Apocalypse House
http://www.apocalypsehouse.com
Norbert H. Kox
nhkox@yahoo.com
Correspondence to
Apocalypse House from Shroud researcher Joe Marino:
Hello,
I saw your article about the Shroud on the web. I thought you might be
interested in some recent research my partner, Sue Benford and I have done
pertaining to the C-14 dating.
We presented a paper in Orvieto, Italy in August 2000 hypothesizing that the
1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud was in error due to a 16th century
restoration. You can find that paper at: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf
(does not have all of the original illustrations). Two follow-up papers
were also published. You can find those at:
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/textevid.pdf
and
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/histsupt.pdf.
Our hypothesis was tested by former Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP)
chemist Ray Rogers, who still possesses Shroud samples/fibers. His
extensive comparative testing led him to conclude that our hypothesis of a 16th
century patch skewing the C-14 dating was, in fact, correct. His findings
were published at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
. Also in 2002, a paper by another STURP team member, the late Dr. Alan
Adler, who was on the official Conservation Committee, was published. His
findings also strongly support our theory. He also mentions the link
between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo as part of the evidence
indicating that the C-14 dating was in error.
I have taken the liberty of citing the key passages from both Drs. Adler and
Rogers. Despite this compelling evidence, most media and the general
population, including apparently the Turin authorities, are turning a blind eye
to it all. Part of the reason is that it was overshadowed by the
restoration of the Shroud that took place in Summer 2002, but there still just
seems to be an innate resistance to believing in something that seems too good
to be true.
**************************************************************************************************
From "Further Spectroscopic Investigations of Samples of the Shroud of
Turin," by Alan D. Adler, Russell Selzer and Frank DeBlase.
Presented at 1998 Dallas Symposium.
A radiocarbon dating of samples taken from the Shroud reported a mid-14th
century date, seemingly settling the authenticity issue. However, it is
now argued that since it was not old enough to be authentic, it must be a
painting. Unfortunately, a detailed protocol for sampling the cloth to
assure both precision and accuracy recommended by a convened meeting of
consultants was not followed. Only a single sample was taken from a
rewoven edge in a waterstained area a few inches from one of the burn marks
incurred in the historically recorded 1532 fire. This location was near
the bottom of the frontal body image on the edge where a large section of cloth
is missing below the seamed so-called side strip. No historic record
exists accounting for this missing material and how or when this damage
occurred. The nature and/or extent of the repairs undertaken here are
also unknown. Therefore, the possibility exists that this selvage edge
might be linen not original to the Shroud.
The selection of this single suspicious sample
site is a sufficient reason to doubt the accuracy of the radiodate. This
spectroscopic investigation was therefore undertaken to determine whether any
evidence can be obtained to support such doubts.
FTIR: Typical spectral absorption patterns for
each fiber type and the blood samples are displayed in Figures 1 through 11 and
clearly show distinctive differences indicating differences in their chemical
makeup. It should be noted that there is more variation in the patterns
of the radiocarbon samples representing an area of a few square centimeters
than in those of the non-image samples taken from areas a whole body-image
length apart.
…Note this is specifically true for the
radiocarbon fibers and the non-image fibers from the bulk of the cloth, thereby
demonstrating that the area selected for the radiocarbon sampling is atypical
and is not clearly representative of the rest of the Shroud.
…Again, it should be noted that a great deal of
variability was evidenced in the radiocarbon samples. Some of the patchy
encrustations were so thick as to mask the underlying carbon of fibers whose
continuity were clearly obvious in the microscope images.
…there is clearly evident chemical compositional
difference between this sample area and the non-image areas of the cloth.
In fact, the FTIR data for the radiocarbon sample, in a sense confirming its
inappropriate physical location, shows physical characteristics of both the
waterstain and scorch regions of the cloth. To what extent this affects
the observed date is not at all obvious. Nevertheless, the accuracy of
the reported date is justifiably suspect. Further, comparison of the
dorsal head wounds on the Shroud with a similar pattern of wounds on the 7th
century Cloth of Oviedo confirms the the inaccuracy of the reported radiocarbon
date.
From "Scientific Method Applied to the Shroud of Turin: A
Review" by Dr. Ray Rogers: http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf
We have recently found that some plant gum, mordants, and dye(s) coat the yarn
of the sample which was taken by Gilbert Raes in 1973 for textile
analysis.. These deposits are unique to the Raes sample; however, that
area was in immediate contact with the radiocarbon sample that was removed for
dating in 1988. This fact makes the validity of the radiocarbon sample
questionable.
