Congratulations to my friend, Prof. Giulio Fanti (pictured), and his colleagues at the University of Padua.
As this announcement came floating in, I was thinking about how many dozens of peer-reviewed papers have been published on the Shroud of Turin. It lends credence to the claim that it is the most studied artifact in history. I’m guessing that about 85% support authenticity, 10% do not and 5% are neutral. We need a current list. Here are the details:
Journal: The Journal of Imaging Science and Technology
September/October 2010, vol. 54, no. 5; p. 1-8; ISBN / ISSN: 1062-3701
Title: Turin Shroud: Compatibility Between a Digitized Body Image and a Computerized Anthropomorphous Manikin
Authors: G. Fanti, R. Basso and G. Bianchini, Padua University, Italy
Abstract:
The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long. In order to verify the possibility that both images were generated by the same human body, a numeric-anthropomorphous manikin was constructed by computer and wrapped in the digitized front and back images. The manikin was made to move, within the limits allowed by normal limb movements, with the aim of finding correspondences between predefined anthropometric points on the Shroud and on the manikin itself. Kinematic analysis showed the most probable position of the arms, which are not completely visible on the Shroud, due to damage during the fire of 1532. A part from the hands afterward placed on the pubic area, the front and back images are compatible with the Shroud being used to wrap the body of a man 175±2 cm tall, which, due to cadaveric rigidity, remained in the same position it would have assumed during crucifixion. The position of this Man was assessed in terms of the angles of the legs and arms and the forward tilt of the head.
You can purchase the paper in pdf form online for $20.00. Or you can obtain a copy at most university libraries.
I came to know that at Trial of the Shroud of Turin at Newman University, Wichita October 27 conducted by former federal prosecutor Larry Schauf people who attended that event where both sides of the controversy were presented voted as a Jury at the end, pronouncing on authenticity of the Shroud.
Pro authenticity obtained an overwhelming 95% voting.
I also agree that 85% or may be more of people who seriously study the Shroud of Turin support authenticity.
regards
Maria da Glória
CENTRO PORTUGUÊS DE SINDONOLOGIA
This vote was at a Catholic University. What would the vote have been like at Kansas State? Better yet, Berkley, CA? What would the vote have been like after the exact same presentation at Yeshiva University?
I suspect that people who come to shroud presentations are religious. How many people changed their minds after hearing Larry Schauf?
I guess Len Myers’ reasoning is partially correct if Larry Schauf’s presentation had been at other University may be voting results were different, what he’s meaning is that the result was biased, nevertheless I don´t consider biased results just because most of the people who attended the trial were probably religious.
If we apply a rational skepticism and so called critical thinking to both sides of the issue we conclude that so called Skeptics have each of them their own «true» theories for debunking the Shroud, but as far as I know all of them have been debunked by sound scientific and historical arguments.
leaving aside pseudo science all serious scientific work and historical research point to the Shroud of Turin beeing a first century Shroud that once wrapped a corpse which left a still mysterious imprint on it.
With all historic and scientific background it is not unreasonable to conclude for authenticity.
In my country let alone christian people, most of catholic priests and even Bishops know almost nothing about the Shroud of Turin and don’t even care about it, nevertheless in few Shroud of Turin lectures my husband presented even non religious but honest persons who attended them just by curiosity at the end were convinced that the Shroud did wrap the historical Jesus.
So I’m convinced that even if non religious but honest people (not fanatic atheists blinded with hate against religion) attend a serious presentation most of them would vote pro-authenticity.
regards
Maria da Glória
Centro Português de Sindonologia