Hugh Farey writes in another thread, A Report on the Bari Conference:
Bishop Marcello Sanchez Sorondo [pictured], the Chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences emailed me with these words:
The opinion of the PAS is that in order to do something scientific, another test should be carried out but since the institutions that carry out these tests are rather anticlerical, the PAS currently thinks that it would not be prudent to reopen the matter until other scientific identification systems are devised.
Although not in any sense an official statement of policy, it does suggest that at present the Vatican does indeed lack confidence in scientists’ open-mindedness, if not their expertise.
I have taken the liberty of reformatting and emphasizing part of Hugh’s comment.
Here is a Wikipedia entry for Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.
Harrington A. Lackey writes in Ezine about The Sudarium of Oviedo: The Other Linen in Christ’s Tomb:
According to John’s Gospel, when the tomb was found empty on the third day, not only was the linen that covered His body found, but there was a "napkin, that was upon Jesus’ head, separate from the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself." (20:7). The original Vulgate Bible calls it a "sudarium" which translates to "sweat cloth" in Latin. This piece of linen measures about 2.5 feet length * 1.8 feet height.
[ . . . ]
Jesus could not breathe because His arms were stretched out and up on the cross. Also, His feet were nailed, so He could not pull himself up in order to breathe. As a result, His lungs filled with edema which caused asphyxiation. There are also stains of blood surrounding these two large ones. All of this blood covered the entire face due to the blood from the crown of thorns still on His head. There was so much blood on His face that when His body was taken down from the cross and set down inside the tomb, the cloth was mostly blood-soaked. The blood on Jesus face covered about half of the cloth’s surface. It was tossed aside like a dirty rag before preparing Him for burial.
There still is some confusion about the Sudarium, with some skeptics arguing that a sudarium would have prevented the image on the Turin Shroud and others arguing that the burial shroud would not have been used to cover Jesus’ head at all because of the use of a sudarium.
We have attended Workshop on Advances in Turin Shroud Investigation and we were surprised by the few number of persons in the room of Bari’s University where the Conference was held.
Actually there were no more than 40 persons including speakers, which was later explained to us by the fact that the Conference was not opened to the general public, and we regret the absence of American and English scholars as speakers.
We were disappointed by Professor Bruno Barberi’s statement that he didn’t know when Vatican would grant permission for new tests on the Shroud ( in 2012 Valencia Shroud Congress he opened the possibility of new tests in a near future although he asserted that it would be Pope’s decision).
How can real advances in Shroud of Turin scientific investigation be achieved without new tests?
Nevertheless there were some interesting presentations in the scientific field of image namely a new project of Shroud scanning by Professor Nello Balossino, and description of laboratory experiments by Professors Giovanna de Liso, Lattarulo, Giulio Fanti and Paolo di Lazzaro.
There was also a weird presentation by Professor Valery Shalatonin from bielorussian Minsk University describing the detection of an electric field around a real size replica of the Shroud and it’s biological effects-this was indeed very interesting and a brand new issue.
Outside the scientific field a new historiographical and philosophical approach about Jesus resurrection and the Shroud was presented by french philosopher and historian Professor Tristan Casabianca.
In our humble opinion there were actually few advances in Shroud investigation and one thing is for sure- EVEN IN LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS NAMELY WITH LASER TECHNOLOGY, CORONA DISCHARGE ETC. THE IMAGES OBTAINED ARE FAR FROM THE ORIGINAL
To summarize, although a bit below our expectations it was not worthless going to Bari
The above is being shared with everyone with Maria da Glória’s kind permission.
The proceedings of the conference have been distributed to attendees as a single, 137 page PDF file. I am seeking permissions or links to make this available to everyone, if that is possible. There are some fascinating papers in it. Stay tuned.
Hat tip to Joe Marino
This has to be the most unusual skeptical YouTube I’ve seen on the subject of the shroud’s authenticity. Don’t worry, it is only two minutes long.
Did he just say it is easier to fit a round peg in a round hole?
Hat tip to Joe Marino
“As announced by Benedict XVI . . . censored and suppressed
by the media as well as within the Vatican.”
The document is lengthy. You can see the whole document at the Scribd document depository. The title page alleges that it is an apostolic letter in regards to Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall’s claim to be the Christ. The last page contains a presumably-faked “signature” of Benedict XVI.
Here is enough of a snippet to get the whole idea:
Dear Friends in Christ.
