In the last 60 days, the Wikipedia article on the shroud was viewed some 56,000 times.
Pages in this blog were viewed 161,000 times by at least 48,000 visitors.
Yes, I know that is apples and oranges.
Religion News Service (RNS) has an interesting story about Wikipedia editing wars:
The problem confronting many Wikipedia editors is that religion elicits passion — and often, more than a little vitriol as believers and critics spar over facts, sources and context. For “Wikipedians” like Willey, trying to put a lid on the online hate speech that can be endemic to Wikipedia entries is a key part of their job.
Religion is among several of the top 100 altered topics on Wikipedia, according to a recent list published by Five Thirty Eight. Former President George W. Bush is the most contested entry, but Jesus (No. 5) and the Catholic Church (No. 7) fall closely behind.
For instance, a graphic for the RNS story tells us that the Wikipedia article about Jesus has been revised 26, 580 times; about the Catholic Church, 23,884 times; about Christianity, 17,273 times.
That made me wonder: How many times has the Wikipedia article on the shroud been revised? According to Wikipedia statistics for the page it has been revised 4,235 times since 2002 (click graph to enlarge).
a personal opinion that would not, could not be changed
Joe Marino passes along this important new (July 2014) paper by Paul C, Maloney entitled Walter C. McCrone and the Max Frei Sticky Tapes of 1978: A Background Study.
This is a MUST READ paper if you have any interest in the pollen found on the shroud. The concluding paragraph sums up what I think many of us have come to think about Walter McCrone’s thinking:
We may thus draw the conclusion that Dr. McCrone’s statement, sent to Joe Marino on 9 April, 1998 is a conflation of ideas that formed in Dr. McCrone’s mind over the years. My own reading of Dr. McCrone’s responses to Joe Marino’s e-mails convinces me that even if McCrone had had access to my published study, it would not have changed his mind (as evidenced by McCrone’s terse statement to Joe Marino on 19 April, 1998 (Wrapped up in the Shroud, p. 239)—any more than the large photo-mosaic had any effect on McCrone’s thinking on Saturday, July 23, 1988. Some may prefer to believe that this was dishonesty on McCrone’s part. I prefer to think that this conflated statement ceased to represent the science of the Shroud and had become a personal opinion that would not, could not be changed. To have done so would have meant that McCrone could not “save face” for his stance toward the Shroud developed very early on in his messages to STURP.
Picture: Paul Mahoney at the 2008 Ohio conference
On July 20th, I posted a lead to a new essay by Yannick Clément. At the time I mentioned that I would mention another paper soon. Today, I noticed a link to it on The Holy Shroud Guild Facebook page. That prompted me to get going and mention it here. It is called My thoughts on a recently published paper by Raymond N. Rogers by Yannick Clément dated July 9, 2014.
I would like to express some thoughts about the « new » paper of Rogers that was recently published on the website Shroud.com, which is entitled “An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color”1 . This article was written by Rogers in 2001 but was never published anywhere before.
By-the-way, here is a link to the paper at shroud.com. An Alternate Hypothesis for the Image Color
After several pages of discussion, Yannick begins his several paragraphs of conclusion:
There is no doubt in my mind that this “new” paper of Rogers constitutes a real historical finding, which can help us to understand all the different steps that were taken by Rogers in his study of the Shroud image. These steps indicate the high level of scientific professionalism with which he did his work in order to discover the best rational hypothesis to explain this image without underestimating or leaving out any important data and observations. In consequence, this paper can also help us to realize the poor scientific value of the work done by some other “scientists” on the Shroud image, especially when we consider the fact that those researchers have not at all followed the same scientific “path” of Rogers. In the end, I think we can really see in this particular paper, which was the first attempt of Rogers at describing his impurity hypothesis for the image chromophore, as being the genesis of the Maillard reaction hypothesis he proposed the year later (in 2002)45 and which he never stopped refining until his death, two years later.
FYI: Apparently, the two recent papers by Yannick have also be published on The Holy Shroud Guild site:
The mocking of Fred Zugibe is particularly nasty.
