list of evidences 10d Barrie - The Shroud of Turin Website

The combined evidence from chemistry, cotton content, technology, photography, ultraviolet fluorescence, and residuallignin proves that the material of the main part of the Shroud is significantly different from the radiocarbon samplingarea. The validity of the radiocarbon sample must be questioned with regard to dating the production of the main partof the cloth. A rigorous application of Scientific Method would demand a confirmation of the date with a betterselection of samples (Van Haelst 1997, Adler, 2000; Raes 1976; Rogers 2002, Brunati 2003).-b) About the possible reweaving done in the l6 th century it is stated that “There is no doubt that the Shroud does notcontain any reweaving” (Flury Lemberg 2003) and this is also confirmed by others (Alonso 2003).-c) Adler noted that "...a great deal of variability was evidenced in the radiocarbon samples. Some of the patchyencrustations (see Rogers 2002 for details on composition) were so thick as to mask the underlying carbon of fibers..." His Table 1, p. 97 (Adler 2002) shows that warp yarns in the radiocarbon area contain at least ten (10) times theamount of aluminum as found in the rest of the cloth (Adler 1999).-d) Rogers emphasizes that the radiocarbon sample does not have any of the diagnostic chemical properties of theShroud! It is different cloth. The high concentration of aluminum confirms his identification of Madder root dye andmordants (hydrous aluminum oxide) on the yarn of the radiocarbon area and the Raes sample (Rogers 2003).-e) If part of the Shroud were woven out of gold wire, the fact it was different from the rest of the cloth would beobvious. The situation is almost that bad, and Fury-Lemberg's claims are all based on visual examination. Thechemical properties of the area from which the radiocarbon sample was cut were not considered or tested, and theultraviolet photographs from 1978 were not consulted. The radiocarbon area is outstandingly different from the restof the cloth. That is a fact: it has nothing to do with whether or not certain terminology applies or what Flury-Lemberg either knows or does not know about Medieval textile technology. No assumptions about technology needbe made to prove that the area in question is anomalous. Without adequate testing, she was fooled. That lack ofcareful characterization of the sample has made a laughing stock of the Shroud. Most of the world has all of the"proof" it needs to label the Shroud as a Medieval hoax, and her book certainly seems to confirm those beliefs.Chemical tests prove that the low-fluorescence part of the Shroud in the area where the radiocarbon sample was cuthad the following characteristics: 1) It did not fluoresce; i.e., its chemical composition was different. There isabsolutely no question about that statement. 2) The yarn was coated with a gum that contained both dyes andmordants (common technology through millennia for dyeing linen). It had been colored for a purpose. Most of theadded color appears on the outer surface of the yarn in that area. Photomicrographs document this fact. None of themain part of the cloth had any of the same gum-dye-mordant coating. 3) The linen had been bleached by a differenttechnique than the main part of the cloth: it shows very little lignin at growth nodes. 4) The lignin in the anomalousarea gives the microchemical test for vanillin, a component of lignin that decreases with time. The lignin in the mainpart of the Shroud does not give the test (nor does lignin from Dead Sea Scroll wrappings). The anomalous area has adifferent age than the Shroud. 5) As Raes observed, there is cotton in the yarn of the anomalous part of the cloth. It iseasy to find inside the segments of yarn. The only cotton that is found on the main part of the cloth is a superficialimpurity. 6) SEM analyses by Adler proved that fibers from the anomalous area have twice (2X) the concentration ofaluminum as other areas. Aluminum is used as a mordant for the ancient Madder root dye that exists in the anomalousarea. Microscopic views, documented with photomicrographs, prove the presence of Madder dye on hydrousaluminum oxide mordant. 7) Madder root dye is largely alizarin and purpurin. These can easily be detected in theanomalous area. No other area of the Shroud is coated with Madder root dye. Alizarin has been used for over acentury as an acid-base indicator in chemistry: its properties are known in detail, and its presence in the area has beendocumented with photomicrographs. 8) The hydrous-aluminum-oxide mordant is instantly soluble in hydrochloricacid. The color of fibers from the anomalous area changes instantly when treated with the acid, and the colorsobtained depend on the pH of the solution (as expected from the dyes). 9) The gum coating on the outside of the yarnis soluble in water. It can be observed under a microscope, and the soluble gum is redeposited when the water isallowed to evaporate. The gum is not a biogenic polymer, and it does not give any test for proteins. The gum quicklyhydrolyzes in acid, and it hydrolyzes somewhat more slowly in sodium hydroxide solution. It gives the color test withiodine that is common to plant gums like gum Arabic (bright yellow). There is nothing like that on the rest of thecloth. Such gums were items of commerce for millennia, it was not a natural impurity on linen, and it was used tostain/dye the yarn. Photomicrographs are available to document these observations. 10) Careful microscopic viewingof yarn segments from the Raes sample showed a unique, end-to-end splice (photomicrograph available). The mainpart of the cloth was woven using overlaps of yarn when one batch of yarn ran out and another was added to continueweaving. Photographs of the Shroud show the method, and historical documents discuss it. The "bands of differentcolor" seen in the Shroudcorrespond to areas that were woven from different batches of yarn. The bands also show different concentrations oflignin (each batch of yarn was bleached separately) (Rogers 2003).-f) The C-14 area was anomalous and contained a patch (Marino and Benford 2000, Benford and Marino 2002). It hasalready been established that the C-14 area is chemically different from the main part of the Shroud. Directinformation on the chemical composition of the anomalous area is much more convincing than ‘expert opinions’ thatare based on simple viewing (Rogers 2003).21