So what do you guys think about this relic . Do you believe it’s authentic or do you believe it’s a forgery .please tell me why u are for or against its authenticity?
I haven’t done any research myself into it. My only information is the standard lore and a show or two on the History Channel. I’m looking forward to seeing some of your research!
It is a puzzling artifact. It deserves closer examination.
I wish the full episode was available on-line. This is an excellent examination of the shroud using modern science. It turns out that it could be authentic.
Actually Tperkins there are over 300 peer reviewed research papers on the shroud.
We can start on the c-14 dating which was done in 1988 which baffled researchers because it didn’t fit with the rest of the evidences at all. It was eventually invalidated in 2005 by someone who had originally backed the results of the lab 100% , but the way it started was crazy.
Sue Benford was a shroudie researcher who claimed to have experienced a vision from Jesus which told her that the c14 tests were wrong and to keep looking into it. She and friend Joseph Marino started to think that the piece that was carbon tested was actually from a reweave.
They decided to write to Agnostic Chemist Ray Rogers, a senior fellow at Los alamos labs, to explain this to him.
He immediately thought that they were part of the anti science fring loony group, and talked to fellow sturp member Barry Schwortz about it, and he basically told Barry that this was crazy and that he could disprove it in 5 minutes. Rogers went back to work. To his amazement he started to find material that wasn’t in any other area of the shroud. He also found a dye that was not found in any other area of the shroud.
He then proceeded to do a chemical analysis on that piece and on the rest of the shroud and found out that
The rest of the shroud had a different chemical composition then the c-14 area. He then proceeded to do a vanillin test which showed the c-14 area was chemically much younger then the rest of the shroud in his vanillin test.
The C14 area was more indicative of the Middle Ages while the rest of the shroud dated much much older.
Rogers dated the original part of the shroud to between 1300 and 3000 years old, invalidating the c14 test.
His peer reviewed research paper can be found here.
To tackle the shroud we must hit the only area that was against the shrouds authenticity head on and follow the evidence to wherever it leads after.
But this is a great foundational start
Interesting link there right
But it seems like an older one.
There is a history before then but it requires alot of digging.
The claim that there is no reliable history of the shroud before 1389 is actually incorrect on many ground.
First of all there is an illustration on the hungarian pray codex of what is clearly the shroud of turin complete with the 3way herringbone weave type and 4 small poker holes that are still present on the shroud today, but no illustration of the water marks from the fire that happened to it in the 1500’s
The Hungarian pray codex is dated to the late 1100’s reliably.
This is only one piece of many that go against the c14 dating done of the shroud.
There are many more
The PBS link has stated a debunked theory from mattingly that bacteria was responsible for the image .
A more in depth study of the image is that it contains X-ray information of the jaw part of the femur as well as the hands and wrist. It also contains 3d spatial information which wasn’t known until scientists from a section of the sturp team ran a picture of the shroud through the vp8 image analyzer, which is a very sofisticated device that is used to map out the terrain on mars and the moon and it converts it into a 3image of spatial distance.
If you pass any regular photo through the vp8 it will come out mangled.
When they ran the shroud picture through it, to their amazement what came out what a perfect 3d image of the man on the shroud. It is the only 2d image on earth with 3d topographical information on it.
VP-8 Image Analyzer
That report is way over my head lol. I’ll take another stab at it tomorrow.
I watched a show about it on TBN one time. It is very interesting.
believe me Tperkins when I first started researching the Shroud it gave me massive headaches because I was so fascinated by it yet I couldnt understand most of what was found on it.
Here is a good video given by a doctor at a high school that explains it in a much better way then I ever could.
He is in constant touch with the original sturp scientists that were allowed to study the shroud upclose.
After watching this video you will have shroud fever also
I’m certainly no expert on this but it looks as though the evidence is on the side of a forgery…but not conclusively so. Seems like the additional testing called for in the referenced paper would be a good idea to undertake. I understand that non invasive C14 dating is also now available which could be used to test the whole shroud.
Or is this like Obama’s birth certificate and no amount of evidence will make a difference?
Indeed it is my friend, yea TBN has some very nice educational problems. I probably saw the same program, but im very bad with titles. My memory is very bad but visually im much better hehe
there was once an agnostic lawyer in Missouri named Mark Antonacci. He was a very happy and content agnostic who had no room in his life for faith. There was only one problem, he had a Christian girlfriend lol. She kept preaching and preaching to him that finally he got so ticked off at her that he made it his mission to prove to her that Christianity was a fairy tale.
