Joe Marino writes:
I rediscovered an old radio interview with Adler that I forgot I had. It was on a program called Dreamland and was broadcast in May 1999, as the interviewer mentioned the upcoming conference that was to be held the next month in Richmond, Virginia. There’s nothing really new in it, but what I found surprising is that it sounds like Adler blamed the C-14 labs instead of the Turin authorities for the choice of the C-14 sample. But of course the more important aspect is what Adler thought of the sample itself. The interviewer asked Adler what he thought was at the heart of the problem from his point of view regarding the C-14 test. He said:
I was on the original protocol committee and we demanded that the test be only precise but it be accurate. Precise is how repeatable a measurement is. The radiocarbon people did a good job with precision. But they did not do a good job with accuracy. Accuracy is how true it is. And where they screwed up was taking the original sample. If you’re only going to take one sample, which is all they did, you have to be sure that the sample you take is typical of the rest of the cloth. Since this is a sample that came from a waterstained, scorched area that showed repairs on one edge, you already have a right to challenge whether it was going to be accurate. On top of that, you have the infrared work, which shows it doesn’t have the same composition, so clearly there’s no proof that it’s accurate.
The photograph is from Alan D. Adler and The Shroud of Turin, a webpage written by his daughter, Chris.
The questions are always there in my mind: Should I simply ignore webpages that are ridiculously wrong? Do I run the risk of hurting someone’s feelings by not doing so? One fellow shroud blogger has told me that he will not read my blog because of this; I’m mean. He would prefer to be “blissfully unaware” of what I write. No, really! Should I just email him, privately? He has asked me not to. Do I send comments to his blog? He will not allow most comments anyway. From me? As the sign on the approach to the Brooklyn Bridge says, Fuhgeddaboudit.
And another blogger has found that almost anything I say about him or what he writes is an insult. Fuhgeddaboudit? No!
I’ve pretty much decided that if someone blogs publically, he or she is agreeing to public criticism. If he or she relies on bad facts, I have a right or duty or pleasure to disagree publically. If he or she expresses incredulous beliefs – personal revelations from God, unique biblical inerrancy, scientism posing as science and whatnot – then it is fair to discuss this publically without fear of being insulting.
These are three quotations from a single recently published posting in OpenTheWord.org: A Bit of Bible, a Bit of Life, a Bit of Politics:
The Catholic church believes the image of Jesus was burned — if you can call it that — into the cloth at the moment of His resurrection.
No. Not true. The Catholic Church does not “believe” this or claim this is so. Some Catholics, some Mainline Protestants, some Anglicans, some Eastern Orthodox Christians and some Non-denominational Evangelical Christians believe this. I suspect it is a minority opinion but there is no way to know. There are no established scientific, historical, philosophical, theological or scriptural foundations for this belief. I’m guessing, but I think that among Christians of all major traditions, including big-C Catholics, few people have even given this any thought or even heard about it.
The latest mystery was unveiled by Gary Habermas at an apologetics conference sponsored by the Southern Evangelical Seminary. Stoyan Zaimov wrote on Habermas’ findings in an article on Christian Post.
Using enhanced photography, Habermas and his team noticed — though the individual’s mouth is closed — his teeth are visible through the skin and beard.
“His skin is intact, his beard is intact, but you are able to see what’s inside coming out, just like you are able to see what’s on the back of a hand,” said Habermas.
This left Habermas wondering if it was the result of a radiation burst, as it mimicked what happens during an x-ray. It would suggest there was a burst of radiation or something similar occurring inside Jesus’ body at the moment He resurrected.
Unveiled? It is not a recent observation. I think people were noticing this before Gary was born. And what is this about Gary’s team? Does he have a team? Using advanced photography? I don’t think Gary has done anything more than look at pictures made by others.
He (and his team) has/have wondered if certain characteristics of the image were the result of radiation? I’d like to know how many years after John Jackson, a physicist, wondered these things did Gary wonder these things. Did he? What did he say? No, really! Look, Gary is a good historian and a fine biblical scholar. He has read a few things and bought into them.
I’m reminded of the waiter in a fancy restaurant who said to me. “I can poach a nice filet of sole for you in some veal stock or I can bake it with a touch of red basil and some house-smoked Hungarian paprika. Or I can grill it in pepper infused Greek olive oil . . . . “ In the kitchen he yells out, “Number 3 dry.”