Over the past few days of this Month of March. I have learned about a man who is named Brian Golightly Marshall. He claims to be The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, reincarnated in Sydney, Australia on the most holy day of January 11th, 1944. It is the Faith that we are experiencing before our eyes! He is the word reincarnated …
Many doubt that Mr. Brian Marshall is He, but ¡ tell you he is. As his many disciples put it: “He is the most royal man alive”. He has fulfilled the prophecies within the Last Book of the Bible: Revelation. If you look at Mr. Brian Marshall’s face and compare it to that of the Most Holy Shroud of Turin, you will see something spectacular. And from the bottom of my heart, I tell you all, ever since I have realized the Truth about Christ Jesus’ Return to Earth, I was stunned, and the news has changed the remainder of my life and pilgrimage completely and beautifully. (emphasis mine)
Apparently (or so I imagine), since Pope Francis has not bought into Marshall’s claims, Marshall was compelled to release a face matching YouTube. Kelly, a reader of this blog from Memphis, inspired (or so I imagine) by all the face matching going on in recent days (Speaking of Matching Faces and An Experiment with Overlay), brought the following face matching video to my attention. Enjoy. But first read the “About” for the video, shown here, and then do yourself a favor by skipping the first minute of the video:
Modern computer software layers flesh over the ghost image of the soul of Jesus, to reveal Yahweh today Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall as identified by Pope Benedict XVI on March 12th 2013. Francis is the Antichrist who rejected the news told to him by Benedict on March 23rd 2013 at Castel Gandolfo. April 3rd Father Giuseppe Civello, Sister Maria Della Rosa and Giovanni Rossinni were kidnapped by men hired by Francis and organized by Georg Ganswein to shut the mouth’s of the 3 witnesses to the second coming that unfolded within Pope Benedict’s Office. Father Giuseppe was shot 8 times in Cassibile Sicily on April 13th 2013, Sister Maria got out of Malta where she had been taken to and wrote the Christ a letter on October 25th 2013 the link below and Msgr. Giovanni Rossini who uploaded the Apostolic Letter Benedict wrote from Toronto since Giuseppe was stopped from Rome, he is presumed dead.
The less effort it takes to process a factual claim, the more accurate it seems.
Katy Waldman in Slate writes about The Science of Truthiness. It is a political piece; you don’t need to read the second half of the article. The subtitle of the article is Conservative beliefs make a lot more sense when you’re not paying attention. Just change the word conservative to shroud and for us it makes perfect sense.
Truthiness is “truth that comes from the gut, not books,” Colbert said in 2005. . . . Scientists who study the phenomenon now also use the term. It humorously captures how, as cognitive psychologist Eryn Newman put it, “smart, sophisticated people” can go awry on questions of fact.
Newman, who works out of the University of California–Irvine, recently uncovered an unsettling precondition for truthiness: The less effort it takes to process a factual claim, the more accurate it seems. When we fluidly and frictionlessly absorb a piece of information, one that perhaps snaps neatly onto our existing belief structures, we are filled with a sense of comfort, familiarity, and trust. The information strikes us as credible, and we are more likely to affirm it—whether or not we should.
William of Ockham probably thought of this too. I do read other things that have nothing to do with the shroud. So this is off topic but it seemed to fit anyway.
Picture note: That is a picture of William of Ockham, not Katy Waldman.
Stephen seems to have decided on one set of measurements:
Now the dimensions have been authoritatively determined by Dr. Flury-Lemberg as 437 cm long by 111 cm wide." [Wilson, I., 2000a, "`The Turin Shroud – past, present and future', Turin, 2-5 March, 2000 – probably the best-ever Shroud Symposium,"British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter, No. 51, June.]
Authoritatively? I would have liked to have seen some discussion about other measurements. See , for instance, Length Measurements on the Shroud of Turin by Mario Latendresse. There are some significant differences:
Measurements taken by Bruno Barberis and Gian Maria Zaccone give (frontal image at the bottom left, dorsal image at the top) 441.5 cm for the right height, and 442.5 cm for the left height. The bottom width is 113.0 cm and the top width is 113.7 cm.
If Stephen doesn’t address these differences he is likely to be challenged. He needs to address the differences in the length for the left and right sides (see the top edge in the partial image above) if he is going to quote Ian Wilson speaking of “conformity to an exact 8 by 2 Jewish cubits” in his 1991 book, "Holy Faces, Secret Places: The Quest for Jesus’ True Likeness.”
For an encyclopedia entry there is too much topic drift and too much opining in the following:
Medieval forger? It is highly unlikely that a medieval forger would even know about the Assyrian standard cubit , and even if he did, it is even more unlikely that he would bother obtaining a first century fine linen shroud, especially given that fine linen then ranked with gold in value. And that is assuming that he could obtain one, especially one with the Shroud’s three-to-one herringbone twill linen, of which the Shroud is the only one remaining in existence!
[ . . . ]
Proof the Shroud is authentic. So even the dimensions of the Shroud of Turin are among the many proofs beyond reasonable doubt that the Shroud of Turin is authentic . . . .
It may be that or maybe, just maybe, a not so startling coincidence of something that is approximately so!
Note: All quotations and the picture snippet in this posting are considered Fair Use under the provision of Title 17 of the United States Code, Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use and the Berne Convention Treaty along with the WIPO Treaty of 1996. (Fair Use is known as Fair Dealing in the jurisdictions of the Commonwealth of Nations). Copyright is a legal right with limits. The practice of quoting multiple paragraphs of text, for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. Stephen’s footnote #1 to his posting only underscores the need for Fair Use provisions in the law.