Sometimes I don’t get the way Facebook works – or is it that I never do. Just this morning I took a quick look at the page for The Holy Shroud Guild. The topmost recent post was dated May 5th. That was followed by one from just a few hours ago (I’ll get to that in a subsequent post), then one from later in May and then things seemed to settle down with normal posting sequences going from recent July down the page to the oldest entries.
It’s a good thing it happened because I had missed the May 5th posting by Danusha Goska. It was important. It was a link to something she wrote, Christophobia on Campus, Penn Jillette and Joseph Goebbels, and Shroud of Turin Talk Update, in her Save, Send Delete blog. She wrote (and you should read the whole posting):
Jillette and Teller’s performance was hateful. It was comparable to the kind of material that Joseph Goebbels used to produce. Goebbels also took distinctively religious icons – in his case Jewish ones – and associated them with derision in order to facilitate violence and hate.
I’ve often heard New Atheists complain that they have a bad reputation. They wonder why.
It was a good thing, too, to read what Danusha wrote because four days ago a reader had written to me about the video. It was making the rounds on New Atheist blogs and such. He sent a link to a mid-July entry in The Thinking Atheist. Had I seen it? No! It was two and a half years old. So what, the reader said, it is out there and getting attention; you should show it. No, I won’t, I thought. Why advertise it?
Having read, Danusha’s posting, yes, I will. The readers of this blog are intelligent. I’m not promoting it since it is written by bigots for idiots and there are no idiots here. Maybe the comparison to Goebbels is a bit strong. Even so, Danusha makes an important point. The mocking of Fred Zugibe is particularly nasty.
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.
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)
"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
This tour is being led by Msgr. Gregory A. Gier of The Cathedral of the Holy Family of Nazareth in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Click here or on the image for an online brochure.
This tour seems to be specifically for parishioners of the cathedral:
. . . parishioners are invited to join Msgr. Gier on an unforgettable pilgrimage to Turin to see the Shroud, then on to Florence, Assisi, Siena, and finally Rome. Msgr. Gier will offer Holy Mass daily at many of the important churches we will visit, including St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The dates are April 19 – 28, 2015.
Russ Breault writes on his Shroud Encounter Facebook page:
Anyone near Colorado Springs? I will be speaking 4 times at the upcoming Pikes Peak Prophecy Conference:
- Friday 7/25 at 3:30–"Unholy Obsession–When Hitler Tried to Steal the Shroud"
- Saturday 7/26 at 8:30 AM–"Seven Secrets of the Sacred Shroud"
- Saturday at 3:30 PM–"A Q&A with Russ Breault, Barrie Schwortz, and John and Rebecca Jackson"
- Saturday at 5:00 PM–"God is in the Details" Main auditorium and will be streamed live.
Conference will be held at the Colorado Springs Marriott–Tech Center Dr.
Now, the question is: Other than the Q&A, are Barrie or John and Rebecca speaking?
BTW: You can also read how to watch the conference live for $50.00.
Thomas, in a comment, wonders:
. . . I’ve noticed the past few days that there appears to be a misalignment between the left and right shoulders / neck region. In particular, one side is lower than the other as if there was a dislocation. This corresponds with the arm positions on the frontal image ie. the right shoulder is set lower, as is the right arm.
This would seem to be an argument in favour of the image being generated from a real human (dead) body.
The blog is called La pagina di Littleflower (The page of Littleflower). Thanks to Google Translation, we can read What links the Shroud of Turin to Leonardo’s Mona Lisa. It was posted yesterday:
The Shroud and the Mona Lisa contain many common points such as to generate suspicion that they are actually two separate parts of a single work.
The Shroud and the Mona Lisa not only contain graphic parts that seem designed specifically to be overlapped with each other, but they also contain references to correctly display and overlay.
Personally I do not believe that the creation of the Shroud is the result of a specific commission proposed by the Savoy but I think the Shroud of Leonardo was ready because it was the result of previous experiments tending to prove the falsity and the easy reproducibility of such a relic.
In the realization of his Shroud Leonardo, however, takes a number of precautions so that the truth will emerge in the future, in order to prepare or modify the Mona Lisa so that superimposing the two images it is quite unobjectionable that the achievement is yours.
And it was photographic. Yes, apparently so if you believe Littleflower. Forget the shroud, the implications for the Mona Lisa are devastating.