In early 2013, Padua University conducted a radio carbon test of the Shroud giving it a date of between 280 BC and 220 AD — well within Jesus’ time frame. An earlier carbon test produced a later date.
No, Padua University did no such thing. In fact, no one at Padua University did any such thing. No one at any university did any such thing. No one did. No one. You can trace this sort of error back to science by press release. Think about the announcement for Giulio Fanti’s book.
I don’t want anyone believing the shroud is real because of such nonsense. And thus I may hurt some people’s feelings.
A reader writes:
The unintended consequence of Jull’s attempt to defend the 1988 work done by Arizona will be the opposite of what he hoped for. Yesterday’s questions become new again. Did the lab combine results as widely believed? Did the lab not report all of their measurements? Why hasn’t the lab, even after all these years, revealed all of the test results for each subsample?
What sample “split from one used” in 1988 are we talking about? How many other bits and pieces of shroud material does Arizona have tucked away? What really went on in Arizona?
This paper can do nothing but remind us of why the 1988 carbon dating of the shroud must be considered invalid. The evidence of cotton and dyestuff is overwhelming, Jull’s failure to find it not withstanding.
MY COMMENTS ARE BELOW
Lede: Chidambaram Ramesh, an Indian author, in his latest book “Shroud of Turin: An Imprint of the Soul, Apparition, or Quantum Bio-Hologram” has proposed a new theory that the mysterious image of the man on the Shroud is an imprint of the Quantum Self or Bio-Hologram and the effect of heat/light of such macro-scale quantum holographic manifestation of the man on the Shroud could have had a ‘scorch-like’ effect on the Shroud fibres to imprint the mysterious image on it.
Release: (PRWEB) December 1, 2010
The Shroud of Turin is a linen cloth bearing the faded image of a man who appears to have undergone physical torture consistent with Roman crucifixion. Preserved in the St.John Cathedral in Turin, Italy, it is widely believed to have wrapped the body of historical Jesus of Nazar and venerated by millions of people. The puzzling image on the Shroud of Turin has mystified the scholars and scientists for centuries and still refuses to yield up its secret to the scrutiny of most subtle and highly expertise technological analyses of hundred of intellectuals and researchers. Chidambaram Ramesh, an Indian author, in his latest book “Shroud of Turin: An Imprint of the Soul, Apparition, or Quantum Bio-Hologram” has proposed a new theory that the mysterious image of the man on the Shroud is an imprint of the Quantum Self or Bio-Hologram.
The author has attempted to explain the scientific causes of the image on the Shroud under the realm of quantum physics. By drawing a series of evidences from palingenesis (spectral resuscitation of plants out of their ashes), natural magic, quantum physics and the recent findings of morphogenetic fields, he has unequivocally established that all material body of organisms, even if consumed to ashes, retain their selfsame form and figure. Even parts of the body like blood, skin etc., are capable of forming the 3D geometrical structure of the host organism in its entirety, which is a quantum hologram in the modern scientific terminology. He has concluded that the effect of heat or light emanating from such macro-scale quantum holographic manifestation of the man on the Shroud could have had a ‘scorch-like’ effect on the Shroud fibres to imprint the mysterious image on it.
He also explains some of the extraordinary characteristics of the Shroud image like the photographic negativity and the built-in body-to-linen 3-D information in the grayscale of the image. Real image of a hologram is a photographic negative, reversing the sides and inverted depth. 2-dimensional quantum holographic imprints, when subjected to VP-8 Image Analyzer, reveals its 3-dimensioanl encryption. Half-tone pixel effect, uniformity, viewing at a distance, dehydration of linen fibres due to radiation, absence of side images, double-superficiality, etc., can all be explained with the quantum holographic flux model, according to the author.
My Comments: The author – who certainly knows I have reservations about his thesis before even examining it in detail — has been kind enough to offer to send me a copy of the book for review. I will read it and I will write a review.
