Stephen Jones is putting together a useful movement history for the shroud beginning in 1355:
Montfort (c.1358-1359). In 1358, following the French defeat at the 1356 Battle of Poitiers in which Geoffroy I died, marauding bands of English soldiers attacked French towns, including nearby Troyes. So Jeanne probably took her young son Geoffroy II de Charny (1352–1398), and the Shroud, from Lirey south to the comparative safety of her castle atMontfort-en-Auxois.
[ Left (enlarge): Montfort-en-Auxois castle:Burgundy Tourism. ]
Anthon (c.1359-1388) . In c.1359 Jeanne married the wealthy Aymon IV of Geneva (c. 1324-1388) and took Geoffroy II and the Shroud from Montfort to one of Aymon’s estates in High Savoy (that part of France bordering both Switzerland and Italy), probably Anthon.
[ Right (enlarge): Chateau at Anthon built in 1315 by Guichard d’Anthon, presumably Aymon IV’s great uncle Guichard VI d’Anthon (c. 1278-1320), which Aymon inherited through his mother Isabelle d’Anthon (c.1307-1335). Presumably Jeanne, Geoffroy II and Aymon IV lived here with the Shroud for ~29 years between 1359 and 1388. ]
As Colin Berry writes in his own Science Buzz blog: The Turin Shroud is clearly a medieval fake – albeit a very clever one. What more is there to say?
Well, he does say:
Having wasted thousands of words pressing simple straightforward logic, and getting little back by way of return except ridicule and insults (the few exceptions to that broad-brush description know who they are) I decided to bow out, and do so in a way that makes a point. I posted images instead of text. Any words of my own, the minimum needed, were incorporated into the images to create a series of cartoons, billboards etc. Images are more powerful than words.
Images imprint onto the visual cortex, a major part of the hind-brain with a minimum of pre-processing that is in any case not under conscious control.
Words on the other hand get consciously pre-processed in many subjective ways, so much so that where Porter’s site is concerned, 99% or more of one’s words either fall on deaf ears or get hopelessly scrambled and commuted within seconds of receipt.
Or, as Eminem rapped it in Taking My Ball (as you read these four lines you need to bounce the upper half of your body straight up and down – you see, you can rap):
I’ll do my steps all by myself, I don’t need nobody to play with me,
But if you just give me a chance, I can put you in a trance the way I dance .
But don’t nobody wanna play with me so I’m taking my ball and going home (home).
Here is the topmost image from Colin’s posting. No sense messing with words:
Picture of Eminem with deaf ears is a publicity picture from eminem.com.
when you eat of it your eyes will be opened
The Stumbler, in this part of his “long and circuitous journey from a childhood with two alcoholic parents, through the weird world of anomalous phenomena, to an iconoclastic Christian faith based on experience, observation, study and intuition,” tells us in his blog posting, Oh, no, surely not that old fake the Shroud of Turin?:
It’s highly unlikely you know more about the Shroud than I do. For one thing, since 1997 I’ve been a devoted follower of www.Shroud.com. This amazing site was created in 1996 by Barrie Schwortz, Official Documenting Photographer for the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project. It’s one of the truly great Internet sites, highly organized and with virtually everything published about the Shroud in every language.
The Stumbler tells us:
A First Century result from the carbon dating would’ve been nice, of course, but this didn’t happen. The tests showed a date range of 1290-1360 AD.
I wasn’t fazed, for two reasons:
First: As I’d said before the testing, there’s simply too much other evidence the Shroud dates to long before 1290. Physical evidence, from the cloth itself. Historical evidence, meticulously pieced together by Ian Wilson and other serious researchers…
Second: If the Shroud were a 14th Century fake, it’d still be the strangest artifact in the history of mankind. When the carbon dating results were announced, it was very telling to me that the media and the great mass of casual followers seemed almost relieved and chortled at Shroud believers as though they were and always had been credulous fools….
The Stumbler goes on to tell us about “more recent test” with date ranges of 300 BC to 400 AD. And he believes these new tests why?
Please, don’t take my word for it. Spend at least an afternoon on www.Shroud.com. Even before you do that, spend a few bucks on Ian Wilson’s The Shroud: The 2,000-year-old mystery solved (2010), a wonderful introduction to Shroud studies. . . .
