I am confused. Facebook Pages by you, Barry (sic) Schwortz and Russ Breault featured an article that claimed that Giulio Fanti figured out that UV radiation is the only thing that comes close to making the image on the Shroud. I thought it was Paolo Di Lazzaro.
Yes and no.
Barrie, Russ and I were reporting the fact that the article, The Shroud of Turin and Technoscience, appeared in The National Catholic Register. I think it was mainly a service to our readers. Here is what the article you refer to says.
Then, in 2012, an Italian academic who had been studying the mystery of the shroud for years released what seems to be the best theory to explain the shroud’s image. Giulio Fanti, an Italian professor of mechanical and thermal measurement at Padua University, reports that the only technique to come close to reproducing the image on the shroud is ultraviolet radiation.
Paolo certainly did suggest UV at least a year earlier. But the explanation needs some nuancing and clarifying. Alan Boyle did a nice write up for NBC’s Cosmic Log in December of 2011. Here is a piece of it:
The Italian studies, conducted at the ENEA Research Center in Frascati, addresses a specific question in Shroud science: Could a burst of radiation have created the coloration seen on the linen? The answer is yes, although the results reported in the latest studies aren’t a perfect match. So does that mean the Shroud image could only have been created by the flash of a miraculous resurrection? The answer is no, despite what you might read on the Web.
Five years of tests
“Sadly, we have seen many claims spread in the Web made by journalist/bloggers that discuss the content of a paper they never read,” lead researcher Paolo Di Lazzaro told me today in an email. “It is obvious that a serious scientific work cannot prove any supernatural action. We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image. As a consequence, we may argue it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a medieval fake is really low. In this sense, the Shroud image is still a scientific challenge.”
Di Lazzaro and his colleagues based their conclusions on five years of tests, using an ultraviolet laser apparatus and strips of modern-day linen. They blasted the cloth with UV at different power levels, and reported that they “achieved a very superficial Shroud-like coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters.” The best effect depended on laser pulses lasting less than 50 nanoseconds.
“These processes may have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” the researchers report.
They don’t go so far as to claim a miracle. But the fact that UV laser blasters didn’t exist in the 13th century, let alone in Jesus’ day, strongly implies that they suspect something out of the ordinary was going on.
Over the years, Di Lazzaro and his colleagues have published a long list of studies, including peer-reviewed papers (see below). The latest studies were presented at a May conference in Frascati and published in November as an ENEA technical report (with a disclaimer saying that the contents didn’t necessarily express ENEA’s opinion). But they didn’t really get traction until this week, just in time for Christmas, thanks to a series of sensationalized British news reports.
Actually, we can go back further to a paper, Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image. Paolo Di Lazzaro, Daniele Murra and Antonino Santoni of ENEA are listed as authors. So is Giulio Fanti from the University of Padua. And Enrico Nichelatt. And Giuseppe Baldacchini.
John Jackson (pictured) should also be getting some credit here. As early as 1991, he was suggesting that ultraviolet radiation was a possible factor in the image’s creation. Here from a complete copy of John’s paper, An Unconventional Hypothesis to Explain All Image Characteristics Found on the Shroud Image (published in its entirety by Stephen Jones on his blog):
Chemical Nature of the Image. Electromagnetic radiation that is absorbed strongly in air consists of photons in the ultraviolet or soft x-ray region. It happens that these photons are also sufficiently energetic to photochemically modify cellulose. Such photons are strongly absorbed in cellulose over fibril-like distances. Experiments performed by the author have shown that subsequent aging in an oven of photosensitized (bleached) cloth by shortwave ultraviolet radiation produces a yellow-browned pattern like the Shroud body image composed of chemically altered cellulose. Thus, I posit that radiation from the body initially photosensitized the body image onto the Shroud. This pattern would have appeared, if the radiation was ultraviolet, as a white (bleached) image on a less white cloth. With time, natural aging would have reversed the relative shading of the image to its presently observed state where it appears darker than the surrounding cloth (which also aged or darkened with time, but not as fast). This mechanism is consistent with (1) the observed lack of pyrolytic products in microchemical studies of Shroud fibrils expected from high-temperature cellulose degradation (in this case image coloring occurs by natural aging at ambient temperatures over a long period of time) and (2) the absence of substances in the image areas that chemically colored the cloth (Note that image coloration is produced onto the cloth only by radiation and without any extraneous chemicals).
