. They are contradicted by tests that are either inconclusive, undocumented, of dubious value, or from dubious sources

What this and the previous quoted material omits is:

1) McCrone was originally a member of the STURP.

2) He refused further participation in STURP when he was challenged by other members regarding his finding that the 'blood' was merely pigment.

3) His findings in this matter were published by his own in-house journal "The Microscope" at the McCrone Institute. His work on the Shroud has appeared in NO scholarly journal which was not run/owned by him. The OTHER members of STURP, a body whose examination of the Shroud covered the years 1977 to 1981 and was far more extensive and in depth than that of the (much smaller) Turin Commission and to this day is considered the definitive scientific investigation of the S of Turin, have published their findings in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

Cheers!.

Principia · 06-05-2003, 06:50 PM

Quote:

3) His findings in this matter were published by his own in-house journal "The Microscope" at the McCrone Institute. His work on the Shroud has appeared in NO scholarly journal which was not run/owned by him. The OTHER members of STURP, a body whose examination of the Shroud covered the years 1977 to 1981 and was far more extensive and in depth than that of the (much smaller) Turin Commission and to this day is considered the definitive scientific investigation of the S of Turin, have published their findings in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

But ironically, what this ignores is that McCrone need no longer defend himself. Let's reread again the sentence this paragraph purports to answer:

Quote:

In sum, McCrone's negative tests for blood are supported by multiple batteries of chemical, spectroscopic and microscopic analyses by others.

If leonard(e) wants peer-review to be a standard in this discussion, then let it be known now -- it can only hurt the case against shroud authenticity. If leonard(e) wants to argue qualifications, then it should be noted that neither Alder nor Heller were qualified for forensic analyses or serology. If leonard(e) wants to talk about definitive, published scientific work, then we should accept the Nature article with the C14 data (which to this date, fanatics are still misinterpreting to fit their worldview).

As for the claim that "every scientific test they could think of" was conducted, let's read further:

Quote:

In truth, every one of the tests they claim to have performed is poorly conceived, non-specific for blood, and riddled with possibilities for false positives, After conducting a test for porphyrins, for instance, Heller and Adler admit they conducted no followup tests to determine if their porphyrin was hemoglobin or one of the many hundreds of other chemicals that would give the same results,including chlorophyll, a comtaminant in the plant-derived dye rosemadder. They presumptively decided that a finding of iron had toindicate hemoglobin, despite spectroscopic tests indicating it wasinorganic. Despite the number of possible sources of protein,including tempera paint binder, Heller and Adler would consider noother possibility than blood. For test after test, Heller and Adler failed to perform the necessary followup work to confirm that they had really identified blood and not something else. As one skeptical investigator showed, all of their results are consistent with iron ochre and rose madder pigments in a tempera binder. Since they knew that McCrone had already reported finding all three, Heller's and Adler's failure to conduct tests that ruled out those substances is inexcusable.

Indeed, the set of every conceivable positive test often fails to account for all conceivable tests against false positives. A novice mistake, when properly motivated by extrascientific concerns.

mfaber · 06-05-2003, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
From one of the linked URLs:
Two problems:

1) they didn't "ignore" that iron can be found in paint; they found that the trace amounts of medieval pigment on the Shroud were inadequate to account for the body image. Just not enough of it.

It is paint that is on the Shroud:

REAL BLOOD turns dark and brown (left) on linen but notice the bright red of the "blood" on the Shroud (right)==>NO WAY that is 2 millenia old "whole blood"!

This is a high-mag picture of a tape lift from a "bloody" area on the Shroud==it is RED OCHRE, NOT BLOOD

From Shroud Update 1999

Quote:

2) their conclusion that the substance was indeed blood was NOT
"by the simple fact that iron and protein were present" on the shroud but by using the following tests:

1. High iron in blood areas by X-ray fluorescence.
WRONG, this test done in 1978 can't distinguish between the iron pigment in blood or iron pigment in ink or paint. No follow-up was done to confirm that the iron here was actually from human blood

2.Indicative reflection spectra.
3.Indicative microspectrophotometric transmission spectra.
4.Chemical generation of characteristic porphyrin fluorescence.
5.Positive hemochromogen tests.
6.Positive cyanomethemoglobin tests.
7.Positive detection of bile pigments.
WRONG! All of these tests would have given false-positives because of the red ochre (an iron-based pigment)plus the fact that the tempura paint of the time contained collagen, albumin, protein, (from egg yolks, yolks also can contain hemoglobin from blood-vessels it there's a chick embryo there). Again, these tests are not presumptive tests for blood and no follow-up was made to verify these "positives" to see if they were indeed true reactions to blood or simply the "false-positive" reactions to other substances.