He wasnt sure where to start with this but all he knew was that he would do it asap.
He was standing in a lunch line during his lunch break and saw a magazine with a picture of the shroud of turin on the front cover. He kept trying to push it away but it seemed like the shroud picture was staring at him, almost taunting him. He decided at that point that he would start his debunking of Christianity with the shroud of turin and work his way up from there.
The more he studied the shroud, the more incredible information kept coming at him. What started out as something he thought would be over with quickly lasted for 20 years, and at the end of that 20 years he not only failed to convince her or anyone else that Christianity was a fairy tale, but he ended up converting to Christianity himself.
His story is one of many amazing stories of conversion that started with the shroud.
his website is here The Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation
I want to congratulate Mark because he got his first peer reviewed research paper passed on the shroud .
Cam, I was waiting for u to show up lol
You barely started reading about the shroud and your convinced that the evidence is on the side of forgery???
Please share with us how you came to this point.
You obviously havent gone through the peer reviewed research of Professor Ray Rogers.
This is the perfect example of how an an atheist, when confronted with the shroud has to disregard logic and science to make himself believe that the shroud is a forgery.
The balls in your court Cam? and remember before you bring your typical quote mining skeptic sites that I have done 4 years of research on the shroud and I made a find on the blood that was cited on 2 major shroud blogs? I know alot about the shroud, but I admit there is still alot left .
Are you sure you want to go there? If you do id be delighted to see you leave atheism after your research of the shroud is complete.
I knew there was a reason God brought here
I can’t remember, when it was, but it was a few years back that a group of scientists (some Christian, some not) studied the shroud extensively. If I remember correctly, there was a great sense of the presence of God when they were studying it. No conclusion was made at that time, but at least one of those that studied it - maybe more - said something to the effect that it “should” be - because, I think, of the conclusions about it that they did reach, and the sense of God’s presence while they were studying it. I didn’t get this info from the internet, so don’t ask me for it! I heard it on the radio.
fascinating post Susanna, now you got my curiousity running wild , and you probably can tell that im obsessed with the shroud .
It could have been the Sturp team. But Sue benford was instrumental with helping to overturn the c14 test results, and she claimed that Jesus spoke to her in a vision about it.
Most scientists laughed at her at the time but she had the last laugh before she passed away when Science vindicated her Faith.
There is also Rebecca Jackson the wife of Physicist John Jackson who was an orthodox Jew before her conversion to Christianity, and im sure her study of the shroud was instrumental in some way to her conversion. She was also an expert in ancient jewish burial customs and was very instrumental in helping the sturp team in this area.
Yewwww hewwwwww Where fore art thou oh Cam oh skeptical debunker extraordinaire.
Please enlighten about your evidence that shows the shroud to most likely be a forgery?
I guess my best friend left me
No I haven’t studied it…and I’m not very interested in it…but you asked for opinions in your first post and I didn’t realize one had to be an expert to offer an opinion or do original & extensive research. Just took a look at a couple of articles on it from the last few years and DID take the time to read the abstract and conclusions of the study you cited earlier on the carbon dating.
WOW so you’re a cited discoverer of blood evidence on some blog and have spent 4 years doing RESEARCH on the shroud? Does that research include publishing anything that scientists would be able to review…or does it consist of reading what other people have said and done?
In any event…good luck with your obsession. I couldn’t care less whether the shroud is proven real or a fraud…but even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim it is real at this point…so I’ll remain skeptical until someone other than some blog guy tells me the verdict is in.
As far as my blood find it was indirect evidence that had to do with the claim that all blood degrades to type AB, and because there wasnt much research in this area you had to dig really deep to find it. Suffice to say that even the sturp team didnt know about this. The evidence points compellingly to authenticity, thats not teh sasme as the verdict is in, but then again you will do anything to get away from studying all ofthe evidence and the 100’s of peer reviewed papers on the shroud.The vaunted intellect and free thinking of atheism has struck again
Actually opinions are based on getting to know the object that is being studied. YOu know jack about it and actually offered an opinion based on ignorance. So far you havent offered a rational explanation as to why you believe its a fraud? OR is it because you just believe it is? You sure are starting to sound like the fundamentalists that you claim to oppose who you claim dont believe in science. I didnt ask you to be an expert but I didnt ask you for a reason based totally on pure ignorance either.
