I would have been really amazed it the Google Doodle man – GDM
didn’t have thumbs. But he doesn’t have shoulders. (Google Masthead May 8, 2013)
Mike M writes:
Hi Dan, I watched the 1st clip titled Dr. Whanger. On the HSG website. In the video, John Jackson was demonstrating the folding of the shroud as it relates to the burn marks and the Chambéry fire. He explained how the fire only affected 1 side of the reliquary and how the other 3 sides were protected by the church’s stone wall. He mentioned that if the box was placed the opposite way (inside side directed to the outside) or if the shroud was placed in the opposite way (or any other direction) inside the reliquary the damaged area would lie in the middle of the shroud destroying the main features of the shroud including the face and sparing only the outside of the body. I thought about this a lot and with some image cropping and flipping in Xer iPad App. I was able to demonstrate this situation in the attached image (mind you, I couldn’t add the shoulders image because it doesn’t exist) was that a miracle or just a coincidence. Are we mere lucky to be able to see the face of the man of the shroud (and the main body features) or was it just an accident that the box &/or cloth was placed in this precise direction and not any other way? I also remember reading that the backside of the linen cloth had a different texture than the front side (because of the 3-1 herringbone weave) and that the front side was the better one for image resolution. Just like when you go to buy printing sheets for a photocopier, high standard papers will tell you which side to print on because one side will give more fidelity than the other. Was that also a coincidence that the image was printed on the smoother side of linen? Was it also a coincidence that google had the attached doodle on the exact day I received my shroud Backlit DuraTrans Transparency from Barrie or was it a sign, or may be someone hacked google?
unless you are filmmaker and video journalist Dan Bell who tells us (two days) ago on his Facebook page: “I found a Shroud of Turin science museum inside a dead mall. It was a bizarre day indeed.” He is referring to the Shroud Exhibit and Museum in the White Sands Mall in Alamogordo, NM. Here is a YouTube video of his visit to the Museum. It is entitled “Bizarre Shroud of Turin Museum Inside Dead Mall.” It is about 3 minutes long. Enjoy.
However . . .
for a different perspective, see Trip Advisor, wherein one visitor to the museum wrote, “THIS IS A MUST AND SHOULD BE ON YOUR BUCKET LIST!”
Does this put an end to it, once and for all?
Hugh Farey comments on the posting, Stephen Jones Persists with the Hacker Theory.
I have recently received an email from Timothy Jull, regarding the hacking hypothesis. Its text, in its entirety, runs:
“This is impossible. In our case, the software for the calculations is offline. In any case, the calculation does NOT require software, it was done offline and plotted on a graph, as I recall.
Indeed, in 1988 the internet (as we know it today) didn’t exist – there was a pre-existing network run by the US government which was quite restricted.
Anyway, the machine we used at that time couldn’t have been attached to it, and that one still isn’t.”
Does this put an end to it, once and for all?
Come and See! by Bishop David Motiuk, Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Edmonton
Welcome and Introduction
It is with much love and great joy in my heart that I welcome you to Saint Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Cathedral as we solemnly receive and place on exposition for veneration an official replica of the Shroud of Turin.
While there are thousands of photographic reproductions of the Shroud of Turin around the world readily made available through the internet, our copy is even more unique among the handful of reproductions that have been authorized by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Turin, Italy, the custodians of the original shroud. It was made using the best photographic definition possible, and was authorized by the Archdiocesan Commission of the Shroud, which has verified the copy to original Shroud of Turin.
This authentic replica of the Shroud of Turin was gifted to the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Edmonton by the Archdiocese of Turin as part of our 25 Year Pastoral Plan for Spiritual Growth and Renewal. Truly a most precious gift!
During the two years from the time of the initial request to the Archdiocese of Turin for an official replica of the Shroud until today, I asked myself repeatedly, “Lord, if we are indeed blessed with a true copy of the Shroud of Turin, and open our doors wide to believers and non-believers alike, what will they come to see?”
And I ask that question of you today. What have you come to see?
At first glance, we have come out of curiosity to see this thing we call the Shroud of Turin.
What is it?
The Shroud of Turin, a quick overview
The shroud is a rectangular linen sheet woven in a herringbone pattern according to an ancient Egyptian style used both before and after the time of Christ.