Just don’t do what too many people do: Don’t dismiss the Shroud because you “once saw a program” on CNN or “once read an article” in Time or on the Internet or, worse yet, “once talked with a guy” whose opinions you respect who thinks the Shroud is a blatant fake and not worth bothering with….
Then there is this. Does this trump the KGB Hacker conspiracy theory or what?
What about our old friend the Trickster? Haven’t I suggested his antics have infected just about every other area of weirdness studies, from ufology to NDE-ology? Just because I’m a Christian, do I think Shroud studies are immune to the Trickster?
Not at all. The carbon dating results certainly could be the Trickster at work. Some of the Shroud studies themselves are major turn-offs, at least for me. A segment of the research fraternity has purported to find so many additional images on the Shroud we’re only a step away from someone spotting a Domino’s pizza box or a Ford hubcap. This sort of stuff is eerily reminiscent of what the Trickster has done in ufology and NDE-ology, and I fear it has seriously diminished interest in the Shroud.
But did you notice what is says on the side of that Domino Pizza box? Maybe there is a hubcap or a coin over the eye or a whole bunch of flowers. That’s got to be good for some strange speculation. The Stumbler continues:
But still, the Shroud is in a different category from UFOs and NDEs. Unlike them, it isn’t a phenomenon. It’s an artifact. It’s right there in front of you. It can be observed, photographed, handled and even sampled. It challenges you, head on, to find an explanation. The Trickster may divert your attention with his antics, but the Shroud remains.
Or has the Stumbler been tricked by the Trickster?
It would help if we had a better understanding of what tricks the Trickster can do and which tricks he cannot do. Does he change carbon 14 content or does he hack the AMS Control Computer?
authentic or not
You are to create a work that captures its essence and convince viewers both contemporary and beyond that they are in the presence of a most precious relic. However you go about it, and we may never know, we can see what you created. We can look upon it as it lies within these pages centuries after you created it. Does it fulfil the brief? Does it speak out as a great work should? Let us make an objective assessment of its observable subjective qualities and its simple facts. What do we see?
• Your choice of an image left on a Shroud is a perfect encapsulation of the mystery that surrounds him. After all, it is the reporting of his death by crucifixion that is the principal independent corroboration that Jesus lived at all. Congratulations
Could the Shroud become a symbol of interdenominational unity?
Could it even become a symbol of interfaith unity?
David emails to let us know that he has updated The Enigma of the Shroud of Turin website. It is a wonderful update. “The headline,” he writes:
. . . is that the 2010 film is available in eight languages free to watch. All three films are available on the English page. . . .
That would be:
- The Silent Witness
- Material Evidence – The Shroud of Turin
- The Case for the Turin Shroud
Select a flag (on David’s new page) to watch the films.
Now for a MUST READ. David writes in his email:
I have also created an editorial page on which I have posted some (I think) new and possibly controversial ideas. I hope they get some traction and very happy if they raises discussion on your blog.
Read both the main content (The intrinsic value of the Shroud – authentic or not) and the right-hand column (A Campaign).
Here, from the right-hand column, is a snippet of what David posts:
Could the Shroud become a symbol of interdenominational unity? Could it even become a symbol of interfaith unity?
For almost 40 years I have watched the arguments for and against the Shroud’s authenticity ebb and flow. I have seen good friends fall out over them and many dedicated champions of the subject go to their graves without seeing any fundamental change in the status quo. I would like to see some wider recognition for what the Shroud could be before I get too much older and, with an exposition this summer (April 19th to June 24th.) 2015 is an auspicious year for such an aspiration.
Judaism and Islam eschew iconography and there are good reasons for that. The sentimentality of the Jesus of the Sacred Heart has “Disneyfied” Jesus.
Beautiful though it is, even Michaelangelo’s Pieta brings a level of sentimentality that can cloud judgement. Once the first Jewish Christians decided to include pagans in the new religious adventure inevitably the risk of idolisation returned and, I would argue, it did. This has been splendid news for proselytisation and art but bad news for clarity of thought. The austere and (so far) inexplicable shroud image makes no concessions to “art”.