Bottom Line: The article in the National Catholic Register misrepresented the facts.
Note: I don’t maintain a Shroud Facebook page It is an automatic echo of my blog postings. Unfortunately it is the only way some people see my blog and as a result they miss the discussion that follows.
Why does the greatest opposition to the recognition of the authenticity of the shroud of Christ come from those within the Church?
Paul Badde has a thought provoking piece in The Catholic World Report blog: Turin and Manoppello: "Resurrexit sicut dixit" (the lead is shown above).
Of, “the most important thing in the most important passages,” Badde writes:
Or, which of us has not heard at least once from our pastor, or our bishop, the phrase "He saw and believed" during the Easter homily? This phrase is a critical passage in the Gospel of John which we have heard since childhood. Yet, in Christian exegesis it becomes almost invisible, as if it weren’t there at all. Like a "third tower" in the Cologne cathedral. This is understandable. After all, what does this phrase mean? The empty tomb, by itself, is not the thing that would bring about believing. A half an hour before, in the same place, Mary Magdalene – according to John – had only seen that “the Lord has been taken away”. Nothing was there for believing.
Being the genius of the language which he was, Luther had clearly seen here in the text that John had not said everything. Therefore he attempted to resolve the apparent contradiction as if it were a damaged parchment — that it was necessary to lightly "mend” this passage and also supplement it. After him, the only comparable cunning was that of Rudolf Bultmann, who, in order to resolve the many contradictions of the Gospels that he could not explain, concluded that here his Rabbi Jeshua was not raised from the dead, but only in the kerygma, i.e. in the preaching of the disciples, they only said that he had risen. In other words, the resurrection of the Son of God made man was in truth a resurrection in Christian preaching. Also in Christian chattering. Please do not laugh! It was not just a crazy idea. The fact should not be overlooked that the same apostolic cowards, who before the death of Jesus had fled (including John), are the same ones who, suddenly, after his death all boldly began to speak of Jesus as the messiah. This should therefore be understood as resurrection – but certainly not an unrealistic resurrection from the dead of Christ who was slain. So if ever the "bones of Jesus" should be found in Jerusalem, the "believing" of Rudolf Bultmann would certainly not be shaken, as he was able to say.
Since that time, in any case, the "empty tomb" no longer has a home in the heart of Christian theology. It can be understood and interpreted seriously only as a kind of religious metaphor. So maybe the last members of the faithful in the church will still want to believe in the simple overcoming of death through Jesus Christ. The (last) eloquent pastors in front of them know better, because, after all it is in their preaching that God is (presumably) risen. But hello! This is the disturbing Kerygma: the greatest mythological theological creature of all time. It’s the unicorn from Tubingen and, of course, a bunch of garbage.
We don’t need to say more than that, in this way, the Christian faith has been eroded to the very core, because, in the wake of this new heretical dogma, most theologians have long been convinced that the reporting in the Gospels cannot generally be considered reliable. And of course this applies in particular to the most incredible miracle of the whole Bible: the resurrection of Jesus (with skin and hair and with wounds healed) from the world of the dead.
Inline image from WCR site. Caption: “The Holy Face of Manoppello, with the hand of Cardinal Koch behind it. (Photo courtesy of author)
<< LIST OF BADDE’S BOOKS >>
Barrie Schwortz has updated the remaining portion of his lecture schedule for this year.
