The Google translation leaves something to be desired. Even so, you can get the idea. Marco Bonatti, the Director of Communications Shroud Exposition 2015 tells us:
A network of small and large partners to support all projects of the exposition; and multiple modes of financing, including the involvement of citizens through the "crowdfounding."
and there is this:
Projects – Regarding the crowdfounding will be activated in the coming months platforms needed to start collections around specific projects that will be identified or who can report to the Committee. The proposed contribution will all be received and considered by the Organising Committee, which will use a ‘grid’ of ethical criteria that help to assess the compatibility of the proposals with the objectives and style of the exposition.
Companies and individuals who are interested in collaborating in the preparation of the exposition can take right now a first contact by sending an e-mail message to this address: email@example.com .
Crowdfunding has been discussed in relationship to the shroud and even tried in one instance by David Rolfe. See Crowdfund my meth lab, yo and The Shroud Affair Crowd Funding Campaign: A Guest Posting by David Rolfe.
Maybe it will work well.
Click on the image for a larger version
I have run across something interesting and am trying to determine if it has significance. From the 3rd to the 9th centuries it was apparently common in Byzantine iconography for the outer garments, especially representing people with high authority, to be marked with a stylized "L" called a "Gammadia". No one seems to know what the origin is but is it possible it is derived from the L-shaped pattern of burns on the Shroud? These holes when seen on the Lierre copy are very pronounced and for centuries, until the 1532 fire would have been the most obvious marking on the cloth. Was it picked up and turned into a symbol for ancient iconographers? Would some of your participants like to investigate this further? Here is an example from Ravenna:
Joe Marino sent along an interesting review on Strategy Page by Albert A. Nofi of the book, Hoax: Hitler’s Diaries, Lincoln’s Assassins, and Other Famous Frauds by Edward J. Steers with a forward by Joe Nickell.
We previously discussed this book in May last year, Summer Reading: Tell Me What You Want to Believe and I Will Tell What You Will Believe, and so it was good to see this review. Here is what Nofi wrote:
This methodology applies equally to the several Pearl Harbor conspiracy theories Steers address. For the Hitler diaries hoax, Steers not only points out flaws in the methodology used to authenticate the bogus documents, but also manages to trace the fate of Hitler’s actual papers. A similar approache is used for the “Anthon Transcript” hoax. While Steers marshals considerable scientific evidence that the Shroud of Turin is not what it purports to be (a conclusion reached by some churchmen nearly seven centuries ago), it still remains a curious mystery. Of the cases, only Piltdown Man is without some degree of lingering controversy, having the least political or popular importance.
Joe also noticed an Amazon review by Michael P. Maslanka on Amazon:
That’s the formula for pulling off a hoax as we see time and again in this short and insightful book. We see these elements come together in the Hitler diary hoax. Time and again, when belief was about to be suspended, these elements re-ignited it. Best chapter in on the Shroud of Turin. The author is respectful of thos who believe it is the burial shroud of Christ, but is still devasting in his arguments that it is not:(a) why did the shroud pop up all of a sudden in the 1300’s?;(2) surely it should have been mentioned in the Bible but is not;(3) the type of weave pattern did not exist at the time of Christ’s death(the burial shrouds of the very rich had a simple weave pattern, not the more complex one on the shroud);(4)the Bible says that Christ was buried according to Jewish tradition which requires a washing away of all blood and the placement of a small cloth over the face of the deceased but the shroud shows Christ’s face and the blood. A well made(nice feel to holding it) and a well written book. Want insights into human nature? Give it a read.
Did Nickell write that piece about the shroud? Tired, old arguments. It will never cease.
It is part 8. If you are interested CLICK HERE.
Stephen, in bold, banners text that reads:
EVIDENCE THAT KARL KOCH INSTALLED LINICK’S PROGRAM ON ZURICH AND OXFORD LABORATORIES’ AMS COMPUTERS
He then presents no evidence that I can see; none whatsoever. By-the-way, what Linick program? So far, Stephen has only hinted at this.
Well anyway, you can learn something about Karl Koch. And you can wonder why Stephen makes a splashing point that Koch is not essential to his theory. He’s got that right.