That should warm the cockles of Colin Berry’s heart
JERUSALEM.- The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, has announced the awarding of its 2014 Shpilman International Prize for Excellence in Photography to American artist and photographer Lisa Oppenheim. Selected from among 160 applicants from 28 countries around the world, Oppenheim was awarded the prize for her outstanding body of existing work and prospective projects.
And one of the prospective projects is:
. . . said Noam Gal, Noel and Harriette Levine Curator of the Museum’s Department of Photography. “Her choices of subjects – including the future project she presented in her application, Imprint (Shroud of Turin) – give promise to the perpetuation of this fascinating artistic path.”
Imprint? Shroud of Turin? That should warm the cockles of Colin Berry’s heart. Colin is old fashioned enough and British enough to understand that expression.
Let me explain (or you can read Colin’s whole bloody post on his blog). Colin shows us the picture (below) and tells us: “The mechanism of imprinting of the body image? Can there be any doubt that the artist wanted us to know that the image was a SWEAT IMPRINT.”
Yes! There can be some doubt; for I must ask: Are Jesus followers lifting the cloth up and away from the body or putting it down over the body? If they are just getting ready to lower the cloth over Jesus, was the “imprint” caused by collimated sweat acting at a distance?
Is this the definitive answer to the Shroud of Turin visible in old paintings? Answer: YES – almost certainly, as the above [=below now] paintings demonstrate, but I don’t suppose Dan Porter will be overjoyed at the use I’ve made of his website graphics.
But I am overjoyed; for I have always put pursuit of the truth about the shroud ahead of trying to convince anyone it is real. In accord with that I am NOT going to put a lot of stock into Colin’s interpretation of a 17th century artist’s artistic interpretation of events and call it definitive evidence of anything.
Look closely. You can almost correlate the darker areas of the smudge-ish image on the cloth being held above Jesus’ body to the followers surrounding the cloth. Are those perhaps shadows? Light seems to come from different places in this painting.
Todd, a reader of this blog, just yesterday posted the following quotation from Peter Schumacher. It’s from a 1999 paper by Pete entitled Photogrammetric Responses From The Shroud of Turin.
The Shroud of Turin induces a [3D] result through photographic imaging that is unique, compared to all other photographic results taken from other objects of the same acknowledged period as the Shroud, of prior periods, and to the present day. It is the “data” existing on the Shroud of Turin, which induces the unique photographic results. Therefore, the Shroud image, itself, is unlike any other object or image known to exist. (Bracketed “3D” added by me for clarity)
This obvious absence of evidence as evidence fallacy – call it what you want: argumentum ad ignorantiam, the black swan problem – has stood, it seems, since sometime after 1976, when (quoting from A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses – Version 2.1 by Bob Siefker, et. al.):
[John] Jackson, with the help of Eric Jumper (both on active duty and teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy) used a VP-8 analog computer furnished by Pete Schumacher, an engineer with Interpretation Systems, Inc., to make a brightness map of the Shroud image.
Then they tried to do the same thing with photographs of people and objects. Pete tried. Others tried over the years. Everything else was distorted; no real 3D. There was, among those who understood that a normal painting or photograph of a person or object contained brightness information that was representative of reflected light while the image on the shroud contained brightness information that was not that but rather seemingly spatial data, a sense that the argument was safe. It has been repeated and restated over and over by others.
“OK Hugh [Farey],” wrote Todd, “Maybe you can respond to this quote. I ask again that you provide published evidence to refute this claim.
As long as we continue to think of just regular paintings or photographs of people or normal objects – and we ignore the cries from the fallacy police – we are on pretty safe ground. It cannot yet be refuted.
But Colin Berry didn’t do what others had done. He made a scorch of an object on cloth. And he found that that scorch behaved like (or pretty much behaved like) the image on the Shroud of Turin. Colin found a black swan and we couldn’t say any longer that all swans are white.
That is published evidence; it is published on Colin’s blog and reshown here. It is not a painting or a photograph of an object; it is a scorch.
If we continue to speak only of normal paintings and photographs we are still on safe ground. But we have to drop the idea that the shroud image is unique. It isn’t.
Click on the images to see larger versions
While we are at it, maybe we can drop the other fallacy, namely that the 3D data represents body to cloth distance. That has not been shown to be true.