The cloth measures 442 cm (14’ 6”) long by 113 cm (3’ 9”) wide.
There is a faint impression on it of an image of a man, front and back, indicating that he suffered extensive scourging and death by crucifixion. Piercing of the feet and wrist are clearly evident. A chest wound and wounds to the head inflicted by pointed instruments are plainly visible.
The “man of the shroud” has a beard, moustache and shoulder length hair parted in the middle. He is well-proportioned, muscular, and quite tall.
The Burial Cloth of Jesus?
Is the Shroud of Turin the burial cloth of Jesus?
Scientific analysis of the Shroud of Turin was permitted by the Holy See in 1976, 1978 and 1988. These conclude that the image is not the product of an artist using paints or dyes. The shroud has been in direct contact with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks and blood. But it cannot explain the image of the face with the high resolution demonstrated by photography.
How the image was produced remains a mystery.
While the Catholic Church has neither acknowledged nor denied the authenticity of the shroud, Pope John Paul II called it a “mirror of the Gospel.” Recently, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis described the shroud as an “icon.”
Actual burial cloth or not, the shroud is indeed an ancient and greatly venerated icon. And the essence of an icon is its representation of the Holy and participation in the Divine.
Picking up on Pope John Paul II’s reference to the shroud as a “mirror of the Gospel,” let us look more closely at the scriptural evidence for the shroud.
Scriptural Evidence for the Shroud, a Mirror of the Gospel
Jesus was scourged (Matthew 27: 26). The body in the shroud is covered with severe scourge wounds, as many as 120 on the back (including the legs). Whipping was done probably by a Roman flagrum, with evidence that there were two men whipping from two angles.
Jesus was struck a blow to the face (Matthew 27: 30). In the shroud there is severe swelling below the right eye; the nose is swollen or broken.
Jesus was “crowned” with thorns (Matthew 27: 28-29). In the shroud there is evidence of bleeding from scalp, and thorn fragments.
Jesus had to carry a heavy cross (John 19: 16-17). Shoulder wounds appear on the body in the shroud.
Jesus’ cross had to be carried for him after a while (Matthew 27: 32). The knees in the body in the shroud appear to be severely damaged as if from repeated falls.
Jesus was crucified by nailing hands and feet (John 20: 25). There are clear blood flows on the shroud from nail wounds in the wrists and feet.
Jesus’ legs were not broken, but a spear was thrust into his side (John 19: 33-37). The legs on the body in the shroud are not broken. There is an elliptical wound on the rights side between the 5th and 6th ribs and appears to have been inflicted by a Roman lance.
Jesus was taken down from the cross and wrapped in a linen shroud (Matthew 27: 57-60). The image on the shroud is consistent with the Jewish burial practice of wrapping a dead body.
Come and See! An invitation.
Let us return to the question with which we began. Today, what have you really come to see? Did you come to see this rectangular linen sheet with a faint impression on it of an image of a man? Or something more?
Yes, something much more!
Our childlike curiosity has led us through the path of discovery to the journey of faith.
We have come today at the invitation of God, through this exposition of the Shroud of Turin, to meet the person of Jesus Christ. We have come to enter into a personal relationship with the One who takes upon himself our humanity and becomes one of us, so that we in turn might take upon ourselves his divinity and become one with God. Imagine, a God that draws near to us so that we might draw near to him!
All of us who come to view the Shroud of Turin have our own life story. Some are broken, some are confused, some are professed unbelievers, some need to have their faith affirmed, and some are seeking to follow the Lord more closely.
Read on: Come and See! by Bishop David Motiuk
And for more details see, If you will be in Edmonton During Lent
I want to call your attention to an interesting discussion going on over at Colin Berry’s site in his posting, … ‘Troll Central’ by any other name (beginning with a comments by Thibault Heimburger on March 3).
First, Thibault wrote:
Can you explain step by step your onion experiment ? I am not sure to understand well, but I see no connection with the scorch hypothesis on the Shroud.
I’m a little surprised I have to explain (all over again) what to me seems self-evident. Never mind. Let’s start again.
And it goes from there. For more on the subject see, Modelling the image of the Turin Shroud – an interrupted experiment using onion epidermis – just one cell thick, a posting on Colin’s blog from two years ago.