Is it fair to review a book if you are biased before opening the cover? Yes. The author has been promoting his ideas before publishing. That is common and it welcomes reviews by skeptics (though I think the Shroud is genuine). Let’s just say that this book must be reviewed. It is going to take a lot of scientific evidence (or something) to convince me of these notions that I don’t think rise to the level of hypotheses that are stated as though they are facts:
- [Alchemy] Palingenesis (spectral resuscitation of plants out of their ashes), natural magic, quantum physics and the recent findings of morphogenetic fields, he has unequivocally established that all material body of organisms, even if consumed to ashes, retain their selfsame form and figure.
- 2-dimensional quantum holographic imprints
- dehydration of linen fibres due to radiation
- can all be explained with the quantum holographic flux model
B&B writes: “By Jove I think he’s got it. Leonardo da Vinci looks just like Julian Assange.” Referring of course to the picture (click image for larger view).
Amy from Nevada asked, “Is Lombatti for real?”
(No, Amy, he just wrote on his site: “As for the Wikileaks news, I was just kidding. Irony, this was the goal of my funny (I hope) blog post.”)
<< On Lombatti’s site >>
Aldo Grano wrote, “So già chi è: Leonardo di nome, Davinci di cognome, detto Codice,” which Google translates as, “I already know who he is: the name of Leonardo, Davinci’s last name, said Code.”
Chidambaram Ramesh wrote:
It has been pretty firmly established by various researchers that the Shroud is not a painting in any known sense of the term. When taken in concert certain conclusive facts about the Shroud – it conforms to the Gospel accounts, anatomically perfect, light and dark are reversed, extremely superficial, there is no mark of paint or brush strokes, fibres of the cloth were not cemented together by any foreign material, depth information of the image has been encoded three-dimensionally, occurrence of high level of bilirubin in the bloodstains, abundance of microscopic dust in the foot-area of the imprint, to name a few – these are enough to make even a skeptic believe in the natural causes of Shroud image. It could never be a hoax. Still, if it is proved that it a fake, then it would be more wondrous than it is now!
Antonio Lombatti then wrote: “As the Israelli archaeologist Joe Zias – who excavated more than 300 Second Temple Jewish tombs – wrote: Not only it’s a clear fake, but it’s also a fake of bad quality.”
The behavior of professional Bible scholars on this relic has been deplorable. It’s true, the Turin Shroud may be seen as a ridiculous topic to deal with. So, apart from Joe Zias, James Tabor, Rachel Hachlili, Shimon Gibson, and Levy Rahmani – experts on Second Temple Jewish burials and Early Christianity – scholars have rarely tackled the fancy claims made by the Shroud authenticity supporters. And this has left room for popular quackery both on library shelves and, above all, on the web. Lurid falsehoods and distorted reasoning have been repeated so many times that the common people and some scholars too may think they are facing the real burial cloth of Jesus. The method used by these "shroudologists" bends the mind the wrong way, an insidious and real corruption, and it has nothing to share with scholarly analysis and philological tools.
And my good friend Dan Scavone, emeritus prof. of history, Univ. of Southern Indiana, wrote:
My friend Antonio (Lombatti) is a formidable scholar. But he knows that ridiculous claims may be found in the writings of "shroudophobes and "sindonoclasts" as well. So, to take him at his word, Joe Zias must have found other forgeries in his 300 tombs ! How else could he know with any certainty that the Shroud is "a clear fake . . . of bad quality"? Although I agree generally with the position of Chidambaram Ramesh, I would argue that if someone ever had thought to forge the Turin Shroud, the New Testament suggests nothing at all about a frontal-dorsal image of Jesus on a burial cloth. Why, then, would someone "forge" it and hope the Christian world would accept it? Antonio himself has elsewhere cited 95 documents, none of which negates the sixth-tenth century documents that already describe the Turin Shroud with the details only an eyewitness could include. The blood now scientifically known to be real human blood and the perfect human anatomy (obviously NOT known to Gothic and later sculptors of the twelfth-fourteenth centuries) also "trumps" the forgery card. Texts going back to the second century are also available in modern libraries, but they can wait until the appearance of the Guardian story. Also Israeli botonist Avinoam Danin has attested to the presence of pollen and faint images of plants indigenous to the Holy Land.
