|
S i d e b a r
What was so convincing?
By Robert Babecka
|
This Rock
Volume 11, Number 5-6
 May/June 2000 
|
|
|
The image on the Shroud becomes more compelling as more technology is applied to it. The Shroud was first photographed in 1898. When the negative of the image was viewed it appeared to be the photograph of a majestic man, showing the wounds consistent with the suffering of Christ before his death. The visible image of the Shroud is much less distinct. Black and white photographs of the Shroud are more distinct than the visible image but not so much as a photographic negative. The photographic negative is so distinct that the photographer was accused of fraud and not vindicated until years later when the Shroud was again made available for public view and again photographed.
When a photograph of the Shroud is viewed through a machine (VP 8 analyzer) that converts the difference in shading to a three dimensional relief a very close approximation of a threedimensional image of a man is seen. This phenomenon does not happen with photographs. Such an image would only be created if the original image was either formed by a process whereby image intensity was related to the thickness of the body perpendicular to the cloth (such as whole body radiation) OR to the distance of the body from the cloth.
The three dimensional image does appear too flat and has some distortions when compared with a real three dimensional image of a man. These distortions disappear if the shroud was draped over a body when the image was formed and the image was only "projected" perpendicular to a plane running through the body separating front and back. These distortions become irrelevant if one believes the image was crafted in such a way so that it would appear realistic when viewed as both a photographic negative and as a three dimensional relief if God had deliberately imposed the image on the cloth.
Dr. August Accetta, a medical practitioner conducted an interesting experiment to compare the image formed on the shroud with that formed by a "radioactive" human body with striking results. Dr. Accetta injected himself with technetium 99, a radioactive isotope used to produce a photograph of a diseased person's bones. This element is absorbed into the flesh from the blood stream, but slowly moves to the bones. He took the image created by the radiation emanating from his body and viewed it in a VP 8 analyzer. There were some interesting similarities between that image and the one of the Shroud. One similarity involved the fingers on the upper hand the hands are crossed over one another. Instead of a perfect three dimensional image, the fingers on the upper hand "crash down," appearing to be sticking out of the side of the lower hand on both images. On the x ray image this is caused because the intensity of the image is proportional to the amount of flesh and bone present. The fingers appear to be sticking out of the upper hand because there is only an air gap beneath them at the point they are no longer above the lower hand. Since the image on the Shroud crashes down at exactly the same point for each finger, this is strong evidence that the image was formed similarly by radiation emitted from a body. Since all four fingers crash down at the point that the lower hand is no longer below the fingers, a coincidental change in shading is unlikely.
There is a relic in Ovelda, Spain with a well documented history that helps confirm the validity of the Shroud. This relic is claimed to be the cloth that was wrapped around Jesus Christ's head when he was removed from the cross and brought to the tomb for burial. There is no image on this cloth. The confirmation comes from the fact that some of the blood stains match perfectly with some on the Shroud. There is not a perfect match between all of the bloodstains, but the perfect matching of some complex patterns is evident. I viewed these matching blood patterns myself Furthermore, the blood on both cloths is of type AB.
The whip marks on the shroud match with wounds that would have been caused by a Roman whip, typically bone or metal tipped. This would have been a pointless detail for a forger to replicate for a medieval relic. Additionally, ultraviolet examination of these wounds show images surrounding the wounds consistent with images that would be formed by blood serum residue.
The nail holes are through the wrists, not the hdnds. This is different than conventional wisdom now and during medieval times. Subsequent testing with fresh cadavers has shown that hands would not support the force on the arms of a crucified individual.
Bloodstains on the face of the shroud do not match ideally to the image. They do match ideally if one assumes that the blood stains were the result of contact between a three dimensional body and the image was from by a projection of that body perpendicular to a plane passing through the body, cutting it in half, front to back. This is supported by the fact that there is no image beneath the bloodstains. This supports the theory that the bloodstains were caused by direct contact with the dead body, and the image was formed later as a consequence of the Resurrection. If such a relic were forged it would not make sense to put the blood on before the image, just as when drawing a portrait it would not make sense to draw some small detail and then fill in the rest of the face around the detail. Also, it does not make sense to place bloodstains on the body in such a manner as to make them appear improperly located without careful examination. There are other bloodstains that only appear properly located if one assumes the three dimensional body that is projected by the image of the Shroud.
Despite the detection of some paint on the shroud (possibly caused by artists touching their copies to the Shroud over the years), chemical and spectroscopic analyses confirm the blood is blood. Additionally, the image was not painted, but formed by the dehydration and de oxidation of selected fibers. Basically, these fibers exhibit the characteristics of aging. Such aging can be caused by exposure to radiation or reaction with an acid.
Besides the above, there was additional evidence that supported the validity of the Shroud.
Pollen on the shroud indicates it resided in Jerusalem some time before its recorded history.
The blood on the Shroud is loaded with bilirubin. Bilirubin is produced in a living human when the blood is physically damaged as during a severe beating.
The wounds on the head appear to have been caused by a cap or clump of thorns, not a crown of thorns as is typically depicted in paintings of the crucifixion. At first glance this seems inconsistent, but upon reflection it makes more sense. I can hardly imagine a group of Roman soldiers taking the time to weave a crown of thorns just to taunt a prisoner. Also, with so many of the little details being effectively replicated, why wouldn't a forger have been able to get such a simple detail right?
There is strong Circumstantial evidence to support the existence of the Shroud before its arrival in Europe and even back to the time of Christ. This evidence is supported by examination of the pollen found on the Shroud. It confirms the Shroud was present in these reported locations. This evidence is too complex for me to do justice.
The only significant evidence against the validity of the Shroud is the Carbon 14
dating that was done. (Carbon 14 dating is used to determine the date when what was living matter had died. It can be very accurate, provided the once living material did not undergo significant reactions involving carbon replacement following its death. Fires and bacterial growth can cause significant replacement of carbon atoms.) Several facts show this evidence is not strong.
Measurements were taken from three samples from one location. This location is immediately adjacent to a section damaged severely in a fire in medieval times (1532 AD). Scientists involved with the project strongly urged the Vatican to allow samples from three different locations, and that none of these samples be from fire damaged areas. This was necessary to confirm that the dates determined were consistent over different locations and limit the error introduced by more recent chemical reactions. The Vatican did not follow this advice.
The three laboratories did not work independently of one another and they did not test the samples blind. Both of these practices are usually employed to provide confirmation that results were independent and unbiased.
Microscopic photographs of cross sections of individual fibrils show that at least some of the fibrils, which are typically hollow, were filled with bioplastic residue from still growing bacteria. This residue is harder than the fibrils themselves and would not have been removed by cleaning. The jury is still out on whether this condition had an impact. The samples used seemed to be of reasonable weights for their dimensions. The impact of the bacterial growth on fibril weight needs to be measured so that it can be determined whether such growth could have been present in the samples.
The results of the testing show the samples used for dating were not homogeneous. For the dating to be accurate the samples must be taken from areas that are representative of the entire Shroud. If the actual dates determined are viewed along with their location they show a linear progression of obtained dates. The closer the individual sample is to the fire damaged areas, the younger it was dated.
Two subsequent samples were taken and carbon dated, yielding dates for the Shroud in the first century. Rigorous laboratory practices do not seem to have been followed for these samples either, so I do not believe they are conclusive.
Statistical review of the data used to determine the medieval date for the Shroud seems to indicate that there was too much difference in the dates obtained by the three laboratories for the results to be conclusive, regardless of where the samples were taken. This presentation involved some complex statistical calculations and moved too fast for me to be able to tell whether the logic was sound. I will need to read the published paper before I can fully understand this analysis.
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