Of course your not interested in the shroud. Your comfortable in being A pure BLIND FAITH BASED ATHEIST
If you actually studied what the previous few popes have said privately on the shroud, you would have known that they are believers in its authenticty. The official position of the church is that it is not needed for anyones faith. In fact they hold the miracle of lanciano in higher regard then the shroud because the miracle of Lanciano is a eucharistic Miracle, and they have actually had only one scientist do tests on it.
As I said before, the way your dodging the shroud tells me all I need to know. Far be it for me to cite you for your antiscientific worldview, whatever works for you my friend. But I think now your getting the idea why most people think its hypocritical of you to dereal Christian fundamentalists when you acting in the same exact way.
As I said many times before, the shroud exposes the atheist for his or her true values. Atheism then is exposed as an emotional worldview not one that relies on intellect.
Once again…I admitted I don’t know jack about the shroud. Please advise why you have not similarly castigated every other poster on this thread who probably know less than I do about it at this point…but happened to agree with you. Are they BLIND FOLLOWERS of MYTHS OF MIDDLE AGE CHRISTIAN RELICS because they don’t know squat either but chose to comment?
You’re conclusions about me are laughable…and I ask you once AGAIN to stop calling me an atheist without proof. The next time you do so I will ask the mods to intervene.
Here is a little more info on the shroud. An important piece here is the congruent match between the blood marks on the head image of the shroud and the blood marks on the sudarium of oveido. This is from Stephen Jones who has an excellent blog on the shroud of turin. He has been researching the shroud for at least 18 years.
As historian Ian Wilson summarised: 1) the Sudarium of Oviedo has a documented Spanish history from at least the “ninth century” and “can with reasonable plausibility be traced back to early first- millennium Jerusalem”; 2) the Sudarium’s “blood and body fluid … stains” are “very compatible with gospel writer John’s observation that at the conclusion of Jesus’ crucifixion `immediately there came out blood and water’ (John 19:34)”; 3) if “the Oviedo cloth’s back-of-the-head group of bloodstains” are “photographed to the same scale as their equivalent on the Shroud, and then matched up to each other, there are again enough similarities to indicate … that these two cloths were in contact with the same wounded body”; 4) “Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, whoever bled onto the Oviedo cloth was of the same comparatively rare AB blood group”; and 5) on “the Oviedo cloth” were “found … pollens representative of Israel, North Africa and Spain, exactly in accord with the cloth’s known history” and “among those Israel pollens was” at least one species found on the Shroud, “Gundelia tournefortii” (my emphasis):
**But while the debate over the Shroud’s DNA therefore necessarily remains far from resolved, a major new development, also with its own bearing on the Shroud
blood', concerns a relic with its own authenticity controversies, the so-called sudarium of Oviedo. Although this bears bloodstains, like those on the Shroud, with every semblance of authenticity, because these are not accompanied by any similarly meaningful body image I have long shied from taking any interest in them - until a recent development. This was the emergence of a new, serious researcher on the subject, Mark Guscin, a British-born classicist resident in Spain, with an excellent book The Oviedo Cloth … published in 1998. In this he shows that historically the Oviedo cloth's origins can with reasonable plausibility be traced back to early first- millennium Jerusalem, having been moved from there to Spain in the seventh century apparently to keep it safe from the Persian invasions of that period. By early in the ninth century, due to Arab incursions into southern Spain, it had quite definitely moved north to Oviedo, since the cathedral's still extant camera santa or holy room was specially built for it at that time. And in 1075 it was similarly reliably recorded as being taken out of its still extant arca or chest in the presence of King Alfonso VI. Its certain history, therefore, significantly antedates that of the Shroud. It is also free of the early accusations of forgery that so dog the Shroud. But exactly like the Shroud, far more revelatory than the Oviedo cloth's history is its self-documentation. Although it bears no photograph-likebody’ image in the manner of the Shroud, Mark Guscin and his Spanish colleagues have very convincingly demonstrated that its
