We covered this in Seventy Cities in Twenty Years Starting in Royal Oak, Michigan. Now we learn from the Gannnett newspaper, the Observer & Eccentric:
As the new academic year begins, many schools are planning field trips to see the Shroud for its historical and scientific significance. After Royal Oak, the Shroud will head to San Antonio.
The Shroud of Turin has been believed for nearly two millennia to be the cloth used to wrap the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The Shroud itself has been a source of comfort to Christians and a source of controversy for scientists as to its authenticity.
People of all religions have come to their own conclusions by visiting the exhibit at 3506 Rochester Road, just north of 13 Mile.
This self-guided, audio-visual, one-hour tour has 12 chambers with more than 50 artifacts from throughout history dating back to 14 AD. Artifacts include a relic containing an actual piece of the Shroud from Pope Clement XII dated 1730, a Solidus coin from 685 AD — the first to feature the face of Christ — the Tiberius Tribute coin, manuscripts, a 1st century Roman spear from the first century, and a painting of Christ on cotton that was shown in Lisbon for over 200 years,. The exhibit is available in English, Spanish, Russian, Albanian and Arabic.
The exhibit will visit 70 U.S. cities over the next 20 years. It was created in Spain by a man named Alvaro Blanco. He researched the Shroud for many years, and almost went bankrupt locating unique historic pieces and setting up the exhibit.
[A]s is always the case with the Shroud it seems hard to think that meaningful follow ups will occur, unfortunately.
That could almost be a slogan for what I wish this blog could be. Axiomatically, Thomas is referring specifically to Max Frei’s analysis. How many other shroud findings or hypotheses does this apply to?
And David Goulet, just yesterday, wrote of a newspaper story:
It’s often pointed out here how authentists have turned certain ‘myths’ about the Shroud into ‘accepted facts’ simply by repeating them enough. I see what’s good for the goose….
Colin Berry, very correctly, is expressing similar sentiments in comments he wrote:
Have you ever wondered why Messrs. Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson etc etc are not beavering away as we speak, accumulating and publishing more and more experimental data in support of their corona discharge, laser beam or other radiation models? Go figure, as they say.
Colin goes further. He thinks the onus is on Fanti et. al. I agree, mostly. We also need to encourage independent re-examination. by others That applies to Frei’s work. And Rogers. And Zugibe. And the carbon dating labs. It applies to many things. How many things have we talked about in this blog? The Blue Quad Mosaics come to mind. What else? There seems to be something, maybe pot shards, over the eyes. Really? Still, with newer photographs?
Now, why did Colin have to throw in this unnecessary little gem of a quote directed at another commenter.
Thinks: who was it who said ” I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said?
Who was it? Were you thinking William F. Buckley? Colin, we’ve been there before when you declared that William F. Buckley wrote, “The purpose of an open mind is to close it . . .”
Can we confirm either of these often-attributed-to-Buckley quotations? Wikiquotes would like to know.
What many beliefs about the shroud need to be confirmed? Colin, to his credit, has not rested on his laurels. Many others have not. Many have. Many do.
Nicholas Boer gets it wrong in SFGate, the online edition of the the San Francisco Chronicle. Or was it CAMS director Graham Bench who got it wrong?
My tour guide, CAMS director Graham Bench, related how radiocarbon dating has helped convict elephant poachers by showing that their booty was taken after the 1989 ivory ban. By testing bits of underground wood, CAMS has measured the frequency and intensity of past earthquakes. (Interpreting this data is how the U.S. Geological Survey is able to announce the likelihood that any particular fault will produce an x magnitude earthquake in x amount of time.)
CAMS pegged Kennewick Man at circa 7500 B.C., and the Shroud of Turin came in around A.D. 1300 — a wee bit after the time of Christ, causing a lot of unwanted controversy. “But for any scientist,” says Bench, “it’s case closed.” Any object less than 50,000 years old is within CAMS reach.
CAMS pegged it? CAMS is the the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Everyone knows (well almost) that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin took place in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich in 1988. Livermore’s CAMS didn’t open until 1989.
This isn’t correct, either: “But for any scientist,” says Bench, “it’s case closed.”
It is an opinion, since many scientists disagree. The journalist should have made that clear so that Bench isn’t made to appear incorrect.
Andy, the webmaster for Shroud Exhibit and Museum Inc. (iSEAM) writes:
I thought you might like to announce we have a new location donated by generous benefactors (not ready to be announced yet – visitors to our page will see it when announced). I have posted an announcement at the top of our pages.
That is good news.
The museum used to be located at the at the White Sands Mall in Alamogordo, NM,
There is a brief notice on the iSEAM website.
Stephen Jones has put together an interesting posting on the pollen found on the shroud and apparent images of plants some claim to see on the cloth. He does so from the perspective some material in a 2005 book, A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice by Lynne Milne.
Milne has `come out of the closet’ and is clearly a Shroud pro-authenticist (whether she realises it or not), differentiating herself from Shroud sceptics, pointing out that the Shroud must have had an undocumented history outside of Europe before 1352, in the Middle East, the carbon-14 date for the age of the Shroud cannot be correct and indeed has been "discounted"!
Out of the closet? A pro-authenticist (whether she realizes it or not?
But when Milne writes in her book that . . .
The carbon-14 dating has since been discounted. The linen threads that were dated are chemically different from most of the’ Shroud linen. Was this younger thread used for mending the Shroud when it first arrived in France, or before it was taken from Constantinople?
Stephen disagrees. She is wrong, he tells us because the only satisfactory explanation for errors in the carbon 14 dating is Stephen’s own so far unsubstantiated theory that a computer hacker fudged the dates.
I’m sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask you, if you have some paper or report which comes directly from Mark Andersen. According to what I found Materials evaluation, Volume 40, Issues 1-5, 1982, Page 630, is one of the Andersen studios, but I have been trying to see what it says but I couldnt. Please help me!!, cause there`s a lot of people who thinks McCrone`s word is "sacred".
Anyone? The website for Materials Evaluation.