A couple of RVers blogging their way from Ontario to Florida to New Mexico stop by The Shroud of Turin Exhibit & Museum.
[ . . . ]
With equipment designed to detect dimension, they learned that the shroud projects a 3 dimensional image! They don’t know why! The photograph of the shroud projects a 3D image on the monitor, and will also do it with your cell phone! A reverse black/white negative of the shroud will also project a 3D image! Other types of photos do not project a 3D image!
Nice review! And from this blog two years ago:
Wow! Go check out SEAM Home Page
Group tours in English. To schedule tours in German & Spanish, contact Events or call (575) 446-2113.
Presentations at Your Location
Deacon Pete Schumacher, 1972 VP8 Production Engineer, is available to conduct . . .
Free Turin Shroud interactive exhibit at White Sands Mall, 3199 N White Sands Blvd, Suite D1, Alamogordo, NM, 88310. We offer a backlit, full-sized picture, the only interactive VP-8 Image Analyzer* 3D experience, NM Shroud research, etc. Our goal is make Turin Shroud available to all including the vision impaired.
As to the shroud, you need to know that I was forced by the evidence to jettison my long-held assumptions about “Catholic” relics and conclude that it is likely the burial cloth that Joseph wrapped around Jesus. For what it’s worth I had read John Wilder’s The Other Side of Rome before I was ten years old, making me a convinced anti-Catholic most of my life. I was particularly taken by his chapter on relics and spent most of my life joking about the gallons of Mary’s breast milk found in the cathedrals of Europe and making sure everyone knew there are enough pieces of the “true cross” on display to build a battleship.
But what if that isn’t the whole story? What if Satan, in order to distract the world from the one true relic, the burial cloth of Christ, filled the world with false relics in order to discredit the one true artifact that forever forces a skeptical world to deal with the fact of Christ’s resurrection?
Read New evidence on the Shroud of Turin in Shafer’s blog, Think Like Jesus.
Edward Steers Jr. is the author of a new book (The University Press of Kentucky, March 7, 2013) Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds. With a forward by Joe Nickell, the book is available with a hardcover for $22.23 or as a Kindle e-book for $13.72 from Amazon.
The publisher’s description at Amazon is as follows:
Did a collector with a knack for making sensational discoveries really find the first document ever printed in America? Did Adolf Hitler actually pen a revealing multivolume set of diaries? Has Jesus of Nazareth’s burial cloth survived the ages? Can the shocking true account of Abraham Lincoln’s assassination be found in lost pages from his murderer’s diary?
Napoleon famously observed that "history is a set of lies agreed upon," and Edward Steers Jr. investigates six of the most amazing frauds ever to gain wide acceptance in this engrossing book. Hoax examines the legitimacy of the Shroud of Turin, perhaps the most hotly debated relic in all of Christianity, and the fossils purported to confirm humanity’s "missing link," the Piltdown Man. Steers also discusses two remarkable forgeries, the Hitler diaries and the "Oath of a Freeman," and famous conspiracy theories alleging that Franklin D. Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and that the details of Lincoln’s assassination are recorded in missing pages from John Wilkes Booth’s journal. (bold emphasis mine)
Two days ago. Steers summarized his view on the shroud in the Huffington Post:
Chapter Title: Tell Me What You Want to Believe and I will Tell You What You Will Believe
To believers, the Shroud of Turin is the authentic burial cloth that covered the body of Jesus Christ following his resurrection. To skeptics it is a fourteenth century artistic creation used to attract pilgrims and their money. Controversy abounds this sacred piece of cloth, coining it one of the most hotly debated relics in all of Christianity. First put on public display in 1357, it immediately began to draw large crowds of worshipers and skeptics alike. The shroud boasts an image of a man bearing all characteristics of someone who was crucified, which serves as undeniable evidence of authenticity for advocates. Of course, this image should be convincing if it were the creation of medieval artists wanting to persuade pilgrims it was the burial cloth of Jesus. Though modern science with its sophisticated technology would seem to set the record straight, the Shroud of Turin still often embraced as genuine—proof that no amount of evidence can overcome faith.
Here is the table of contents from Google Books. It looks interesting.
Introduction: “Snap, Crackle, and Pop”
1. Oath of a Freeman: The King of Forgers
2. Pearl Harbor: Treachery in the Oval Office?
3. Hah Hitler! The Hitler Diaries
4. The Shroud of Turin: Tell Me What You Want to Believe and I Will Tell What You Will Believe
5. Skullduggery: The Man Who Never Was
6. The Missing Pages from John Wilkes Booth’s Diary
This book really came out quietly; no press releases that I saw. Editorial reviews are from the editor of the Lincoln Herald, the Executive Director of the Lehigh Valley Heritage Museum and Miles Russell, (we are guessing) who is the author of several books including a couple on the Piltdown Man hoax. I have not seen any online mention in Skeptical Inquirer.
I’m sorry that I have not been a direct part of the discussion on Dan Porter’s valuable blog. Unfortunately, I have been working for my oldest son in State College, PA and time and resources have not been available to me to conduct extensive research to respond to the many important observations offered by the participants.