The 1988 radiocarbon age determinations were the best that could have been
obtained anywhere in the world. Effects of sample-preparation methods
were studied and careful statistical analyses were made. Damon, et al.,
reported that "The age of the shroud is obtained as AD 1260-1390, with at
least 95% confidence." Unfortunately, that date does not reflect the
STURP observations on the linen-production technology and the chemistry of the
fibers from the tape samples...
Unfortunately, the sample was approved at the time of sampling by two textile
experts, Franco Testore, professor of Textile Technology at the Turin
Polytechnic, and Gabriel Vial, curator of the Ancient Textile Museum, Lyon,
France. No chemical or microscopic investigations were made to
characterized the sample. I believe that was a major disaster in the
history of Shroud studies.
Samples from the main part of the cloth are significantly different from the
Raes sample with regard to cotton content.
Differences between amounts of lignin on linen fibers in the Raes samples and
on Shroud fibers are significant. There is probably a similar difference
between the radiocarbon samples and the main part of the Shroud.
The outside of Raes thread #14 showed the heaviest encrustation and deepest
color of any of the samples. The encrustation is heaviest on cotton
fibers, it is the vehicle for the yellow-brown color, and it suggests that the
cotton was added by wiping a viscous liquid on the outside of the yarn in order
to match the color of new material to the old, sepia color of the Shroud.
…the presence of a gum coating on retained 1988 radiocarbon-dating samples
would prove that the samples were not representative of the main part of the
relic's cloth. Such a lack of association would prove that the
radiocarbon date is invalid.
Raes thread #1 shows distinct encrustation and color on one end, but the other
end is nearly white…This section of yarn is obviously an end-to-end splice of
two different batches of yarn. No splices of this type were observed in
the main part of the Shroud.
The radiocarbon sample area is darker than normal, a fact that is not the
result of image color or scorching. The cloth is much less fluorescent in
that area, brightening into more normal fluorescence to the right. The
photograph proves that the radiocarbon area has a different chemical
composition than the main part of the cloth, and it is truly anomalous.
The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography,
and residual lignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is
significantly different from the radiocarbon sampling area. The validity
of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the
production of the main part of the cloth. A rigorous application of
Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a better
selection of samples.
Linen-production technology indicates that the Shroud of Turin is probably
older than indicated by the dates obtained in 1988. There seems to be
ample evidence that an anomalous area was sampled for the radiocarbon analysis;
therefore, the reported age is almost certainly invalid for the date the cloth
was produced.
**************************************************************************************************
Additional evidence has come out in the past few months that strengthens the
argument that the C-14 area contained a 16th century patch. This evidence
has only been mentioned so far on an Internet "ShroudScience" group
to which I belong. The group's membership includes some of the original
"Shroud of Turin Research Project" (STURP) members, including
documenting photographer Barrie Schwortz, editor and publisher of the
world-renowned website www.shroud.com
The new evidence is from a photo called the "Blue Quad Mosaic" and is
of the C-14 sample area. It was taken by scientific photographer Vern
Miller of STURP and processed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena,
California by fellow STURP members Don Lynn, Jean Lorre, Ray Rogers and Barrie
Schwortz. Ray Rogers said in a posting to the group that it was another
important piece of scientific evidence supporting the belief that the area
sampled for the 1988 C14 dating was anomalous.
According to Barrie Schwortz per a posting to the group:
I originally believed that the various colors indicated
differences in spectral reflectivity. However, Jean [Lorre]
points out that these actually indicate differences in
chemical composition. So the similarities in the patch in
the lower left corner and the areas immediately adjoining
it, actually indicate those areas are similar in chemical
composition and different from other areas of the Shroud. Of
course, we would expect the patches to be different because
we know they are made of different material than the rest of
the Shroud. However, notice that the area adjoining the
patch (where the c14 sample was taken from, and ostensibly
part of the actual Shroud) is also mostly the same color of
green. This is further convincing, supportive, scientific
evidence that this area is inherently different in
composition than the rest of the Shroud. The fact that the
UV fluorescence photography images also clearly show
different fluorescence properties in exactly the same areas,
coupled with Ray Rogers' detailed chemical and microscopic
analyses and the Marino-Benford textile evidence that has
been presented over the last few years, all make me believe
that the 1988 c14 samples of the Shroud were taken from an
anomalous portion of the cloth.
Benford and I also recently authored a Shroud article that will appear in the
Jan/Feb 2004 issue of the new periodical Phenomena. The magazine
has been delayed and is not yet on the stands but should be soon.
I hope you find this helpful.
Sincerely,
Joe Marino
Norbert H. Kox
nhkox@yahoo.com