Francis DeStefano has added pictures to his posting about Shroud Images Throughout the World and a link to other sites at shroud.com.
Go have a look. Some great photographs now at Resurrection NOW Inc. Powered by my Lord and my God: Shroud Images Throughout the World
Jennifer Hoyt, a seminarian, writes:
When I first encountered the shroud, had I at the same time run across this freaky stuff about outer space aliens or the occult stuff about quantum bioholography I would have laughed my ass off and never taken the shroud seriously. As luck would have it, I encountered shroud.com and shroudstory.com. May others also be so fortunate.
Keep it sane. Thanks for the good work on your entertaining and informative blog.
As Barrie Schwortz celebrates fifteen years of shroud.com it is amusing to ponder the state of the public’s awareness about the Internet. Perhaps more people understood the Shroud of Turin. Here we see Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric, just two years before Barrie launched his website discussing how NBC News asked viewers to send feedback via e-mail. They were confused about the @ symbol and what the internet was.
Church Services Tv is selling a crucifix based on the Shroud of Turin.
I have heard from Dr. Andrew Silverman about the insane summary of what he said . . . that “the Shroud of Turin contains compelling evidence of a human who transformed into pure energy and ascended back into the Godverse—an attainment defying the soul snatchers’ grand scheme to genetically harness soul migration.”
He tells me:
You are right that Randy Maugens did misunderstand what I had said. Anyone who listens to the interview will see that.
Okay, I agree. But, read more (below the fold). Craziness about aliens and UFOs and many other lunacies can have a devastating effect on the credibility of Shroud of Turin science. As I wrote earlier, as the Shroud of Turin gains credibility from responsible scientific and historical research, it unfortunately attracts many nutcase theories. This is unfortunate because an unwary internet public might think that people who believe the Shroud is genuine buy into this crap.
In a building at NASA’s Ames Research Center here, computers are sifting and resifting the light from 156,000 stars, seeking to find in the flickering of distant suns the first hints that humanity is not alone in the universe.
. . . Over the next two or three years, as Kepler [a $600 million satellite observatory] continues to stare and sift, astronomers say, it will be able to detect planets in the “Goldilocks” zones, where it is neither too hot nor too cold for liquid water.
“What we want is to find life,” said Geoffrey Marcy, an astronomer at the University of California, Berkeley, who is part of the Kepler team.
Shhh. Someone will dream up another weird theory related to the Shroud of Turin.
Quora has been getting a lot of attention in the news lately. Here is the topic entry for What is the Holy Shroud of Turin? So far, one moderately okay answer, plus two pending. The first of the pending is about the Leonardo craziness. The second pending answer is from me and is just a quick throw together. The answers need work and Quora needs work.
Stephen Jones has another great posting on his blog. It is always a treat to read his Shroud of Turin blog. It is a great pleasure to see good history, as well:
Historian Daniel Scavone does not say that the Shroud was taken to Britain. He has showed how by a verbal confusion of Edessa‘s "Britio Edessenorum" with "Britain", the Holy Grail never existed but is actually the Shroud which was then in Edessa (now Sanliurfa, Turkey) and was never was in Britain
Read the entire posting: The Shroud of Turin: Re: Why couldn’t Joseph of Arimathea have taken the Shroud?
As explained by Dr. Silverman, the Shroud of Turin contains compelling evidence of a human who transformed into pure energy and ascended back into the Godverse—an attainment defying the soul snatchers’ grand scheme to genetically harness soul migration.
Ridiculous: As the Shroud of Turin gains credibility from responsible scientific and historical research, it unfortunately attracts many nutcase theories. This is unfortunate because an unwary internet public might think that people who believe the Shroud is genuine buy into this crap. I, for one, do not. There is no scientific or theological basis for this silliness. The Shroud contains no such compelling evidence.
Those of us who might be quoted incorrectly, as maybe the case here, need to be vigilant to request corrections and retractions.
In a new posting on his blog, Francis DeStefano lists about a dozen “places where images of the Shroud are located that Barrie does not mention.” That would be Barrie Schwortz at his famous shroud.com website.
Go have a look at Resurrection NOW Inc. If there is something near you, go check it out. I’ve been meaning to go see the display at St. Patrick’s cathedral. Given that I’m in Manhattan about once a week, I must do so.
Recent research reported new evidence suggesting the radiocarbon dating of the Turin Shroud was invalid due to the intrusion of newer material in the sampling area.
Read the entire, critically important article by M. Sue Benford and Joseph G. Marino.