On May 18, 2013 Giorgio paid me a great compliment by stating that I was President of ASSIST. I thank him for that kindness but, in fact, I am not now, nor have I ever been the President of ASSIST. That honor belongs to Dr. Frederick T. Zugibe, M.D., Ph. D. who, though now retired from his position as Chief Medical Examiner of Rockland County, New York, is still President of ASSIST. I can see how the error came to be because in my position as General Projects Director of ASSIST I have often been in the public eye, working for ASSIST.
Yannick Clement, also on May 18, listened to my presentation available on Russ Breault’s site (of my paper read at the Columbus, Ohio conference on Aug. 14-17, 2008) and wonders why the findings of Alan Adler, John Brown and Ray Rogers have not been the subject of greater discussion since my presentation hints that such components as those found in the “Raes Corner” may be present throughout the Shroud”. Later, however, he listened again to my presentation and correctly recognized that my view was actually a support for the invisible reweave approach; he goes on to say “It’s important to note that this could also have been caused by the numerous manipulations and the numerous folding and unfolding of the cloth over the centuries—I’m surprise[d] that Maloney did not talked about that possibility in his speech because, in my mind, this is the most probable one.” Actually, while that is a possibility, I don’t think I can place any of these specific scenarios on a sound provable basis. Let me explain: For example, I am not able to present any evidence to show the presence of madder rose “throughout the Shroud”; I only know of just the two STURP sticky tape samples studied by McCrone (i.e., tape 3 AB and 3-CB—both of which came from the dorsal end of the Shroud and over near one of the 1534 patches on the “side-strip” side of the cloth). I still view these examples provided by McCrone as trace contaminants, a point I think McCrone himself was using to show that the Shroud was in an artist’s studio. 3-AB is an off-image tape sample very near the image margin but which cannot be solidly placed on the image area itself. 3-CB, however, apparently is on a blood-flow across the back, just below the 1534 patch also on the “side-strip” side of the cloth. Can any of these "contaminants" be used to prove either McCrone’s point or mine? (Please see the link to the file of the McCrone-adapted photograph at the end of this missive.
My Columbus paper was not a discussion of the “contaminant” problem, but was wholly devoted to discussing the radiocarbon dating problem—especially as the sample(s) taken on April 21, 1988 for testing by 3 laboratories came from the “Raes Corner” area of the Shroud. What was the nature of that corner compared to the nature of the rest of the Shroud? It is, therefore, perhaps appropriate for me to address the broader concept of “contamination”. McCrone gave one interpretation of the madder rose; I offered a different one. However, I cannot scientifically “prove” that either the artist’s studio or the weaver’s workshop is the actual context for demonstrating a scientific concept. The problem is a difficult and knotty one: this is because we need to distinguish between “signal” and “noise” to firmly ascertain the difference between proposed scenarios. The presence of the contaminants–by themselves–may confuse the issues.
Over a period of some seven years, I have been compiling a pictorial atlas of the many kinds of particles and fibers and other trace “contaminants” that can be found on the 26 Max Frei sticky tapes which he took from the image side of the Shroud in October of 1978. This compilation is still in progress–now approaching more than 90 pages. I have taken perhaps some 7000 Kodak transparencies using first an E. Leitz microscope with a camera mounted on top and then a Nikon Optiphot microscope to obtain these views. I wish to emphasize that I have not used any kind of spectrometry or chemical testing to ascertain the physical identity of the individual particles or fibers. I have largely employed the very same techniques as Walter McCrone and Eugenia Nitowski using my own eyes to create a kind of “informal” identification of the material I found. I was never able to “see” anything I thought might be specific evidence of madder rose on linen fibers as a “contaminant”. I did, however, see variously dyed cotton but these may actually have originated from the clothing of visitors who came to see or study the Shroud. Or maybe they were devotees who simply touched a piece of cloth to create what we call a “brandeum” to obtain by transfer the holiness of the Shroud.
Thus, while I suggested the weaver’s workshop in my 2008 Columbus, Ohio paper, I don’t think that is the only possible explanation for such contaminants. Members of STURP took note that the room in which they conducted their 1978 exam of the Shroud had paintings on the walls and ceiling of that room and when trucks trundled by on Turin’s busy streets it was completely plausible to think that tiny particulates drifted down on the cloth surface.
But one should also not forget the important studies of the True Copies marvelously gathered together by the late Don Luigi Fossati and published in Shroud Spectrum International (SSI, no. 12, September 1984, pp. 7-23 and no. 13, December 1984, pp. 23-39) noting that there is documentation that at least 52 True Copies were laid cloth to cloth and image to image on the original. Can the medieval formulae yield to such sloughing off to leave traces on another cloth? The True Copies are clearly paintings and these could have left traces of their pigments on the Turin Shroud. To test this hypothesis, I requested that Dame Isabel Piczek, with the help of Dr. Robert Koehler in Los Angeles (magnanimously arranged for us through the kind efforts of the late Dr. Robert Bucklin) and over a period of several weeks tested various formulae spanning the medieval recipes for pigment mixing (See Theophilus, On Divers Arts, Dover Publications, New York, 1963 [Originally written ca. A.D. 1100]). She took swaths of linen and placed them against dried painted samples and then, using the microscope, determined that–in her words to me in a phone call "They slough off like mad!!!"