blood and body fluid' stains exhibit shapes so strikingly similar to those on the Shroud that there has to be the strongest likelihood that both were in contact with the same corpse. Two groups of stains particularly indicate this. The first are what I would call the nasal stains, which appear to derive from a nose and mouth soaked in bloody fluids. These are repeated mirror-image-style, apparently because of the cloth having been partly doubled on itself. Forensic analysis indicates that they consist of one part blood and six parts pulmonary oedema fluid. This finding is therefore strikingly consistent with the strong body of medical opinion that the man of the Shroud's lungs would have filled with fluid caused by the scourging. They are also very compatible with gospel writer John's observation that at the conclusion of Jesus' crucifixionimmediately there came out blood and water’ (John 19:34), as from the same oedematous fluid, when a lance was plunged into Jesus’ chest. In the case of the Oviedo cloth’s back-of-the-head group of bloodstains, if these are photographed to the same scale as their equivalent on the Shroud, and then matched up to each other, there are again enough similarities to indicate … that these two cloths were in contact with the same wounded body … Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, whoever bled onto the Oviedo cloth was of the same comparatively rare AB blood group. … Dr Frei took sticky-tape samples from the Oviedo cloth, just as he had from the Shroud. What he found was pollens representative of Israel, North Africa and Spain, exactly in accord with the cloth’s known history. And among those Israel pollens was, yet again, Gundelia tournefortii." (Wilson, I. & Schwortz, B., “The Turin Shroud: The Illustrated Evidence,” Michael O’Mara Books: London, 2000, pp.77-78,92). **
**Mark Guscin shows how a sudarium covered the head of a crucified Jewish victim, The Shroud Report]
first, to understand how the Sudarium of Oviedo complements the Shroud, watch Mark Guscin’s demonstration of how it was used on the body of Jesus in the Shroud of Turin Education Project’s Streaming Videos.**
The Sudarium of Oviedo has a documented Spanish history from at least the “ninth century” and “can with reasonable plausibility be traced back to early first- millennium Jerusalem” (my emphasis):
“What exactly is the Sudarium of Oviedo? First of all, it can be said that it is an ancient linen cloth that has been in Spain since the seventh century and venerated in Oviedo for more than 1,200 years. It was originally a white linen cloth with a taffeta texture, now stained, dirty, and wrinkled. It is rectangular, somewhat irregular, and measures approximately 34 by 21 inches [855 x 526 mm]. The principal bloodstains clearly form a mirror image along the axis formed by a fold that is still present. They are fundamentally light brown in color, in varying degrees of intensity. Although the linen has been traditionally called the
Holy Sudarium' orHoly Face,’ there is no visible image of a face on the relic, only blood that is believed to be that of Jesus of Nazareth. The cloth has always been known as the Sudarium Domini, or the Sudarium of the Lord …” (Bennett, J., “Sacred Blood, Sacred Image: The Sudarium of Oviedo: New Evidence for the Authenticity of the Shroud of Turin,” Ignatius Press: San Francisco CA, 2001, p.13).
The Sudarium was “Located in Jerusalem until 614” when “it was moved to North Africa and then Spain to protect it from the advancing Moslems” (my emphasis)
Since the eighth century, there is, in the Cathedral in Oviedo, Spain, the Sagrado Rostro or Holy Face, a face-cloth (83 x 53 cm.) also known as the Cloth of Oviedo (Sudarium Christi d'Oviedo). Located in Jerusalem until 614, it was moved to North Africa and then Spain to protect it from the advancing Moslems. The first historical information we have about it after the year 614 goes back to 1075 when Alphonsus VI of Leon recognized it as one of the relics in the Arca Santa or Holy Ark, a wooden reliquary which had housed the sudarium in Carthage, North Africa, and Monsagro and Toledo, Spain. Franca Pastore Trossello, a forensic scientist from the University of Turin, conducted a comparative study of the fabrics of the Shroud and the Cloth of Oviedo and found them to be of the same weave and texture. Dr. Alan Whanger studied the cloth and is convinced that it touched the face of Jesus. Dr. Max Frei matched at least four pollen on the Cloth of Oviedo with four pollen from the Shroud. Whanger found at least seventy matches between a polarized image overlay of the blood stains of the Shroud and those found on the Cloth of Oviedo. Further computerized comparative studies by Nello Balossino of the University of Turin, indicated that the traces of blood present on the two pieces of cloth matched perfectly." (Iannone, J.C., "The Mystery of the Shroud of Turin: New Scientific Evidence," St Pauls: Staten Island NY, 1998, p.91).