Further to my three-part series, "Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?" (part 1, part 2 and part 3), I have decided to post a one-page summary of my argument. I have inserted "dating" between "radiocarbon" and "laboratories" in those posts to make the wording more accurate and also to help my three posts, and this post, to be found by a search for "radiocarbon dating."
[ . . . ]
The hacker who Stoll caught,Markus Hess, was a KGB agent in Germany who hacked into university computers in the USA, and from them he gained unauthorised access to 400 military computers. The KGB then had a section called "Seat 12" which conducted "a disinformation campaign of communist propaganda during the Cold War to discredit the moral authority of the Vatican." Clearly a 1st or early century C-14 date of the Shroud would increase enormously the moral authority of the Vatican and Christianity in general. So it is not an unreasonable proposition that a KGB agent hacked into the AMS system control console computer at each of the three C-14 labs and inserted a program which, when each test was run, replaced the Shroud’s 1st or early century C-14 date, with dates which when calibrated, would yield years clustering around AD 1325, just before the Shroud’s appearance in undisputed history in the 1350s. Then after each university completed its C-14 dating of the Shroud, the hacker would delete his program, leaving no trace of his activity. And it did not have to be the KGB. It could have been anyone with the requisite computer skills, even a university student hacker testing his ability, as Cornell University student Robert Morris, author of the Morris Worm, did in 1988.
• I am hopeful that now it is out in the public domain, my proposal that the C-14 laboratories which dated the Shroud were duped by a computer hacker will elicit confirmation, whether from an ex-KGB defector, a former university student, etc. However, in the final analysis it is not the Shroud pro-authenticists’ problem to work out what went wrong with the 1988 C-14 dating of the Shroud. . . .
So it is not an unreasonable proposition?
Operation Seat 12, if there was such a thing as it was only alleged by one person and never confirmed, was a disinformation campaign in the 1960s to suggest that Pope Pius XII was a Nazi sympathizer. It has nothing to do with computers or hackers. It may have produced an off-Broadway play called The Deputy. Or not. To suggest that an alleged 1960s disinformation campaign is even suggestive of the possibility that the KGB would plot to undermine the Shroud of Turin C14 tests is the worst type of conspiracy theory irrelevancy.
AMS system control console computer ?
Stephen speaks of the AMS system control console computer? Was it a computer, a programmable, digital computer? If not, was the console possibly connected to a computer? If so, was the computer connected to maybe NSFNET or ARPANET (precursors, in a sense to the modern Internet)? It was 1988, remember. There were about 60,000 computers on ARPANET, the network that was that year hacked with the first network “worm.” Hardware existed, such as the PDP-11, System 7, Series/1 for digital instrumentation measurement and control, but was it being used as part of the AMS systems and were they networked such that it could have been hacked? There is no reason to assume any network connection in 1988 or even a dial-in capability.
These are important questions. If the capability wasn’t in place, in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich, then the the hacker conspiracy theory goes right down the drain. I’m sure Timothy Jull could tell us. Any volunteers?
I don’t see the word computer in this zoom, but what is there? Networked or accessible with dial-in modems?
St. Louis, Missouri – October 9 – 12, 2014
A month, a week and a day, that is how much time you have to submit an abstract if you want to be a presenter. So get to work. Here are some detail. Find more at Become a Presenter.
To be considered as a presenter, please submit the presentation Abstracts, your CV and your headshot image to us by the noted deadline. Please zip up these three files and submit them with the form. Subject matter for the papers is open to any major aspect of sindonology, eg., Science, History, Art, Theology and can also include other relevant artifacts such as the Sudarium of Oviedo. Complete papers need not be submitted for review but for the Proceedings only.
- Submission of Abstract: 15 April 2014
- Acceptance/Rejection: 30 May 2014
- Abstract between 250 and 500 words in Times New Roman font with size 12
- Curriculum vitae of no more than 500 words.
- Author’s email address
You can register at this time and save some money (I did). Before registering, note the prices. This information does not appear on the registration page after you click Attend or Register. It only appears on the home page. So go to the conference home page, scroll down to the lower left corner, pick your price, and proceed from there:
- Before 6/1/2014 – $120/person
- On or After 6/1/2014 – $150/person
- Students (any time) – $50
Write a comment. I’ll make sure Joe Marino sees them.