We believe our hypothesis can readily be tested simply by . . .
our hypothesis depends on a completely natural mechanism.
It does not conflate the image formation mechanism with the Resurrection
When I spotted Electric Charge Separation as the Mechanism for Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin: A Natural Mechanism by D.S. Spicer and E .T. Toton on shroud.com’s St. Louis Conference page, and I read the abstract again, I quickly looked for something else to read. It’s the non-scientist in me; this was going to be difficult paper, I realized.
I was wrong. It was very interesting and easy to understand.
I always jump to the end where I found this under Discussion and Conclusions on page 15:
As should be clear, our hypothesis depends on a completely natural mechanism. It does not conflate the image formation mechanism with the Resurrection, nor should it. The image is not the recording of the Resurrection but it is an image capture of the body of a crucified man consistent with the historical records of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. That no hitherto satisfying mechanism for image formation has been discovered is not proof that a supernatural explanation must be the only other choice, nor does the discovery of a credible mechanism of image formation impugn the belief in the reality of the Resurrection. If it were possible to take a photo of the Ascension-where is the miracle? Is it the Ascension or the photo of it? We believe that the Shroud Image is indeed the image of Jesus Christ’s lifeless body only and it strengthens the historical argument for His existence, death, and His Resurrection.
Got it! That’s clear. Now back to the beginning. This part of the introduction had me hooked. Read on!
In this paper we examine a novel image formation mechanism that comprises a uniform low frequency quasi-electrostatic field and polar molecules to produce the image of a crucified man on a linen cloth known as the Shroud of Turin. Given that to date the historical evidence tracks the origins of the cloth back to at least the 6th century AD, that forensic evidence strongly supports the conclusion that the man enclosed by the Shroud was in fact crucified, which totally undermines the assertion of forgery by revealing details in physics, chemistry and medical knowledge only available in the 20th century, and that there are additional physical tests, other than the one-off and often cited C14 test against the authenticity of the Shroud, that date the Shroud to the 1st century AD, we will assume that the crucified man was in fact Jesus of Nazareth and use the New Testament Gospels as a source of information for Jesus’ crucifixion.
Among the many STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) findings regarding the images of a crucified man found on the Shroud of Turin (ST) there are six that point to a clear and natural explanation for both the dorsal and ventral images of the cloth [21, 16, 1, 2, 3, 8, 20]. These are:
- Images on the cloth exist only of the dorsal and ventral surfaces of body and these images lie only on the fibers found at the extremities of the cloth
- No image or discoloration exists between the two surfaces of cloth, i.e., within the cloth
- There is no image of the top of the head or sides of the body enclosed by the cloth 
- The image density on the cloth appears to embody information on the vertical distance between the cloth and the portion of the ventral body imaged, as if the cloth were held flat and horizontal slightly above the body or, in the case of the dorsal image, between the cloth on either the floor or shelf on which the body lied and the back of the body. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body the darker the image, and the farther away the fainter the image 
- A body image is visible in areas where there was no contact between the body and the cloth
- The coloration does not appear under the threads where they cross in the weave of the cloth
And there was this timely paragraph that pertains to recent discussions on this blog about why the image does not fluoresce – of course, assuming . . .
The STURP measurements showed that the Shroud fluoresced everywhere except in regions of the image. This suggests to us that the image formation mechanism somehow changed the allowed atomic transitions that permits the rest of the cloth outside of the image areas to fluoresce. This fact suggests that identifying what is allowing fluorescence can help to determine what chemically causes the image. A good start would be to see whether calcium fluoride or residual pectins (an Alan Adler suggestion) are present on the cloth.
 Brian Walsh private communication
In an opinion piece, Stu Salkeld, editor of the St. Albert Gazette, writes:
Some people would be astounded to know how far back the tourism industry stretches. Some claim it stretches back to the 14th century in Europe, when a preponderance of holy relics appeared rather suddenly. The number and diversity were impressive: the Shroud of Turin, said to be Jesus Christ’s image on his burial shroud, which was unheard of until the relic trade began in the 1300s, the Sudarium of the Lord, a facecloth that is said to have captured Christ’s profile after he died on the cross, the Spear of Destiny, which a Roman centurion wielded as he stabbed Christ on the cross (four of these currently exist in Europe) and probably the least known, the Holy Prepuce, or Holy Foreskin.
[. . . ]
The medieval relic trade was profitable. Pilgrims from across Christendom travelled what, at the time, were rather dangerous roads to visit cities such as Turin that held artifacts said to be associated with Christ, the saints or other holy figures and while they were on the road pilgrims spent a lot of shekels, much as modern tourists do today. However, the authenticity of many relics was almost immediately called into question, even by the church itself. For example, in a 1389 letter, Bishop Pierre D’Arcis denounced the Shroud of Turin as a fraud to Clement VII.
Some claim; is that transparent bias? Can you spot the history mistakes?