And from then “The sudarium has been in Oviedo ever since”:
“The key date in the history of the sudarium is 14 March 1075. On this date the ark or chest where the sudarium was kept was officially opened in the presence of King Alfonso VI, his sister Doha Urraca, Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (el Cid Campeador) and a number of bishops. This official act was recorded in a document which is now kept in the Capitular Archives of the cathedral in Oviedo, Series B.2.9. This is not the original document from the year 1075, but rather it is a copy, which was made in the thirteenth century. The copy is so exact that even the signatures are imitated - the vertical signature of Urraca is clearly legible. … The document states that even in the year 1075, the chest had been in the church for a long time … The sudarium has been in Oviedo ever since, kept in a wooden ark. Alfonso VI had this ark covered with silver plating, on which the twelve apostles, the four evangelists and Christ are portrayed. There are inscriptions in Arabic and Latin, both of Christian origin. After the reconquest of the kingdom of Toledo, Christian- inscriptions were often written in Arabic. The Latin inscription invites all Catholics to venerate this relic that contains the holy blood. The silver plating dates from the year 1113, and gives a list of the contents of the ark. One of these items is clearly registered as
el Santo Sudario de N.S.J.C.' These letters stand forNuestro Senor Jesucristo’, and the inscription means, `The Sacred Sudarium of Our Lord Jesus Christ’.” (Guscin, 1998, pp.17-18)
The Sudarium’s “blood and body fluid … stains” are “very compatible with gospel writer John’s observation that at the conclusion of Jesus’ crucifixion `immediately there came out blood and water’ (John 19:34)” (my emphasis):
“The image of the back of the man on the Shroud is covered with wounds from the scourging he received before being crucified. The wounds on the man’s back are obviously not reproduced on the sudarium, as this had no contact with it. However, there are thick bloodstains on the nape of the man’s neck, showing the depth and extent of the wounds produced by the crown of thorns. This crown was probably not a circle, as traditional Christian art represents, but a kind of cap covering the whole head. … The stains on the back of the man’s neck on the Shroud correspond exactly to those on the sudarium.” (Guscin, M., “The Oviedo Cloth,” Lutterworth Press: Cambridge UK, 1998, pp.30,32).
If “the Oviedo cloth’s back-of-the-head group of bloodstains” are “photographed to the same scale as their equivalent on the Shroud, and then matched up to each other, there are again enough similarities to indicate … that these two cloths were in contact with the same wounded body” (my emphasis):
“The most striking thing about all the stains is that they coincide exactly with the face of the image on the Turin Shroud. The first fact that confirms the relationship between the two cloths is that the blood on each belongs to the same group, AB. If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be no sense in pursuing the comparative investigation, and little meaning in any further points of coincidence. This test is the starting point for all the others, and the results are positive. Blood of the group AB is also very common in the Middle East and rare in Europe. According to Monsignor Ricci’s method of numbering the stains on the sudarium, the main group, corresponding to the liquid which came out of the nostrils, receives the number 13. The length of the nose which produced this stain has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over three inches, which is exactly the same as the length of the nose on the Shroud. In a case like this, it is very easy for sceptics to say that the investigators have just come up with the measurement they needed, but this is not a scientific or rational argument. The only to be expected, if, as seems obvious, both cloths covered the same face. Nobody would be surprised, for example, if we had two gloves that belonged to Napoleon, and the size of the hand that used each one was calculated to be the same. This would be the obvious measurement.” (Guscin, 1998, pp.27-28).
In particular, “the most obvious fit when the stains on the sudarium are placed over the image of the face on the Shroud, is that of the beard; the match is perfect” (my emphasis):.
"Perhaps the most obvious fit when the stains on the sudarium are placed over the image of the face on the Shroud, is that of the beard; the match is perfect. This shows that the sudarium, possibly by being gently pressed onto the face, was also used to clean the blood and other fluids that had collected in the beard. Stain number 6 is also evident on all four faces of the sudarium. If stain 13 is placed over the nose of the image on the Shroud, stain 6 is seen to proceed from the right hand side of the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the shroud, but its existence has been confirmed by Dr John Jackson, who is well known for his studies on the Shroud using the VP-8 image analyser. Using the VP-8 and photo-enhancements, Dr Jackson has shown that the same stain is present on the Shroud, and the shape of the stain coincides perfectly with the one on the sudarium. The gap between the blood coming out of the right hand side of the mouth and the stain on the beard is mapped as number 18. This gap closes as the stains get progressively more extensive on faces 1, 2, 3 and 4 while at the same time they are less intense. Stain number 12 corresponds to the eyebrows of the face on the Shroud. As with the beard, this facial hair would have retained blood and this would have produced the stains on the sudarium when it was placed on Jesus' face. There is also blood on the forehead, which forms stain number 10 on the sudarium." (Guscin, 1998, p.28).