A reader from New Hampshire writes:
I very roughly but conservatively count well over a half million views of YouTube snippets from the History Channels’s Real Face of Jesus. Going viral is something that happens to a single video in a day or a week only to be a vague cyber memory. What is happening here is different. Many people over many weeks have been making short segments from the show and uploading them. Thousands watch some of them. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands watch some of the segments. YouTube has a place for giving a video a thumbs up or down. Ten to one or perhaps twenty to one like them. The written comments are are almost completely positive.
It amazes me; every year or so, we hear how someone has finally figured out how the Shroud of Turin was faked and that last year’s explanation was all wrong. The latest, from Luigi Garlaschelli, more convolutedly complex than Rube Goldberg scratching his ass, was accepted as a paper in the peer-reviewed scientific Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. In the same issue another peer-reviewed paper by no less than six scientists explained how profoundly wrong Garlaschelli was. Proponents of authenticity have done no better.
Why does all this remind me of a certain elementary school science fair project. A student had built a papier-mâché mountain with a jelly jar stuck in the top. He filled the jar with baking soda and poured in some vinegar. His poster, drenched with explosive goop, read, “Volcanoes happen when acid seeps into sodium bicarbonate deposits in mountains.”
Skeptics and believers alike are intent on making something that looks like the image on the shroud so they can say this is how the image was formed.
The Peter Soons movie (http://vimeo.com/14072737) clearly suggests that an outline was artificially created, perhaps accidentally. The 3D glasses borrowed from a Shrek DVD makes this obvious. Isabel Piczek, Barrie Schwortz and many others from STURP have made it clear that there are no outlines in the shroud’s image but gradual changes in tone instead. Moreover, John Jackson demonstrated that the image quenches at three to four centimeters depth. That is not so in the 3D image.
If you believe what you see with 3D glasses on, then Isabel, Barrie and John are wrong. I don’t think so. Thank you for alerting us to this problem.
The pastor of a large parish in New Orleans wrote to me by email:
I think this new 3D image is the most convincing scientific evidence yet for arguing that the shroud is authentic.”
I strongly disagree. The pastor is referring to the red-cyan anaglyph image of the Shroud that you can see only with red and cyan 3D glasses. Personally, I feel that this is a work of art, an artist’s impression of what Jesus may have looked like, expressed in 3D. It doesn’t prove anything any more than the animated 3D movie, “Barbie and the Magic of Pegasus” proves that horses can fly. (Have I changed my mind since my first posting about the site? Yes.)
Here is what the pastor wrote:
The red/cyan anaglyph of the face from the Shroud of Turin at the website shroud3d.com is startling. Regrettably, the size of the image is reduced on the website. Fortunately it is done with HTML so you can grab the bigger sized jpeg and save it on your computer. Do so right away before they reduce the size on the server. Here is the link:
Note: I have replaced the pastor’s long link with a TinyURL. You can see a bigger image (800 by 921 rather than the web page size set to 484 by 545) just by using the following link. Do save a copy of the image on your computer and buy some inexpensive 3D glasses. Read on:
It is, of course, pointless to save this image unless you have red/cyan 3D glasses. The shroud3d website does have stereoscopic images for those who have the proper viewing equipment. It also has a short video showing slow and slight rotation of the image. But these are poor substitutions for looking at an anaglyph with 3D glasses. The anaglyph is fantastic. It will knock your socks off.
I took the bigger image and inserted it into a PowerPoint presentation. It looks great on an eight foot screen. Now all I have to do is buy 3D glasses for an upcoming talk at my church. I found some paper ones for $25.00 per hundred. I also had a poster of the anaglyph jpeg printed at Staples. It works great, too.
I think this new 3D image is the most convincing scientific evidence yet for arguing that the shroud is authentic.
No! The anaglyph may not be very scientific, at all. And that is a major concern because the impression one gets from the website and probably most places this image is displayed is that it is scientific. It may be, but if so, how so.
I am not at all convinced that the data found in the Shroud’s image supports the anaglyph on the website. I’m not convinced that adjustments that were made to the images (there seem to be many) are scientifically warranted. If this is so, if I am right, then the final product, the anaglyph at shroud3d.com must be thought of only as a work of art. Nothing more!
Red and cyan 3D glasses that I ordered from Amazon.com ($4.70) arrived earlier in the week. I have since examined the anaglyph for hours. I was glad to learn from the pastor — one of this blog’s readers — that the full size image was available and I have studied it on a high definition 55 inch monitor. My first reaction was not unlike our friend above. Really, do order some 3D glasses at Amazon and prepare to be amazed.