Independent Catholic News is reporting:
The Rt Rev Peter Fox, honorary assistant bishop in the Anglican diocese of Norwich, will join half a dozen fellow ministers for Clergy of the Catwalk, a special presentation of clerical clothing at the East of England Christian Resources Exhibition, (Thursday 24 February, 12.30pm, Exec Peterborough).
Among a variety of items, Peter will wear a green cope with a Tree of Life design on the back, with matching mitre made by his seamstress wife, Angie, who is a Catholic.
"Design ideas usually come to me during worship," she explained. "I wouldn’t like to admit how much designing goes on during my husband’s sermons."
May we all hope that this does not spread to America, the rest of Europe or anywhere else. If you must, read the rest of the story at Clergy on the catwalk: Bishop to model wife’s designs on Independent Catholic News
Earlier today, Paolo Di Lazzaro offered this perspective:
It isn’t the first time that an Editor is co-author of a paper submitted to its own journal. And usually the (formal) problem is easily solved by a blind review procedure.
As an example, I faced a similar spot when I submitted two papers for publication in the Proceeding volume of IWSAI (International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos images). I was co-author of two papers and at the same time editor of the Proceedings and responsible for the choice of the Referees.
I solved this problem asking to a colleague to manage the review procedure: select the Referees, receive from each Referee the anonymous review, and send me the same reviews. She received my reply and the corrected paper and she sent it to the Referees for the final response.
In summary, there are simple rules to avoid a conflict of interest. It is likely Jull followed the same method.
Joe Marino had written:
Radiocarbon is a peer-reviewed journal but Jull is indeed the editor, so if there was peer-review, one has to wonder how rigorous it would have been. This is very similar to the late Dr. Walter McCrone’s peer-reviewed journal “The Microscope.” He published one or two Shroud articles in there, but that was literally his own journal, so once again, one has to wonder about the rigor of any article written by a principal of the journal. The circumstances of Jull’s article, much like the Arizona samples, will likely remain murky. (I was not even tempted to say “will likely remain shrouded in mystery.)
Avoiding the perception of a conflict of interest is important, as well. Prof. Jull is not only the editor of the journal, he is the Director of this National Science Foundation AMS lab. The paper that was published was the lead paper in its particular edition and it was in essence a defense of prior work at the lab in which Dr. Jull was involved.
For years to come, the particulars of the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin will be lessons for students and examples for journalists. Since 1988, Tucson has been the subject of unanswered questions about the handling of the material and the actual way test results were handled. After six years of silence since the Rogers paper of 2005, Prof. Jull could have answered the questions about what transpired in 1988. Instead he mounted an “absence of evidence as evidence of absence” defense, with suspiciously erroneous warp and weft thread counts, that makes one wonder if this paper could have been peer-reviewed.
I do hope, however, that Paolo Di Lazzaro is right. I know him to be a careful scholar.
Again, I highly recommend Mark Oxley’s Paper at Barrie’s website.
Today, we have touched on the 3D aspects of the Shroud of Turin images and we need to explore it more. Joe Marino wrote in the let us know about an article at physorg.com. It isn’t the same thing but it is interesting and undoubtedly it will become part of the discourse in the weeks and months ahead:
It is possible to construct a three-dimensional, 3D, face from flat 2D images, according to research published in the International Journal of Biometrics this month. The discovery could be used for biometrics in security applications or in forensic investigations.
Read the full article: Converting 2-D photo into 3-D face for security applications and forensics
Read the whole posting, “The shroud deserves some attention,” at dreams and phase transitions. Nicely done, worth reading carefully. Think about this quote from dbdonlon every now and then:
So the Shroud presents us with a mystery that is beyond our ability, even today, to solve by science. Is science itself leading us, albeit unwillingly, toward faith?
As a matter of fact I just printed it out and stuck on the wall.
Chuck Smith doesn’t think the Shroud of Turin is real:
So that they could see that there was no body within the linen wrappings. This, of course, brings up the question of the shroud of Turin, as to whether or not it was actually the shroud that was wrapped around Jesus Christ. And there are many who do believe that it was indeed the shroud wrapped around Christ. I have difficulty with that, inasmuch as John’s gospel tell us distinctly that the linen cloth that was about His head was folded and over in a corner by itself. And in the shroud of Turin, it has the entire form including the head. And so, that it was indeed the shroud that was around Jesus, I seriously question myself.
The sudarium, the face cloth, was “in a corner by itself;” how does that invalidate the Shroud of Turin? Does John’s Gospel, say that the face cloth was not removed before the Shroud was used to wrap Jesus’ body? This discussion keeps being repeated.