I have also attached the McCrone map which he published in "Judgement Day for the Shroud" (p. 79) but my attachment here was actually a scan taken directly from a glossy McCrone sent me. This would give the public a clearer view of (generally) where the two STURP tapes were taken. However, I have not had the time to compare McCrone’s drawings of tape samples superimposed on the Shroud with the actual documentation photographs taken in 1978 by Barrie Schwortz. There may be a problem of interpretive accuracy on the part of McCrone, who simulated the shape of the tapes, with the actual markings of the original sample sites which were indicated by round magnetic markers (laid down by Dr. Tom D’Muhala, I think), not by rectangular "tape-shaped" markers. Moreover, the original tapes were stretched across a clear plastic "rail" by Ray Rogers for transit from Torino to the United States so that the fibers would "hang down" and not be vitiated by the adhesive on the tape. McCrone, however, adhered them directly to microscope cover slips which were then, in turn, taped to a microscope slide, so he could view them with ease beneath his microscope. But the few STURP slides I personally saw showed tape samples which were much shorter (not more than maybe several centimeters in length) than could have been stretched across the plastic rail and I am tempted to believe that someone (McCrone??) actually cut them shorter for convenience of handling. In this process could other extraneous materials have accidently "contaminated" the original STURP samples? Did McCrone conduct this process in a "clean room"? It would be difficult to state unequivocally that this did or did not happen to the STURP slides in McCrone’s possession and, unfortunately, Walter is no longer amongst the living to have him detail his process.
Thus, I think a very profitable study could be made of such “contaminants” and this might be very informative about the past history of the cloth. But at this point in time I am unable to provide a solid scientific footing to “prove” that the trace contaminants bearing madder rose actually came from a weaver’s workshop.
The full size file is at http://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/scan0002.jpg
Regards to all,
General Projects Director, ASSIST
Barrie Schwortz has posted this on Facebook:
My good friend Francesca Saracino, director of "The Night of the Shroud" documentary, has notified me that the program will air in Italy (in Italian) on Sunday, May 26 at 9 am on Mediaset’s Retequattro (Channel 4). Afterwards, it will be streamed online and available for 15 days on the Mediaset website: http://www.mediaset.it/rete4/
We will also include the link in our next website update on or about May 31st.
Updated information for the posting The Night of the Shroud to Air on Italian Television
A reader from New York writes:
If I could take what the pope said about salvation seriously, then your shroud would become irrelevant. You don’t need to believe in anything, said Francis according to CNN. As an atheist it is nice to know I’m going to a heaven I don’t believe in where I’ll find out if your shroud is real or fake.
Or not! Here is what CNN is saying online:
But you must read beyond the first two paragraphs.
Francis’ comments received a great deal of attention on social media, with a number of people asking whether the Catholic leader believes that atheists and agnostics go to heaven, too.
On Thursday, the Vatican issued an “explanatory note on the meaning to ‘salvation.’"
The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said that people who aware of the Catholic church “cannot be saved” if they “refuse to enter her or remain in her.”
Of course, as an Anglican I don’t agree. Nor will many Orthodox, Coptic, Protestant and Evangelical Christians. But then again this controversial stance isn’t new. Nor is the controversy, also raised in the CNN story, over works and grace new.
“You don’t need to believe in anything,” the letter writer from New York says.
I remember sitting in a discussion forum in an Episcopal church about three years ago. The priest leading the discussion wrote three options on a chart under the heading, “What You Must Believe for Salvation” Under that, in parentheses, he wrote, “Salvation = Heaven.”
- Because of Christ’s Sacrifice you can be saved without believing in Christ.
- To be saved you must believe in the resurrection of Christ.
- To be saved you must believe in the words of the Nicene Creed.
We voted by raising our hands. As I recall each option received eight votes. I was very surprised by the vote for number 3. While I believe in the resurrection I also don’t believe that you must believe in it for salvation.
The Pew Research Forum survey from 2008, “Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life,” is very revealing, at least for Americans. Based on polling data, 83% of American Catholics believe that Protestants can have eternal life and 49% believe Atheists can.
One twittering pundit asked: Should we believe the pope or the vatican spin?
Does the story in the Huffington Post with the headline that reads, "Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed, Not Just Catholics” clarify anything?
An article in the Christian Post, “Pope Francis: Non-Catholics and Atheists Can Do Good, Too,” explores this story effectively, at least this early in the news cycle.
Anyway, why does this make the shroud irrelevant?
Thanks for posting the article from Miami. I really think the witness issue is important. I have done a little PPT-video on it. Here is the link from Vimeo.