My second reaction was that there was something wrong.
Bernardo Galmarini, “the 3D expert that produced the conversion from 2D to 3D,” writes on the shroud3d site:
I thought at first, that in this more scientific conversion, the hidden information in the Shroud (3D information in the gray-scale), would be a nuisance or obstacle to produce a human representation of the face, and that I would have to struggle continuously against this. Strangely enough, this hidden scientific information in the Shroud became the key and the basis for this work, reducing my artistic work to only softening the “holes” and deformities (caused surely by the passing of time) and the adapting to what this scientific version commands you to do: filling in and normalizing the “holes” or “dead areas” in the hidden information of the linen. For example: the areas without information in the forehead have been corrected following the surrounding gray-scale with coherent information and with a normal human forehead in mind. This process was helped by the fact, that the central zone of the forehead and the bony structure of the orbits contain very coherent information and that of course was taken as a guideline.
That statement lacks needed clarity. There are certainly holes and deformities. Why is not clear in most cases. It seems completely unjustified to speculate that these are caused by the passing of time. Without knowing how the image was formed, without knowing much about how the shroud was stored or displayed over many centuries, we shouldn’t make such guesses.
Exactly what are the holes and deformities? They have not been detailed on the website. The bloodstains certainly are a problem and to make adjustments for these is perhaps warranted. But what about other deformities? How is the problem of banding addressed? Banding, a variegated background pattern to the cloth, perhaps the result of how the thread of the cloth was bleached and having nothing to do with the passing of time, is certainly the single biggest deformity that exists. It gets peculiar treatment in this new 3D work. The left side of the face (our right) has been partially retouched to minimize the effect. The other side of the face is shaped as though there was no banding but the banding remains. Pictured here is an estimate of the banding in the area of the face.
At the bottom of the beard and the lower areas of the hair, darker areas that are not the result of banding are strikingly evident. These relatively dark areas don’t recede towards the background as expected for grayscale plotting. (You can’t see this without 3D glasses. Don’t even try.) What is the rationale for this obviously apparent artistic adjustment? Moreover, hair above the forehead pompadours frontward without grayscale tones to support it. This hair and facial hair treatment seems artistic.
The entire head and shoulders seem to be completely detached from the background. You can, with 3D glasses on, move your own head ever so slightly and see detached movement. (Again, you can’t see this without 3D glasses.) Galmarini speaks of “hidden scientific information,” presumably but not explicitly the grayscale. I can’t find any data in support of this phenomenon. It seems as though an artificial outline has been introduced around the human form. There does not seem to be any such outline on the Shroud. In fact, researchers, over the years, have noted this lack of outline because it is something that an artist, had an artist created the Shroud, would have certainly included. Interestingly, the areas of the lower neck and upper shoulders, though darker than the background, don’t recede into the background and don’t show detached movement. Most amazingly, the lower part of a prominent water stain above the face is now worn in the hair like a miniature yarmulke while the upper part of the stain adorns the background. This, to my way of thinking, strongly suggests the use of false outlines. What other reason can there be other than to enhance the 3D effect?
The most surprising thing is that the grayscale tones that to the untrained eye look like highlights and shadows, but that in fact become the basis for plotting three-dimensionality, remain in place in the plotted image. If you plot a three-dimensional object from the grayscale density you should have something that looks like a stone statue. Whatever highlights and shadows seem to exist in any resulting computerized virtual-reality image should only be from artificially introduced light placed at a calculated angle and distance in the virtual world. This is what the VP8 Analyzer does and what other software packages such as POV-Ray do. But in the anaglyph in question, it looks as though the original image was stretched like a thin film over the calculated shape. Original highlights, shadows and even herringbone twill patterns are there.
I’m willing to be convinced that I am wrong, that the anaglyph in question is scientific. I would actually like this. If this were so we would have something that is truly amazing. Clarity is needed, however. Specifics are required. I would like to see how much of this conversion to 3D is reproducible in a scientific sense and how much is "only softening the ‘holes’ and deformities."
In order to claim that the 3D images on this site are scientific the steps and procedures must be reproducible by others, at least in theory. Documentation is needed.