July 8 through July 13, 2015 – My dear friend Dr. Chuck Dietzen has invited me back to Indianapolis, Indiana to participate in another series of Shroud lectures he is planning for this summer. Chuck sponsored my first visit to the area in 2011 and participated in my 2013 lecture series there as well. Now, he is organizing a "return engagement" in which I hope to visit with a number of Indiana-based Shroud scholars. In addition to Chuck and his colleague, Dr. Joe Bergeron, who both lecture on the medical aspects of the Shroud, other Shroud scholars in the area include Richard Orareo, founder of the National Shrine of the Holy Shroud in Wabash, Indiana, Shroud historian Prof. Dan Scavone and his wife Carolyn from Evansville, Indiana and Alex Fiato, Shroud researcher and lecturer from Ft. Wayne, Indiana. My scheduled lectures include: July 9 – A visit to the Poor Clare Monasteryin Kokomo at 10:00 am, a lecture at the Logansport Juvenile Intake Center at 1:30 pm, and Dinner at Alex Fiato’s Italian Connection in Ft. Wayne. July 11 – A lecture at St. Francis Hospital auditorium (south of Indianapolis) 9:00 am – 12:00 noon. July 12 – A lecture at the Retreat Center of Sisters of St. Francis auditorium, 5:00 pm – 8:00 pm in Oldenburg.
September 6 through September 12, 2015 – Publisher William Lauto and his wife, Professor Belenna M. Lauto, Interim Chair of the Department of Art and Design, have organized another "return engagment" for me at St. John’s University in Queens, New York. My single lecture in 2014 was such a success that they decided I should come back and give several lectures in 2015. Last year, Professor Lauto organized and produced an exhibit of a large selection of my photographs from the 1978 STURP examination and I also met informally with students from the photography and art departments. The specific venues, dates and times have yet to be determined for this year’s lectures but last year’s event was held in the Little Theater building on campus. We’ll provide more information as soon as it becomes available.
September 24 through September 30, 2015 – Our good friend and supporter John Sickelton has once again organized a series of lectures in Washington state like the successful series we did in 2013 and 2014. Postponed until 2016.
October 7 through October 9, 2015 – I will be speaking in Orange County, California to the Orange Canyons Chapter of Legatus, a private Catholic businessman’s organization, at their meeting on Thursday evening, October 8, 2015.
“ENEA, effectively demonstrated, by "the scientific method," the miracle
of the Resurrection of Christ!”
“if it’s possible to reproduce the ‘look’ of that image, with its imprint features,
then it almost certainly IS an imprint.”
Two blogs. Two image hypotheses. Two crash-cymbal conclusions just this week past:
FIRST from Colin Berry’s blog posting That Man on the Turin Shroud: the mystery may finally be solved – at least in principle. The image of hands crossed at the wrists was experimentally produced by Colin.
Let’s stop beating about the bush shall we ? The image of the man on the Turin Shroud is an imprint (not a painting as Charles Freeman would have us believe), I repeat, an IMPRINT. It’s a contact imprint, to be more precise (no physical contact, no image)….
This posting focuses on just one feature of the Shroud image which is consistent with the view that the image is a contact imprint. I then make what some will see as a bald assertion, namely that if it’s possible to reproduce the ‘look’ of that image, with its imprint features, then it almost certainly IS an imprint.
The onus would then be on others who think otherwise, who have their own hypotheses, or as often or not fantasies as to how the image was produced, to do what I (with some assistance from my wife) have done this morning, namely to model their ideas experimentally. If they cannot, or will not do that, then their ideas are unscientific, and need detain this scientist no further.
… I say the Turin shroud is a medieval fake, produced by a simple two stage procedure: imprinting with an organic substance (which may well have been white flour, which has convenient adhesive properties)followed by second stage colour development (thermal in this posting, though chemical development is also feasible – see previous postings which used nitric acid or limewater).
Oh! The radiocarbon dating:
… this blogger did not set out with the intention of disproving the Shroud’s authenticity (or proving its non-authenticity). There was no need for that, given he accepts the radiocarbon dating, warts ‘n’ all, and feeling the onus is on those who reject it to press for re-testing. No, his research, starting December 2011, was a response to Paolo Di Lazzaro and others who claimed that the TS image characteristics, notably superficiality, could or would never be reproduced in a laboratory.