Shanun Palus in Smithsonian magazine has an interesting article, Astronomers Are Doing Real Science With Space Photos They Found on Flickr. I’m not saying it is applicable. I’m sure it is not. But it demonstrates the idea that there may be new ways to study images that we have not thought of:
To get detailed images of deep space, astronomers have a couple of options, says Technology Review. They can either use a long exposure to capture one really detailed image, or stack multiple less-detailed images together. Lang and colleagues opted for the second approach. But rather than using multiple photos taken with the same telescope, they looked to the web.
The team used a new alogorithm to stack nearly 300* images of the Galaxy NGC 5907 that they found on Flickr, Bing, and Google. They did this by "[l]iterally searching for ‘NGC 5907′ and ‘NGC5907′," explains Astrobites.
Picture from Smithsonian: An amateur photograph of galaxy NGC 5907 by Flickr user korborh. On its own it doesn’t look like much, but combined with hundreds more it can reveal new secrets about the universe. (korborh)
Colin Berry writes in a comment:
PS: here’s a link to that graphic. Look inside the yellow rectangle. Spot the non-imaged zone in the angle where the two hands overlap.
[ CLICK HERE for large image ] . . .
Reminder: it’s NOT a photograph. It’s better described as a contact print, or what I’ve previously called an ‘impactograph’.
RIP radiation twaddle.
Surely, not everyone enthusiastically agrees. So CLICK HERE to join the discussion rather than commenting on this pointer-only posting.
BTW: I doubt that radiation played a role in image formation but I don’t think this is as damning as Colin does. In fact, it might be supportive of radiation.
"He who the third day rose from the dead was no less true
God in the manger than on the cross." — Karl Barth
In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection!
The longer, embracing quotation is from a new paper, An image that speaks of the Incarnation well before it speaks about the Resurrection by Yannick Clément (It makes me wonder if Yannick gets his progressive thinking from Barth):
Because every characteristic related to the Shroud image can find some similarity in nature and, even more, because some of those characteristics (like the discontinuous distribution and the very superficial aspect of the image) really seem to strongly suggest that the image on the cloth has been formed by a natural interaction between the crucified dead body and the surface of his burial cloth, seeing this image as some kind of material proof of his Resurrection is presently only possible through faith and consequently, such a concept cannot be based on a real scientific and rational reflection. But having said that, it’s important to note that it is truly possible, through rationality, to see the Shroud (not only the body image on the cloth, but the burial cloth itself, along with the body imprint and the bloodstains present on it) as a material sign (not a proof!) of the Resurrection of Christ, in the sense that it has been proven that the cloth contained, only for a short period of time (i.e. less than 72 hours), the real crucified body of a man who presents all the bloody stigmata of Christ, as described in the Gospels, while the extraction of his body from the Shroud did not seem to have disturbed the bloodstains, broken the linen fibrils under them or disturbed the body image in any way, which can be seen as possible signs (not proofs) of a “dematerialization” (or a “spiritualization” if you prefer) of his body at the moment of the resurrection. Also, and this is probably even more important, the simple fact that such a gruesome burial cloth of a crucified criminal (which shows the complete body image of a nude “Christ”, along with lots of bloodstains) has been taken out of the tomb, quietly kept and carefully preserved for centuries after his dead body has only spent a short period of time in it, can truly be seen as the greatest material sign of the Resurrection of Christ that exists. In sum, we can say that it’s not the body image on the Shroud but the cloth itself that is the real material sign of Jesus’ Resurrection! Effectively, if this cloth would have been the burial shroud of an anonymous crucified man, why in the world would such a grave cloth have been taken out of the tomb and well preserved until now?
Nevertheless, it’s important to emphasize the fact that this sign remains an indirect sign of this event, instead of being a direct proof of it, like it is researched by many people today who really want to see a clear physical proof of Resurrection in the body image of a dead Jesus that is present on the cloth.
(emphasis mine, this is from a note in the paper, note references are removed in the blog and should be noticed and read in the paper)
This is one of two new papers from Yannick published at the iSEAM site. The other will be discussed shortly. Hat tip to