If we take the Sudarium of Oviedo into account, and perhaps we should, we note that Mark Guscin, one of several scholars who has studied the Sudarium of Oviedo, in a forensic and historical report, “Recent Historical Investigations on the Sudarium of Oviedo,” wrote:
There are many points of coincidence between all these points and the Shroud of Turin – the blood group, the way the corpse was tortured and died, and the macroscopic overlay of the stains on each cloth. This is especially notable in that the blood on the Sudarium, shed in life as opposed to postmortem, corresponds exactly in blood group, blood type and surface area to those stains on the shroud on the nape of the neck. If it is clear that the two cloths must have covered the same corpse, and this conclusion is inevitable from all the studies carried out up to date, and if the history of the Sudarium can be trustworthily extended back beyond the fourteenth century, which is often referred to as the shroud’s first documented historical appearance, then this would take the shroud back to at least the earliest dates of the Sudarium’s known history. The ark of relics and the Sudarium have without any doubt at all been in Spain since the beginning of the seventh century, and the history recorded in various manuscripts from various times and geographical areas take it all the way back to Jerusalem in the first century. The importance of this for shroud history cannot be overstressed.
Check out the graphics and the music. Now that is good web design: WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?: ChuckSmith: John 20-21
The Brackety-Ackl is the Roanoke College Student Newspaper. Roanoke College is in Salem, Virginia. What follows is an article, “Shroud Of Turin Research Grows,” by Jacob Andrews:
Brilliant fake or precious artifact? These were the questions Russ Breault, President and founder of The Shroud Education Project, aimed to uncover last Wed. at “Shroud Encounter!”
Breault has participated in many symposiums on the Shroud and attended its exhibitions in 1998, 2000, and 2010. He has presented “Shroud Encounter!” at hundreds of churches and universities including Duke and Auburn.
Good article by Cris Putnam over at Logos Aologia: Is The Shroud of Turin Evidence For Jesus’ Resurrection?
I just listened to a lecture by Dr. Gary Habermas at the EPS apologetics conference, and according to Gary it turns out there is very strong evidence in favor the Shroud’s authenticity. . . . As usual, skeptics have written it off as a hoax, which is understandable. In fact, I had discounted it as a forgery like so many other “relics” the medieval church attempted to pass off. Mainly because there was a carbon 14 test in the 1980s that dated it to the Middle Ages. So you would think that would be the end of it…
. . . The image on the Shroud of Turin has not been explained by science and appears to be holographic in nature according to particle physicists who have examined the image. Far from being painted on the cloth , there is no other image like it in the world. It appears to be burned into the very top layer of the fibers similar to (but not identical to) radiation. The holographic nature strongly controverts ancient forgery methods, could it be that it evidences Jesus’ miraculous transformation from death to life?
I like the gist of the last paragraph even though I would refrain from calling it holographic or appearing to be burned in. But yes, the 3D encoding (height field data) of the image is unexplained by science and controverts ancient forgery.
You should be able to order a copy of Prof. Jull’s paper by calling (520) 881-0857 or emailing firstname.lastname@example.org. I think the cost is $40.00. If you have access to a university library or you know someone in academia, they may be able to get a copy.
As for Mark Oxley’s paper, is is available at Shroud.com at the following link:
Frankly, I’d start with Mark’s paper.
John Fleming, a “consultant for two off-Broadway theaters in New York, sponsor [of] three annual comedy awards at the Edinburgh Fringe and [financier of] the controversial British movie "Killer Bitch" writes in his blog:
I was surprised when the Turin Shroud was tested in 1988 and allegedly turned out to be a forgery made 1290-1390. I’m still not totally convinced it isn’t the real shroud. But, when the tests were taking place, it got me thinking about the crucifixion of Jesus.
I am no Christian, but it did take me back to the Religious Knowledge lessons at my school . . .
. . . It seems to me entirely likely that Jesus was not dead when he was taken down from the cross. But, given his body had been scourged, had had a crown of thorns shoved on the head and he had been stabbed in the side with a spear, it might take a bit of time for him to recover – let’s say it might take three days before he was up and able to walk around and talk to people. Let’s say he would rise on the third day.
After three days, the lad could have been talking to people – let’s say he talked to the uneducated and fairly simple fishermen etc who were his disciples – and, if you doubted that the Son of God whom you had seen with your own eyes crucified and die was now resurrected… well, you could actually put your fingers in the holes made by the nails of the crucifixion. There would be no arguing with that.
Somehow I don’t think he will convince many people.