A year ago Heather Pringle wrote in her blog:
Critics of the dating tests charge that the researchers mistakenly took snippets from medieval repairs to the shroud. But new fiber studies conducted on the University of Arizona sample reveal that its overall weave structure is identical to that of the rest of the textile.
We certainly haven’t heard the end of the controversy over the famous shroud yet. But right now, I think the odds are stacked strongly in favor of a medieval origin.
Nothing seems to have come of the new studies conducted on the University of Arizona sample. And where is all the Arizona data? Can I see these studies? Read on.
Way down the page – there are nineteen comments on this blog posting, the latest being eleven months later – Michael A. Iacono writes:
It’s comforting to know that there are many others who are interested in Sindonology, a scientific field which, in my view, will eventually allow the Shroud to recover from the carbon-14 fiasco of 1988. . . .
That said, this blog began with Heather’s article on Dr. Barbara Frale’s book entitled “La Sindone di Gesu Nazareno”. So those interested in exploring this matter a bit further can see an interview of Dr. Frale entitled “Vatican researcher discovers Jesus death certificate on Holy Shroud” at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndGnEGCJuaA
In addition, those wishing to learn about the almost incontrovertible botanical evidence linking Jesus, the Shroud, and first century Jerusalem are invited to view Prof. Avinoam Danim’s interview at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvzqGP9jZBQ&NR=1
In the latter video, one can also see Prof. Giulio Fanti presenting irrefutable scientific evidence regarding the double image on the Shroud.
I don’t buy much of what is being claimed in the comments even though they make for interesting reading. I don’t buy into the belief that there are images of coins. Tell me as often as you want about computer enhancements and points of congruence but until you can show me something I can see or prove to me that the enhancements are not mere amplification of noise and the points of congruence is science I’m not going to believe it. And “almost incontrovertible botanical evidence .” Again, show me. Observations that are not shared eyeball to eyeball with others are meaningless.
Yes the carbon dating is meaningless. Ray Rogers, Joe Marino, Sue Benford, John L. Brown, Bob Villarreal and many others have shown that. That has been proven. Heather seems aware but ducks falling back on some apparent new Arizona claims. They are what, really? Real science? Or mere observations like coin images, etc.? Let me see the eyeball to eyeball evidence.
BTW: I don’t see the lettering claimed by Barbara Frale. But I do see Fanti’s double image detection on the Shroud of Turin. Way too much argumentation is based on what Ray Rogers used to call, “I think I see” evidence, on both sides of the controversy.
See the blog posting and comments: Angels, Demons, and the Shroud of Turin « Time Machine by Heather Pringle
Neither “Time Machine by Heather Pringle” nor this website is a virtual space where Sindonologists and/or laypersons can effectively “share [scientific evidence or] observations [regarding the Shroud] eyeball to eyeball”. If anyone wishes to do so, I invite them to try attending Sindonology conferences, where one can query the scientists and other participants who made the original observations and findings.
The best that one can generally do on websites like this is to point out scientific books, studies, and documentaries where such evidence is presented and discussed, and then encourage readers to do their own personal exploration of the relevant topics.
If one doesn’t hear about some of these studies in America, it’s usually because they are presented at Italian conferences and symposiums and appear only in Italian journals, reviews, and books. If one doesn’t read Italian and there is no English translation available, one should abstain from negatively prejudging their contents, even if one is a scientist.
With regard to the You Tube extracts from various documentaries, I suggested them only “[f]or those who don’t have the time, patience, or background to study the original scientific studies on the Shroud”. I suggested them so that could get “a good idea of some of the crucial facts militating in favor of authenticity”. And I made the proviso that they “approach this evidence with the empirical mindset that characterizes true science.” In other words, don’t take my word for it … go directly to the source of the scientific evidence and findings.
With these provisos, here are a few places where one can find some scientific or other evidence presented and discussed on the following topics relating the Shroud:
1) Numismatics: With regard to the ancient Jewish coins covering the Shroud Man’s eyes and, if I recall correctly, bearing the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius, as well as with regard to the quantitative optical technique used for analyzing and authenticating the images on the Shroud:
M. V. Whanger et al., “The Impact of the Face Image of the Shroud on Art, Coins, and Religions in the Early Centuries, Part 3”, Insert for CSST NEWS, July 2007.
A.D. Whanger et al., “A Quantitative Optical Technique for Analyzing and Authenticating the Images on the Shroud of Turin”, in: “History, Science, Theology and the Shroud”, Proceedings of the St-Louis Symposium, Missouri, USA, 22-23 June 1991, Aram Berard ed., Amarillo (Texas) 1991, pp. 303-324.
2) Pollen analysis: With regard to the plants and flowers that came into contact with the Shroud and which are found exclusively within a small radius of Jerusalem:
M. Frei, “Il passato della Sindone alla luce della palinologia”, in: “La Sindone e la Scienza”, Atti del II Congresso Internazionale di Sindonologia, Torino 1978, Edizione Paoline, Torino 1979, pp. 191-200.
M. Frei, “Identificazione e classificazione dei nuovi pollini della Sindone”, in: “La Sindone, Scienza e Fede”, Atti del II Convegno Nazionale di Sindonologia, Bologna 1981, CLUEB, Bologna 1983, pp. 277-284.
A. Danin and U. Baruch, “Floristic indicators for the origin of the Shroud of Turin”, in: “Sindone e Scienza – Bilanci e programmi alle soglie del terzo millennio”, Atti del III Congresso Internazionale di Studi sulla Sindone, Torino, 5-7 June 1998, CD pp. 576-588.
A. Danin, A.D. Whanger et al., “Flora of the shroud of Turin”, Missouri Botanical Garden Press, 1999, pp. 1-52.
3) Textiles: For those who still doubt the existence of “invisible reweaving” or its ability to overturn the results of the 1988 radiocarbon tests on the Shroud, here is clear and incontrovertible evidence that the ancient art of French invisible reweaving was practiced even in the USA in the 1950s and ΄60s. This evidence was graciously provided to the undersigned by Joseph Marino, author or co-author of at least seven (7) pioneering articles on this subject as it pertains to the TS:
“The Frenway System of French Reweaving: Detailed and Complete Instructions in the Art of French Invisible Reweaving”, copyright 1951-1962 by the Fabricon Company, Chicago, Illinois.
4) History and palaeography: With regard to the Aramaic, Greek, and Latin letters found around the face of the Shroud Man in 1978, and the historical and palaeographical evidence pertaining thereto, see Dr. Barbara Frale, “La sindone di Gesù Nazareno” (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2009).
I trust the above will be of assistance to any layperson seriously interested in finding out whether the Turin Shroud might actually be authentic.
Michael A. Iacono
Comments are closed.