- We should know the software or algorithm used to plot the image including any variables or settings used.
- The terminology “hidden scientific information” should be clarified. It is essential to understand how plotting software uses this data.
- Expose higher resolution images for examination if the work was done in higher resolution. While this image may be 800 pixels wide, the resolution is no better than 72 ppi. Ordinary books carry pictures at four times the number of pixels per inch.
- We should be able to see, in anaglyph form for comparison, the unadjusted, scientifically plotted part of the project so that we can judge for ourselves just how much of the final product is by way of adjustment.
- All adjustments made should be explained and justified.
It bothers me to think that these images will be used, as the pastor suggests, in presentations to show the 3D characteristics of the Shroud. These images are certainly being displayed in churches, in exhibits and on the internet without the qualification that this is art and not science. If that is so, it is most unfortunate.
On the other hand, if these images are truly scientific, then the unexplained screams out to be explained.
Don’t get me wrong. There is 3D data in the Shroud’s images. It is the most important quality for knowing that these are not images formed by reflected light as a painter would envision or a camera would capture a human form. The 3D data is a quality that must be accounted for in any hypothesis attempting to explain how the images were formed, be it miraculously, naturally, by fakery or even as honest art. Indeed, this quality, treated scientifically without various forms of electronic manipulation, sooner or later, may suggest how the images were formed.
Interesting story, worth reading in its entirety.
Dr. Steve Wunschel, a Modesto urologist, went to see the shroud with his wife, Beka, and their two daughters, Madeline and Liza. They had planned to be in Italy but didn’t know about the shroud exhibit until their pastor, the Rev. Joseph Illo of St. Joseph’s Church, told them about it and offered to get them tickets.
Illo spent nine months in Italy on a study leave and, along with other priests in Italy, had been asked by the Vatican to spend time in Torino hearing confessions for the 2 million people who showed up to see the shroud. This was only the fifth public exposition of the shroud since 1898 and the longest in its modern history.
Illo saw the shroud three times, including one memorable, private moment with only two other priests in the church.
Merilyn Copland, an Old Testament, history and archaeology professor at William Jessup University in Rocklin, was in Modesto last week to give a seminar on the top 10 discoveries in biblical archaeology. The shroud is one of those, and although she hasn’t seen it, she has seen a bronze statue made from the cloth’s measurements and markings. The bronze figure is on display in Jerusalem.
Last week, the Wunschels, Illo and Copland shared with The Bee their experiences and beliefs regarding the shroud:
Read the entire story: Strong impressions from the Shroud of Turin – Faith & Values – Modbee.com
MUST READ: Lifted from a comment elsewhere:
What all skeptics do not notice is the fact that a forger only fakes something either preexisting or something which is known throughout the history. He never will fake something which was invented by him, because this is nonsense at all. Both conditions are not satisfied in the case of the Shroud of Turin, because neither the New Testament nor the apocryphal writings mention a single line about the existence of a cloth with the dorsal and frontal images of Jesus’ body. Christian tradition, on the contrary, mentions a cloth with only Jesus’ face (the Veronica veil). Before the Middle Age, nothing is mentioned about it, as well. Why will a supposed forger be at the same time so skilled in order to make such an astonishing masterpiece (which even today is very difficult-if not impossible- to copy) and so silly in order to ‘fake’ something unknown at his time?
ROME (Reuters) – An Italian scientist says he has reproduced a human being, a feat that he says proves definitively that humans, which Christians say are made in the image of God, are medieval fakes produced using materials and techniques that were available in the middle ages.
A scientifically-made mannequin, measuring 6 feet, 2 inches tall, looks eerily like Luigi Garlaschelli, the scientist himself.
"We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as a human being," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday.
A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
The mannequin resembles the back and front of a bearded man with long hair with his arms crossed on his chest. He has two hands, two feet and a single head with two eyes and two ears.
Since Darwin, evolutionary biologists have believed that humans evolved along with other animals and plants from a common ancestor. But scientists have thus far been at a loss to explain why some people smoke cherry flavored pipe tobacco since it offers no evolutionary advantage.