In addition to “a notable similarity between both linens in the back part of the head, which match essentially in size, position, and genesis, which means that both contain vital blood” there is another place where “the blood stains on the back of both linens correspond” perfectly and that is “found on the two right and left lower corners on the Oviedo cloth” (it was folded twice):
"Bloodstains. The bloodstains have geometrically compatible sizes and have very similar positions on both linens. The stains are of human blood of the group AB. ... The stains produced from vital blood, those produced by the puncture wounds at the back of the neck, are the same on both linens. Remember that the linen of Oviedo was fastened to the head in the back with sharply pointed objects, perhaps thorns. The cloth fell on the left shoulder and upper part of the back of the person, and wrapped the left part of the face. This entire area that was touched by the cloth was completely bloody before blood flowed from the nose and mouth after death had occurred. There is a notable similarity between both linens in the back part of the head, which match essentially in size, position, and genesis, which means that both contain vital blood, or blood which flowed before the death of the victim. In addition, the blood stains on the back of both linens correspond, found on the two right and left lower corners on the Oviedo cloth." (Bennett, , 2001, p.85. Emphasis original)
In fact “Dr Alan Whanger” using a “Polarised Image Overlay Technique” (PIOT) which “allows comparison of various objects and images with the Shroud images or stains … image by image, stain by stain” (my emphasis):
"The PIOT methodology (Whanger & Whanger, 1985, 1998) allows comparison of various objects and images with the Shroud images or stains. This affords for confirmation, image by image, stain by stain, painstakingly, of the historical authenticity of the Shroud. Representative observations include: … Sudarium (face cloth) of Oviedo, dated to the 1st century in Jerusalem, kept in El Salvador Cathedral of Oviedo, Spain, since the mid-8th century (Guscin, 1998), 120 points of congruent bloodstains between the Sudarium and the Shroud." (Whanger & Whanger, 1998)." (Danin, A., Whanger, A.D., Baruch, U. & Whanger, M., "Flora of the Shroud of Turin," Missouri Botanical Garden Press: St. Louis MO, 1999, pp.6-7)
found that “The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty” (my emphasis) :
"Dr Alan Whanger has studied the points of coincidence and relationship between the Shroud and hundreds of Byzantine paintings and representations of Christ, even using coins, from the sixth and seventh centuries. This was done using a system called Polarised Image Overlay Technique. His conclusion was that many of these icons and paintings were inspired by the image on the Shroud, which means that the Shroud must have been in existence in the sixth and seventh centuries. This coincides with Ian Wilson's theory that the Shroud was `rediscovered' in Edessa just before this. Dr Whanger applied the same image overlay technique to the sudarium, comparing it to the image and blood stains on the Shroud. Even he was surprised at the results. The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty. The only possible conclusion, according to this highly respected scientist, is that the sudarium covered the same face as the Turin Shroud. If this is so, and taking into account that it is impossible to deny that the sudarium has been in Oviedo since 1075, it casts a great shadow of doubt over the results of the Shroud's carbon dating." (Guscin, 1998, p.32).
“Exactly as in the case of the Shroud, whoever bled onto the Oviedo cloth was of the same comparatively rare AB blood group.” While:
“Caution is needed … since some researchers have noted a tendency among blood samples more than several centuries old always to test AB.” (Wilson & Schwortz, 2000, p.76)
the point is that “If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be … little meaning in any further points of coincidence”:
"The first fact that confirms the relationship between the two cloths is that the blood on each belongs to the same group, AB. If the blood or each cloth belonged to a different group, there would be no sense in pursuing the comparative investigation, and little meaning in any further points of coincidence. This test is the starting point for all the others, and the results are positive. Blood of the group AB is also very common in the Middle East and rare in Europe." (Guscin, 1998, p.27) .