A bit more on why it took so long:
If the model were that simplistic, this retired researcher, who also has a record of research and modest achievement, would not have needed 3.5 years to conceive of it. The trouble with arriving late to an active area of research is the deadweight of ‘received wisdom’ that in many instances has hardened into rock-solid dogma. It’s hard not to be influenced by the big cheeses of Shroudology who descend onto websites to say one is barking up the wrong tree, that such and such was discounted decades ago, that one should "go acquaint oneself with the literature". In fact the current model incorporates many existing ideas – from Ray Rogers, Luigi Garlaschelli, Hugh Farey and Joe Accetta. But the key aspect was the realization that the body imprint was intended to represent ancient yellowed sweat, that it was not intended to represent a product of post-mortem putrefaction, nor a miraculous image imprinted by a flash of highly energetic radiation, of a type unknown to science, a signature of resurrection, or as some would have us believe, a love-letter to modern man (that being the case, why the ‘wrong’ answer for radiocarbon dating?).
SECOND from Stephen Jones’ blog posting Shroud of Turin News – June 2015
… There is no evidence that Jesus’ resurrection was a nuclear event, that produced a neutron flux. There is, however evidence, in The Transfiguration (Mt 17:1-2; Mk 9:2-3; Lk 9:28-29), where Jesus’ "face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light," "his clothes became radiant, intensely white, as no one on earth could bleach them," that Jesus’ resurrection (implied by Lk 9:30-31 where during The Transfiguration "Moses and Elijah … appeared in glory and spoke of his [Jesus’] departure [Gk. exodus] which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem") produced intense light which imprinted His image on the Shroud….ENEA, using "the scientific method," effectively demonstrated that "a miracle" occurred in the imprinting of the image of a "whole human figure," front and back, on the linen of the Shroud! And since the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud man is Jesus, ENEA, effectively demonstrated, by "the scientific method," the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ!
Oh! The radiocarbon dating:
… 1) the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that the Shroud is authentic, i.e. 1st century; 2) the probability of the Shroud being 1st century, yet having a radiocarbon date of 13th/14th century is "about one in a thousand trillion’"; 3) the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date must be the result of some type of fraud; 4) a form of fraud that was rife in the 1980s was computer hacking; and 5) there is much evidence that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, allegedly Arizona physicist, Timothy W. Linick….
A bit more on Stephen’s could-have/would-have hacking conspiracy theory:
… In 1988 the Shroud was radiocarbon dated by three laboratories in Arizona, Zurich and Oxford, all using the same then new Accelerator Mass Spectroscopy (AMS) method. The very first run of the first laboratory to date the Shroud, Arizona, returned the date "1350 AD," which was uncritically accepted by all those present. That "1350 AD" date was leaked to the media by a Rev. David Sox while the carbon dating was still in progress at the other two laboratories. AMS pioneer Prof. Harry Gove (1922-2009, the unofficial leader of the Shroud’s carbon dating, by a process of elimination concluded that the primary leaker was "someone who was present at Arizona during the first measurement." Later it was discovered that "Timothy Linick, a University of Arizona research scientist" was quoted in Sox’s 1988 book on the carbon dating as hard-line anti-authenticist. So Linick must have been in communication with Sox about the carbon-dating, despite having signed a written undertaking "… not to communicate the results to anyone … until that time when results are generally available to the public." So the inference is irresistible that Linick was the source of the leak of Arizona’s very first "1350 AD" date to Sox. In 1989 the journal Nature reported that "the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval … AD 1260-1390". But this must be wrong because the evidence is overwhelming that the Shroud has existed well before 1260 (e.g. the Pray Codex) and indeed all the way back to the 1st century. The midpoint of 1260-1390 is 1325 ±65 years, and as Shroud sceptics were quick to point out, 1325 `just happens’ to be only just before Bishop d’Arcis [falsely – see above] claimed that the Shroud was painted in the 1350s. But given that all the other evidence overwhelmingly points to the Shroud being authentic and therefore first century, as Prof. Gove pointed out, the probability that the Shroud is first century, yet has a radiocarbon date of between 1260 and 1390, is "about one in a thousand trillion". So the 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Shroud must be the result of some form of fraud. A form of fraud which was rife in the 1980s was computer hacking, as documented by Clifford Stoll (1950-) in his 1989 book, "The Cuckoo’s Egg." And according to Gove’s eyewitness account of the AMS radiocarbon dating process of the Shroud at Arizona, and presumably at the other two AMS laboratories, "All this was under computer control and the calculations produced by the computer were displayed on a cathode ray screen." So a hacker, allegedly Timothy W. Linick (1946-89), who on 4 June 1989 was found dead of "suicide in very unclear circumstances," could have written and installed a program on Arizona’s AMS computer, and then had it installed on Zurich and Oxford’s AMS computers (e.g. by the confessed hacker for the KGB, Karl Koch (1965–89)). Linick’s alleged program substituted the Shroud samples’ first (or early because of irremovable contamination) century date for computer-generated dates, which whencalibrated, combined and averaged across the three laboratories, yielded a bogus date about 1325. Which `just happened’ to be about 30 years before the Shroud first appeared in undisputed history at Lirey, France in c.1355. That the Shroud samples’ dates were computer-generated is supported by Table 2 of the 1989 Nature paper, which admitted:
"An initial inspection of Table 2 shows that the agreement among the three laboratories for samples 2, 3 and 4 [non-Shroud controls] is exceptionally good. The spread of the measurements for sample 1 [the Shroud] is somewhat greater than would be expected from the errors quoted."