Garlaschelli, who received funding for his work by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, expects people to contest his findings. “They didn’t believe me when I reproduced the Shroud of Turin, Quantum physics and the Egyptian pyramids, thus proving that they, too, were medieval creations. “
“It works for me,” said PZ Myers, pastor of the Morris, Minnesota Pharyngula Church of Fundamentalist Atheists. “I was getting tired of evolution, anyway. I believe everything I read in the newspapers so long as it doesn’t conflict with my beliefs. If humans are manmade, that’s fine. I still don’t need to believe in God.”
Garlaschelli said the funding for his work by his own organization of like-minded atheists had no effect on his results. "I always start with results," he said. “That way, I always arrive at the desired conclusion.”
Moscow, October 6, Interfax – The Russian Orthodox Church does not intend to change its view of the Shroud of Turin after a group of scientists at the University of Pavia, Italy, stated that the Shroud was a fake.
"The scientists make their research and arrive at different conclusions, however, the Church is not in the position to approve or disprove anything. This is the authority of scientists who use different methods which always are limited in their capacities," head of communication service of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for External Relations Priest Georgy Zavershinsky said Tuesday to Interfax-Religion.
According to him, the Church’s attitude to scientific discoveries and achievements always takes into account that "eventually, anything may change, and the research work may continue, and today’s conclusions may be challenged."
Thus, Father Georgy noted that the attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Shroud "remained unchanged, along with its standpoint on the previous research which had proved that the Shoud of Turin is not a fake."
Fr. Georgy favours the worshipping of the Shroud by believers.
"The existence of the Shroud has led many people to God, and this is only beneficial for the Christian Church in Europe," the priest said.
Interesting. Worth reading.
We move in a world bursting with conflicts. Between rich & poor…black & white…West & Islam. However, perhaps the most persistent conflict is the ancient one between belief & doubt!
We of today’s technological age of wonders, wonder how the medieval peasant could wonder about perfectly explainable phenomenon, then call them "miracles." After all, once the magician’s trick has been duplicated by the audience, the audience should now know better.
And so, once again, the so-called miraculous Shroud of Turin has come center stage in this belief vs doubt debate. Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli reports he has been able to "duplicate the trick by simply using the materials available at the time the Shroud was discovered in 1360." For him, and other scientists, this finally nails it. Anything man can make is no miracle!
But of course this nails nothing. . .
Read the entire post. Taking a Second Look…: MIRACLES ARE SO MEDIEVAL. OR ARE THEY…?
By Jim Sajo, Special to Stars and Stripes
Stripes European Travel, September 24, 2009
Photos courtesy of Barrie M. Schwortz/Shroud of Turin Research Project ©1978
The Shroud of Turin Research Project examined the shroud closely in 1978. The research revealed human blood stains and confirmed the ghostly image is not paint, pigment or any other known staining agent.
The image of a beaten and crucified man is visible on the Shroud of Turin. Many believe the image is a miraculous likeness of Jesus, somehow burned into the cloth during resurrection.
Photos courtesy of Barrie M. Schwortz/Shroud of Turin Research Project ©1978
Photos courtesy of Barrie M. Schwortz/Shroud of Turin Research Project ©1978 A close-up reveals a man whose appearance resembles images of Jesus. Wounds around the forehead are consistent with the biblical description of a crown of thorns placed on Jesus’ head. Barrie M. Schwortz, who provided photos to Stars and Stripes, was the official documenting photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project, which examined the shroud closely in 1978.
Know and go
• The Shroud of Turin will be on display in the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist April 10 through May 23, 2010.
• Visits are by reservation only and must be booked online at www.sindone.org, which has an English-language version. The reservation system should begin operating on Dec. 1. The Web site has a frequently asked questions section that gives details on the reservation procedure and more information on the exhibit and other sites in Turin.
• Visitors will start their tour in Turin’s Royal Gardens, in the city center. A covered, mile-long "Introductory Route" presenting historical information and photographs about the shroud will precede entry into the cathedral.
• More information on the shroud is available at the Museum of the Holy Shroud, a 10-minute walk from the cathedral.
Is it a fantastic forgery or a miraculous image? Either way, the Shroud of Turin is one of the most researched and most mysterious artifacts in the world.
But while it is thoroughly studied, it is rarely seen. In the past 300 years, the famous piece of linen has been on public display only 17 times.
Next year will make 18. From April 10 through May 23, the city of Turin will put the shroud on exhibit.