On “the Oviedo cloth” were “found … pollens representative of Israel, North Africa and Spain, exactly in accord with the cloth’s known history” and “among those Israel pollens was” at least one species found on the Shroud, “Gundelia tournefortii” (my emphasis):
“The Pollen We have seen that historical testimony fits in with what we know about the sudarium, and there is no reason to doubt the historicity of the few references that exist. Its stay in Jerusalem and its route through the north of Africa can be further confirmed by studying pollen found on the cloth. As is well known, this method of study has also been used on the Turin Shroud, and the pollen found coincides with the historical route of this cloth through Edessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. … From the pollen found, it is undeniable that the Shroud was in Palestine, Edessa and Constantinople. Most people who have read any book about the Shroud will be familiar with the name Dr Max Frei, the Swiss criminologist responsible for the pollen studies related to the Shroud. Before Dr Frei died, he also analysed pollen samples from the sudarium in Oviedo. The results perfectly match the route already described. He found pollen from Oviedo, Toledo, north Africa and Jerusalem. There was nothing relating the sudarium to Constantinople, France, Italy or any other country in Europe.” (Guscin, 1998, p.22. Emphasis original).
Guscin concludes, “There are two irreconcilable conclusions, one of which must be wrong”, i.e. Either the sudarium has nothing to do with the Shroud, or the carbon dating was wrong - there is no middle way, no compromise." But then “If the sudarium did not cover the same face as the Shroud, there are an enormous number of coincidences, too many for one small piece of cloth” and so “the carbon dating must be mistaken” (my emphasis):
"Carbon 14, Again We are faced with a choice. There are two irreconcilable conclusions, one of which must be wrong. All the studies on the sudarium point to its having covered the same face as the Shroud did, and we know that the sudarium was in Oviedo in 1075. On the other hand, the carbon dating specialists have said that the Shroud dates from 1260 to 1390. Either the sudarium has nothing to do with the Shroud, or the carbon dating was wrong - there is no middle way, no compromise. If the sudarium did not cover the same face as the Shroud, there are an enormous number of coincidences, too many for one small piece of cloth. If there was only one connection, maybe it could be just a coincidence, but there are too many. The only logical conclusion from all the evidence is that both the Oviedo sudarium and the Turin Shroud covered the same face. As we have already seen from the Cagliari congress, there are also many inherent reasons why the Shroud cannot be fourteenth century, reasons that nobody has been able to disprove, and only one that suggests a medieval origin-carbon dating. Those who believe in the carbon dating have never been able to offer any serious proof or evidence to explain why every other scientific method practised on the Shroud has given a first century origin as a result, most have not even tried. It can hardly be considered rational or scientific to blindly accept what conveniently fits in with one's own personal ideas without even taking into consideration what others say. And after all, carbon dating is just one experimental method compared with dozens of others, and it stands alone in its medieval theory. If both the sudarium and the Shroud date from the first century, then the carbon dating must be mistaken, and it is the duty of those who believe in the dual authenticity of the cloths to show why carbon dating has shown the Shroud to be first century. Those who have attempted this can be broadly divided into two bands, those who think that the particular process of the Shroud's carbon dating was a fake, a deliberate deception by the scientists involved, and those who believe that the whole process of carbon dating is not as reliable as it is made out to be, and is far from infallible." (Guscin, 1998, pp.64-65) .
Likewise, Danin, et al., conclude, “This pollen association, congruence of blood patterning, and probable identical blood type suggests the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to only the Middle Ages… as untenable” (my emphasis):
"The finding of Gundelia tournefortii pollen on the Shroud with its Near Eastern predictive value is a striking observation. That G. tournefortii pollen also occurs on the Sudarium of Oviedo adds to the strong link between these two traditional burial cloths. Independent indication for this linkage has already been established by the presence of about 120 congruent blood stains on the two cloths (Whanger & Whanger, 1998). The blood on the Shroud of Turin is of the group AB (Bollone et al., 1983a, 1983b). Guscin (1998: 56) reported `Dr. Baima Bollone spoke about the blood on the Sudarium (of Oviedo), confirming that it is human blood of the group AB, the same group as the blood on the Shroud.' However, Adler (1999) suggested that ancient blood stains may be hard to interpret. This pollen association, congruence of blood patterning, and probable identical blood type suggests the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud to only the Middle Ages (Damon et al., 1989) as untenable." (Danin, A., et al., 1999, pp.23-24).
As Prof. Danin, one of Israel’s leading botanists and author of Flora of Online put it at the 1999 XVI International Botanical Congress, “There is no way that similar patterns of blood stains, probably of the identical blood type, with the same type of pollen grains, could not be synchronic covering the same body” and these “similarities … in the two cloths provide clear evidence that the Shroud originated before the 8th Century” (my emphasis):