But this is impossible given that the Shroud and control samples at each laboratory were all on the one ~26 cm (~1 inch) diameter carousel wheel and rotated through the one caesium ion beam within minutes of each other. If there was something technically wrong with the dating process at a laboratory, the controls and Shroud samples at that laboratory would wrongly agree and disagree with the controls and Shroud samples of the other two laboratories. But that the agreement across the three laboratories in the dates of the non-Shroud control samples was "exceptionally good" shows that there was nothing technically wrong with the dating itself, which must mean that the Shroud samples’ dates were not real but computer-generated. Koch is not essential to my theory that the radiocarbon dating laboratories were duped by a computer hacker, as Linick could have acted alone. But that both Linick and Koch (who need not have known each other) were involved in hacking the Shroud’s radiocarbon date for the KGB is supported by the fact that Linick died of "suicide in mysterious circumstances" on 4 June 1989 and Koch’s inexplicably burnt body which was made to look like suicide, had been publicly identified by the German police only a day earlier on 3 June 1989!
Is there some way to put these two in a room together and tell them they can’t come out until they agree on everything.
If you read it before June 17, Colin Berry’s latest swansong posting, Kindly acknowledge my modest input, you narrative-driven Shroudies. That goes for Thomas de Wesselow especially you may have missed this late addition:
Late addition (17 June): the video says "4 months ago", which this blogger took to mean as having been recorded 4 months ago. But it would now appear to be much older, being a recording of a lecture given by Dr.Wesselow to the British Shroud of Turin Society on October 21st 2012. That kind of exonerates Dr.Wesselow of the second of two charges here (both somewhat tongue-in-cheek I hasten to add) that he borrowed an idea of mine re the Veil of Veronica to set up a "just a body imprint" hypothesis that could then be shot down (but only by equating "imprint" with "negative-like photograph", a spurious comparison). But he did use one of my contrast/brightness enhanced pictures of the scourge marks from Shroud Scope, which he was more than welcome to, though a credit might have been nice.
People have been tweaking the contrast and brightness on photographs of the shroud for years. Much of this was to better see the scourge marks. What makes Colin Berry think that Thomas de Wesselow copied some of his tweaking? And if he did, so what? I mean it is not like this is a big deal – I mean ten or fifteen seconds of seat-of-the-pants, guess-and-by-golly tweaking. It’s like what? Copying someone’s recipe for making tea with a tea bag?
Yup! Yup! (Bolding in Colin’s words below is mine)
Anyway, I sat through the 60 minutes or so of de Wesselow’s lecture, apparently (from the brief preamble) brought to us courtesy of David Rolfe and his Performance Films (DR I have to say not being my favourite shroudologist, having referred to this blogger not so long ago as a "Johnny Come Lately who will always be a Johnny Come Lately").
Be that as it may, I took careful note of the points being made by de Wesselow in his low key but decidedly partisan pro-authenticity presentation, during which I sat up at two points with what politely might be called deja vu moments. (Not knowing Dr. de Wesselow personally,or having engaged with him on this or other blogsites, I refer to him here by his surname, with no offence or disrespect intended: one does not wish to seem over-familiar).