Lately? This page at CSI offers a quick review over the past year or so. I see nothing related to the Shroud. My favorite is his investigation of the Florida Skunk Ape. Here is a picture of him taking a picture of nothing in order to prove that skunk apes do not exist. I think I see an alligator just behind him about to eat him. Or is that just a pareidolia formed by swamp grass?
He writes in CSI’s Skeptical Inquirer:
Behavior. The Skunk Ape’s behavior is typically similar to that of Bigfoot everywhere. It is frequently seen standing among trees, crossing a road (and occasionally being hit by a car), rummaging in garbage, drinking water or catching fish from a lake or stream, visiting campsites, standing to peer into windows, and so on. It typically vocalizes by growling, grunting, grumbling, or producing “stressed breathing” and, at least once, “clicking sounds,” among others (although at times there is no sighting and so no certainty that the sound was that of a Skunk Ape) (Jenkins 2010, 111, 117, 123).
Picture Credit: See article.
David Goulet: “Try Vegemite next time. never waste Nutella — even for science.”
Chesterbelloc: “Colin, I hope you’re eating at least some of that Nutella. That stuff
is too good just to use for experiments.”
Seriously, you do need to read, It seems so obvious now (why the Man on the Turin Shroud has bony fingers and no thumbs). The image is NOT a photograph. It’s an ‘impactograph’. on Colin Berry’s Science Buzz blog. If at some time you think the posting has drifted down memory lane (interesting, anyway), scroll down to “Late addition: Tuesday 23:00.” From there, read on.
There is this:
Have just spotted this quote from Professor Giulio Fanti that he made in the course of an interview with shroudstory.com regular "Louis", or to give the latter his full name (supplied on that posting): Louis C. de Figueiredo
"Radiation has been proposed as the source of the body image because we know that the image also resides where body-cloth contact is not possible, for example in the zone between the nose and the cheek or between the hands and the belly, therefore I agree with it."
and this . . .
Second point: image “also resides between hands and belly”?
Really? The predominant impression one gets from looking at positive images is surely the low image intensity in and around the crossed hands, suggesting in this instance that tenting did occur (or was tolerated), whether the linen was underneath or on top of the subject.
(emphasis by Berry)
A find by Joe Marino. You may want to watch the first 3 minutes of this new video. It is up to you if you want to watch any more of it as the creator of the video argues that the man of the shroud has horns, which we all know is a water stain. He goes on and on and on the explain the ramifications of this and compare the shroud picture to the history of Satanic worship.
The creator of this video writes on YouTube:
Please watch the entire video before you jump to conclusions or ask questions. I hope you enjoy.
A Truthiracy Film Production – Educational Research
Truthiracy House of Wisdom
All material is the opinion of Christopher Lord of Truthiracy Films (for legal reasons)
it takes a certain type of person to even read this posting
You may or may not want to read the shaggy dog posting, The Alien "Shroud of Turin" in the UFO Museum Collections, Portland , Oregon.
Even though I am a ufologist this is not an object that I know a lot about. For all I know it may be a fake? But by the looks of it. . . . Accidents like this cannot be fakes. At least they usually are not fakes. The Elvis tortilla probably was a fake . . . etched by some one with a wood burner tool? This piece is nothing like that.
I asked Google to find a similar image. So, for fans of such things, the Google algorithms found proof that aliens were here in 6000 B.C. (when people rode dinosaurs, right?)
Look carefully: there are aliens, flying saucers and poker holes in an L shape. (Not to worry: I still disagree with Colin Berry et al and think the third drawing in the Hungarian Pray Manuscript is based on the shroud).
Louis wrote in a comment in the posting, Bari Conference: A scientific event unprecedented in Puglia:
. . . Professor Giulio Fanti told me that the corona discharge was possibly connected to ball lightning.
This interview-article was posted on the Holy Shroud Guild website but at my request my folder was deleted, for reasons that will soon be made known by me. I am sending it to Dan in pdf format, who can upload it if he wishes to do so. I can understand the pressure he faces. Welcome to the world of Shroud studies!
Here we go: Science and religion meet in Shroud research by Louis C. de Figueiredo.
At my prompting, David Roemer sends his permission to publish his paper, Science, Metaphysics, Philosophy, Theology, History, and the Holy Shroud.