8.Positive demonstration of protein.
9.Positive indication of albumin.
10.Protease tests, leaving no residue.
Yes, BUT to the proteins and albumin were almost certainly from the egg yolks used in the paint, NOT from blood. Again, no follow-up tests were done to prove that these were from blood.

11.Positive immunological test for human albumin.
IMPOSSIBLE! Blood is very perishable and the oldest human blood on record that still had enough undegraded proteins for such an antigen test was 10 years old. To see the problems with trying to determine this sort of thing, HERE is a discussion of a case of a manuscript that was reputed to be signed in blood in the 17th century and owners were trying to think of a way to verify whether this is the case. The bottom-line here is that IF there was blood on the Shroud, there is no way to determine if it was human because:

It would be too old to test (no way to tell if it were human, let alone do a test for blood-type, remember the Shroud believers claim that there AB blood from a male, meaning that there was undegraded DNA there, too)
The Shroud of Turin had been subjected to a fire in 1532 which melted the silver box (melting point of silver= 961�C) in which it was kept. Thus, one can conclude that the temperature was well above the temperature at which proteins denature (100�C), making their conclusions invalid.

12.Microscopic appearance as compared withappropriate controls.
Bull, see the pictures above showing what real blood looks like on linen plus the micrograph showing that the "blood" is just paint.

13.Forensic judgement of the appearance of the various wound and blood marks.
WRONG! Real blood smears and the little "riverlets" are very precise as described here:

Quote:

"...There is not the slightest sign on the Shroud of smearing of any of the bloodstains - each bloodstain is precise and unsmeared. Now, in taking Jesus' body down from the cross, and extracting the spikes, the soldiers certainly would have taken no special care or precautions in handling the body. The spear-thrust must have resulted in one or more quarts of blood flowing down the side of the abdomen, thigh, calf and foot. The body must have been so bloody from head to foot that it would be very difficult to handle it at all.

The actions of Joseph and Nicodemus of washing the body may have caused a pool of blood to collect at Jesus' side under the spear wound and at the feet. Those are the only bloodstains that show on the Shroud of Turin that might have been formed after he was taken from the cross. No other blood flows on the Shroud run toward the sides of the body, as if he were lying on his back as the blood flowed. Instead, all of he other blood flows run approximately from head to foot, as gravity would take the blood as he hung on the cross..."
- Frank C. Tribbe, Portrait of Jesus? (1983)

Leonarde, there is NO BLOOD on the Shroud, much less is there typable "whole blood" there (blood undegraded enough to test to see if it were human, type AB, or contain male DNA)

Toto · 06-05-2003, 10:25 PM

So why do you think Herschel Shanks and Ben Witherington proposed trying to match DNA from the James ossuary with DNA from the shroud? Are they pulling our legs or are they that confused?

From this thread

Ossuary Discussed

Quote:

Currently, Hershel Shanks, editor of "Biblical Archeology Review" and co-author, with Witherington, of "The Brother of Jesus," is requesting the bone fragments from the antiquities collector in Jerusalem who owned the ossuary.

If the bones are released, mitochondrial DNA samples will be extracted and tested against the DNA found on the Shroud of Turin.

Matching mitochondrial DNA will show that the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus and that James and Jesus were brothers.

The Shroud, however, has been extensively studied in the past and carbon dating showed it to be from the Middle Ages.

"The Shroud went through a huge fire and Carbon 14 dating dates carbon. When something catches on fire, it is carbonized," said Witherington. "I think what they dated was the fire, not the age of the shroud."

The Shroud will not be available for further testing until 2008, and at that time scientists and scholars are hoping to re-examine the evidence.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 04:39 PM	#12
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Thanks for the links. I see that you've been debunked before, and there's no need to retread it again.

06-05-2003, 05:18 PM	#13
Unbeliever Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ca., USA Posts: 283	There is a very interesting discussion of the shroud in the book The Second Messiah, by Robert Lomas. It might be worth a look. And I'm curious to see what others think about the hypothesis he puts forth.

06-05-2003, 05:30 PM	#15
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	For more references on debunking Shroudies, I'd suggest the latest FAQs on USENET: 1 out of 3 2 out of 3 3 out of 3 Enjoy! PS: of course, one should not make light of mfaber's efforts. Good job!

06-05-2003, 05:37 PM	#16
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	There is a section on the Turin shroud in my review of Gary Habermas. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.