The first was when he put up an image of the scourge marks. Yup, I’d definitely seen that image somewhere else, like one of, you know, my own postings from way, way back, in which the somewhat monochrome Shroud Scope offerings, excellent though they are, had been given some extra contrast and brightness in Microsoft Office Picture Manager.
Yup, it WAS my enhanced Shroud Scope image, the one you see on the left, that acknowledges the source, with de Wesselow’s slide on the right, one that is clearly a cropped version of the one on the left. Nope, there’s nothing wrong with using what’s freely available on the internet (I do it all the time). But some might think that an acknowledgement to Mario Latendresse for his Shroud Scope, and even (arguably) to myself might not have come amiss.
and this too from Colin:
Now listen you guys, I know I said I was resting, but if you access my postings (as was clearly the case with the enhanced Shroud Scope scourge mark images) and arguably the one I did on the likely Veronica connection, then kindly give a credit. It’s how academe is supposed to operate (or did at any rate between 1963 and 1990 when I was ensconced in those ivory towers – or the immediate hinterland thereof.
It’s also called fair play. Thanking you for your (future) cooperation. Yup, I’ll be watching. Detectives, on the case, never cease WATCHING.
A promoted comment
Daveb of Wellington NZ comments to my posting, Stephen Jones on the Thomas De Wesselow Presentation:
It seems likely that the European Space Agency’s laboratory Rosetta with its lander Philae will have a complete analysis of comet 67P, now 308 million km from Earth, chemical analysis, physical properties, spectral signatures, details of possible precursor life-forming organic molecules, relaying the data to earth and 67P will display its sun-driven shower trail, before refreezing over as it recedes into outer space on its return journey. All before the masters of comedy in Piedmont can draft an outline scientific programme of research for the holy object that has been under their noses these last 500 years. Would it make any difference if we sent the Shroud into a 308 million km orbit?
Here is a nice lady trying to educate me about what someone incorrectly told her about the shroud.
Daniel there were conclusive tests done by a team of scientists n 1978 on the shroud. Their conclusion was that there was a 10,000,000 to one chance that it wasn’t the burial cloth of Jesus from the biblical accounts. They also found that coins were placed on the eyes to close them as was the Jewish burial custom dated 31-32 AD with the new NASA cameras. Read "VERDICT ON THE SHROUD" by Greg Habermus one if the scientist that worked on the tests. Fascinating book with information on tests done and their conclusion. There is no doubt that the shroud is authentic now and since 1978. Naysayers have kept the results of these tests from getting to the public.
No such statistic came out of STURP in 1978. STURP did not find coin images. Others claimed to have seen and still do claim to see the controversial coin images but using such coins to close the eyes of Jews was not a Jewish burial custom. There were no NASA cameras. It is Gary Habermas who co-authored the book with Kenneth Stevenson, not Greg Habermus. Gary is not a scientist. And no one is keeping any of the 1978 results from the public.
I don’t blame the email writer. I blame the people who told her all this stuff.
Here is a well meant one sentence warning from someone who disagrees with me:
Denying the Vignon markings can lead to non-authenticity which can lead to anti-authenticity and even anti-Christianity just like agnosticism leads to atheism and alcohol leads to marijuana which leads to other drugs.
What was that great song from The Music Man?
Well, ya got trouble, my friend, right here,
I say, trouble right here in River City.
The first big step on the road
To the depths of deg-ra-Day–
I say, first, medicinal wine from a teaspoon,
Then beer from a bottle.
An’ the next thing ya know,
Your son is playin’ for money
In a pinch-back suit.
And list’nin to some big out-a-town Jasper
Hearin’ him tell about horse-race gamblin’.
Not a wholesome trottin’ race, no!
But a race where they set down right on the horse!
There is this from a helpful skeptic:
I can prove the Shroud is fake. Lie on your back just like Jesus did. You will see that it is impossible to cross your hands while lying on your back.
And there is helpful advice from a non-naysayer:
Everyone knows the Shroud is real. That is what you need to tell [everyone].
DISCLAIMER: This email contains information that is confidential and which may be legally privileged…. This email is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient and you may not use or disclose this email in any way.