He writes in a comment:
I can’t say because no one is willing to discuss my slideshow/lecture (http://www.holyshroud.info) and the supportive papers I submitted to the St. Louis and Bari conferences. I have no way of knowing what the shortcomings are of my presentation. I got only one invitation to give my lecture. I arrived at the parish in Manhattan with my slides and the pastor told me he decided to cancel my presentation because I was not promoting the authenticity of the Holy Shroud. I complained to the Vicar General, who told me that it was a matter than concerned only me and the pastor. I said there was no way the pastor and me could resolve our disagreement and asked to give a presentation to the pastor with other knowledgeable Catholics to discuss the disagreement. Cardinal Dolan told me I was “debunking” the Shroud, and I filed charges against him with the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. So far no attempt has been made to resolve the conflict between me and Cardinal Dolan.
Anyone willing? Actually, David, is anything new here? Haven’t we discussed this before? The only thing that seems different is that two conferences rejected your paper since you discussed your ideas and got angry because someone would not let you present in their venue. Are you sure that you understand the reasons your paper was rejected?
As I read your past comments, I see repeatedly that you depend heavily on the notion that “images are always created by humans.” What about nature, such as with carbon fossils (fish above is an example) and Volckringer patterns. And can we scientifically rule out God creating images.
I saw your blog on the shroud and wondered if you have any info on how to obtain appointment times for viewing next april-may, 2015, without being associated with a tour group? we will be in italy already on our own and do not need a 10-day tour. thanks for any help you can provide.
The official site where reservations can be made in the future reads (with Google Translation):
At the moment it is not possible to book any pilgrimage to the exposition of 2015. Reservations will be carried out, however, from this site, www.sindone.org . All information will be soon available on the net.
Don’t even think of using the English language pages. They have not been updated since 2010.
Ilikepuglia reports: Shroud of Turin, Bari researchers and scholars from around the world: [is
The an] international scientific event [is] unprecedented in Puglia. Well, you get the idea. That was a work-over of a Goggle translation. The following paragraphs are raw translation:
The event, titled "Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation 2014" (developments in the investigation Shroud) and briefly indicated by the acronym ATSI 2014 should be talked much about it, according to the expectations of researchers and studies dare around the world.
For the first time, in fact, a scientific organization of international first class as the ‘Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineering (IEEE), present in 150 countries around the world, headquartered in New York, which includes in itself the best studios dare and researchers around the world in the field of electrical engineering and electronics, has inserted between the themes of his meetings the studies o research on a subject so well known and debated as the Shroud of Turin. The merit of the initiative should be recognized prof. Dario Petri, as President of the Italian Section of the IEEE, which was followed by the accession of prof. Francis Lattarulo, afferent sindonologist at the Politecnico di Bari, who took over the task of overall coordination and local levels.
This is unprecedented, no doubt about it and not just in Puglia.
- Seventy Cities in Twenty Years Starting in Royal Oak, Michigan
- Ave Maria Radio on the Royal Oak Shroud Exhibit
- More Publicity for Royal Oak Exhibition of the Shroud of Turin
(click on the picture for a larger view)
- Now the Chaldean News, a newspaper published by the Chaldean community in Metro Detroit has a great story about the outstanding Shroud of Turin exhibit: A Fascinating Mystery: Exhibit Explores the Shroud of Turin. (Chaldeans, according to the newspaper are indigenous people of Iraq, Eastern-rite Christians who speak Aramaic. There are over 100,000 thousand of them in this part of Michigan.
The history of the shroud can now be observed at a special exhibition at the former St. John United Methodist Church in Royal Oak until August 17. The entire church has been transformed into a 6,000-square-foot gallery.
The exhibit is guided by an audio tour that is one hour long in English, and 1 hour and 25 minutes long in Arabic. It is also available in Russian and Spanish.
“With a headset, it is just you in there,” said Jose Juan Garrigó, CEO of Immersive Planet, Inc., the company that designed the exhibition. “We are currently working on Polish and French Canadian, and are interested in making an audio recording in Aramaic.”
The entire script has already been translated into Aramaic, but the voice for it has not been found. A male Chaldean who can read Aramaic with a powerful, theatrical voice is being sought to fill the role.