I was about to do an annotated Cliff notes of the thread just to bring up to date the litany of promises from both Jabba and Jabbapapa, who assure us they are busily searching for the links they are sure they have, yet currently cannot find, and was happily multiquoting, until I hit this:
Just says it all, really. 139 pages about authenticity? Nah, doesn't matter, not important.
Good grief.
Well here's my summary.
Firstly the evidence against the authenticity of the shroud:
1. Historical:
a) the lack of evidence for the shroud's existence prior to the mid fourteenth century
b) it's emergence during the 'holy relic' craze (along with about forty other such burial shrouds)
c) lack of mention of a miraculously imaged Shroud in any early Christian writings
d) the distinct changes in the shroud, fading of colour, since its first exposure
2. Physiological:
e) the lack of resemblance of the shroud image to an actual human body;
f) likewise the position of the body with hands folded across the genitals which simply isn't possible for a body lying flay (the arms aren't long enough)
3. Textile:
g) the weave pattern of the shroud does not match anything known from first century Mid East
h) the weave pattern matches medieval Europe well;
i) no example of the complex herringbone twill weave has even been shown to come from the first century Mid East
4. Testimony:
j) the d'Arcis Memo indicates the shroud was created around 1354 and was a known fake
5. Artistic:
k) the face of the image resembles medieval Byzantine style, with Gothic elements;
l) the unnaturally elongated body shape and extremities are typical of the elongated style the Late Medieval/High Gothic period
6. Reproducibility:
m) contrary to the claims of shroudies the image can and has been reproduced using medieval methods
7. Analytic:
n) microscopic examination, (including non-visible, polarised light and electron microscopy) shows the shroud is composed of common artistic pigments of the period of its origin
o) chemical testing shows the same
p) radiocarbon testing, carried out under highly controlled conditions by three laboratories. showed the cloth to originate between 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
8. Cultural:
q) the shroud does not match with what is documented and known of first century Jewish burial practices
r) nor does the shroud match the only extant sample of such burial cloths;
s) neither does the shroud match the biblical accounts of the burial cloths;
t) there any no demonstrated artefacts of the putative Jesus extant today
u) the supposed historical background does not suggest that such a cloth would have been preserved, certainly without publicity prior, to ~1355
9. Serological:
v) a minor point (as blood probably wouldn't survive this long anyway) but despite the best attempts of (and much lying and pseudoscience by) shroudies, there is no evidence for blood residue
And a quick summary of the radiocarbon dating.
1. under heavy supervision a sample of the shroud were removed on 21APR1988 by Riggi; the strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas and was split into three pieces and sealed into containers by Ballestrero and Tite.
2. the samples were subjected to a dating technique called accelerator mass spectroscopy, selected because it required less sample material than earlier techniques; three labs, Oxford, Arizona and Zürich were selected to carry out the testing
3. cleaning was done with expert input (including Proctor & Gamble), this removed ~30% of the sample mass. Each laboratory used slightly different methods; hot ether, ultrasonic bath, vacuum pipette, repeated acid and alkali baths with intermediate washing, detergents, ethanol, bleach
4. the three laboratories analysed shroud samples in conjunction with three other supplied sample of known provenance
5. all three analyses agreed, the shroud dates from 1260 and 1390AD (>95 per cent confidence) and between 1000 and 1500AD (>99.9 per cent confidence)
6. the results were formally published in Nature in February 1989:
“These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the shroud of Turin is medieval”
7. accusations from believers began almost immediately accusing scientists of faking the tests or substituting samples.
8. later various claims of mysterious contaminants or patching were invoked to justify non-acceptance of the dating results
And finally more than any shroudie ever wanted to know about decontamination of the shroud samples.
Each laboratory (Zürich, Oxford and Arizona) carried out a comprehensive, multi-stage, cleaning of their sample. Firstly by microscopic examination and removal of gross contaminants, followed by preliminary cleaning using a mix of ultrasonic bathing, vacuum pipetting and/or hot ether soaking.
After this the samples were split and more stringent methods were used.
Zürich
The Zürich group split each ultrasonically cleansed sample in half; the first half of the original sample was again split into three parts and these [one sixth portions] were subjected to different tratments:
1. soaking in room temperature baths of 0.5% hydrochloric acid, 0.25% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
2. no further treatment
3. soaking in hot (80°C) 5% hydrochloric acid, 2.5% sodium hydroxide and then acid again; samples were rinsed with purified water between each course.
The second batch of samples were retained until after the first radiocarbon dating run was completed. As this showed no evidence of contamination, the second set was split into two portions, to which the weak and strong chemical treatments were applied.
Arizona
The Arizona group split the shroud sample into four subsamples.
1. one pair of subsamples was treated by soaking in dilute hydrochloric acid, dilute sodium hydroxide and again acid, with purified water rinsing in between baths.
2. the second pair of subsamples was treated with two commercial detergents (with advice supplied by Proctor & Gamble), distilled water and 0.1% hydrochloric acid; after this the samples were then submitted to a Soxhlet extraction with ethanol for an hour, followed by further washing with distilled water at 70°C in an ultrasonic bath.
Oxford
The Oxford group divided their pre-cleaned sample into three parts.
1. all three parts were bathed in 1 molar hydrochloric acid at 80°C for two hours followed by 1 molar sodium hydroxide at 80°C for two hours and again in acid, with rinsing in between.
2. two of the three samples were then bleached in 2.5% sodium oxychloride [bleach] for thirty minutes.
Each laboratory used the same techniques on the four cloth samples provided, the shroud and the three controls with one exception; one of the control samples used at Zürich disintegrated while being cleaned and so it was additionally centrifuged to retain the material.
.