Why the picture of Saturn? Read the article.
Andrea Nicolotti’s book, From the Mandylion of Edessa to the Shroud of Turin: The Metamorphosis and Manipulation of a Legend (Art and Material Culture in Medieval and Renaissance Europe) has finally been published in English. It was available in Italian in 2011. Andrea, who has commented in this blog on occasion, considers this to be a “revised and augmented edition.”
The price for the Hardcover edition is $124.00 at Amazon. The list price is $142.00. (Please note that Amazon is reporting that the book has not been released even though the publication date is September 15th. Nonetheless, Amazon is accepting orders at this time).
A limited preview of the first chapter and the conclusion from the last chapter is available at Academia.org. The Table of Contents and Index are also provided.
The whet your appetite here are three paragraphs from the conclusion:
There is not a shred of evidence that the Mandylion of Edessa was a long shroud or that it showed the entire body of the crucified and wounded figure of Christ. Those who argue for the shared identity of the Shroud of Turin and the Mandylion of Edessa have based their arguments on evidence that cannot withstand close scrutiny. In order to argue for the authenticity of the Turinese relic, some have gone to great lengths. In so doing, they have approached the changing nature of the legends concerning this relic too simplistically. More-over, they have used evolving legends as if they were trustworthy historical sources, which is utterly unacceptable.
It is clear that the ultimate aim of the theory that identifies the Shroud with the Mandylion is to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin has existed and can be documented since antiquity. But the first historical documents that mention the Shroud date to the fourteenth century, and the date obtained by radiocarbon dating places it between 1260 and 1390 CE. The history of the Shroud is the topic of my next book, but it is important to clarify that even if the Shroud was authentic and dated from the first century, it is a completely different object than the Edessean image.
We can therefore end this analysis by quoting the 1786 opinion of the Marquis Giovanni de Serpos, in regard to the reliability of that “sweet illusion” and the “birth of a devout imagination” in the legend of Abgar: “Everything so far narrated must be counted as mere fable.”
Order it today and Amazon will ship it the minute it becomes available. I look forward to reading this book and his next book on the history of the Shroud.
The Reporter News in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, offers a headline, a picture and a photo caption:
The Photo Caption: Anna Marie Parsons leans down to touch a replica of the Shroud of Turin on display at St. Maria Goretti Church in Hatfield on Sunday evening. Pope Benedict XVI approved nine replicas of the Shroud of Turin and then individually blessed the cloths. Each cloth was sent on tours all around the world.
Expecting some news accounts out of Bari?
Here is a rough Google translation from the Amici della Sindone (Friends of the Shroud) Facebook page. They are starting to arrive in Bari:
Originally they were 3, then 4 … there will be several others (and others), but they were scattered here and there … so here’s to you, for now, the Trimurti [great trinity, threesome, triad] of the Italian scientific-experimental studies on the Shroud of Turin, [and] the more gregarious one from Spain
and newer testing in Italy and teeth showing through
By the time the folk over at the Christian Post toyed with the press release the story took on a completely different character.
"[The teeth] are on the inside, but on the photo
they are showing outside. Whichever way
[the radiation] is coming, it dragged the image
from the inside to the outside."
The first paragraph is okay:
The keynote speakers include Bruno Barberis, director of the International Center of Sindonology in Turin, as well as the Most Rev. Michael John Sheridan, bishop of the Diocese of Colorado Springs. The conference is set to open with renowned shroud lecturer Russ Breault.
[ . . . ]
Initial tests conducted in 1988 in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich supported the theory that the shroud is a forgery created in the Middle Ages, somewhere between 1260 and 1390, but later tests in 2011 by Italy’s National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Development came to the conclusion that the relic could not have possibly been replicated by the technology available at that time.
Gary Habermas, distinguished research professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Theology at Liberty University, led a presentation in 2013 at the Southern Evangelical Seminary’s 20th annual Christian Apologetics Conference and discussed enhanced images of the shroud which showed that the person’s teeth were showing through the skin.
"His skin is intact, his beard is intact, but you are able to see what’s inside coming out, just like if you are able to see what’s on the back of a hand," Habermas said during the presentation, while showing a photo of an exposed human skull juxtapositioned next to the head of the man in the shroud, with the teeth from the two images aligned.
"This is one of the best indications that the man in the Shroud, who was dead and was crucified, [has] radiation coming out," he said of the teeth discovery. "And if that’s what this is, you’ve got something from the inside [coming out].
"[The teeth] are on the inside, but on the photo they are showing outside. Whichever way [the radiation] is coming, it dragged the image from the inside to the outside."
O.K. is going to discuss the following images through comments. Join him. I’ll be interested to see where this goes. (Click on any picture to see it in larger form.
Fresco + Vignon Marks
Fresco Marked Up
Durante Marked Up
Durante Overlay with Fresco