Shroud of Turin Mentioned in Not Being God: A Collaborative Autobiography

image Not Being God: A Collaborative Autobiography  of Gianni Vattimo with help from William McCuaig, and Piergiorgio Paterlini is now in reprint (hardback, paper and Kindle)

From Columbia University Press:

Gianni Vattimo, a leading philosopher of the continental school, has always resisted autobiography. But in this intimate memoir, the voice of Vattimo as thinker, political activist, and human being finds its expression on the page. With Piergiorgio Paterlini, a noted Italian writer and journalist, Vattimo reflects on a lifetime of politics, sexual radicalism, and philosophical exuberance in postwar Italy. T. . Vattimo . . . became notorious both for his renewed commitment to the core values of Christianity (he was trained as a Catholic intellectual) and for the Vatican’s denunciation of his views. . . .

This tidbit about the Shroud of Turin caught my attention:

I, however, had my own personal master. Apart from school. A Thomist, an ultra-Thomist: Monsignor Fietro Caramello. A man who thought it was too progressive even to call himself a neoThomist. He used to protest that he was a Thomist period, forget the “neo.” He edited the works of Saint Thomas for the publisher Marietti, and he was the chaplain of the Sindone (the Shroud of Turin), practically a retainer of the House of Savoy. But I don’t believe the Shroud was very important to him. He certainly respected it as a relic, but he would never have undergone martyrdom for the Shroud. He was a philosopher. A philosopher. A master. But also a spiritual director, a friend. Maybe the person who did the most to bring me up, who was immensely fond of me and of whom I was immensely fond.

It was my parish priests who first sent me to him, who knows why. Maybe they thought they had stumbled upon the philosopher’s stone.

After I graduated from university we drifted apart, and it is one of my regrets that he died while I was in America. I was moved recently when I recognized him in a television documentary, where he is seen opening the reliquary and spreading out the sacred fabric.

Does anyone know what documentary?

Atheist or atheist?

Sandy asked:

You always capitalize atheist. Why? Even the atheist blogs do not do so.

I take my lead from the Religious Tolerance website:

We recognize that many Atheists reject the concepts that Atheism is a religion, or is similar to religion, or functions in some ways as a religion. However, we feel that it is appropriate to capitalize these terms as we have capitalized the names of organized religions.

I do it out of respect. If “Atheist” is not a proper pronoun, it should be. (I do not change it when I’m quoting; nor to I sic it).

New Shroud of Turin Paper in JIST, a Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal

image 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.

Shroud of Turin Videos

image According to Google, there 2060 videos to watch for the search term “Shroud of Turin.” That is three time as many as last year and almost seven times as many as two years ago.

A few are duplicates. Many are parts of a whole longer than YouTube will allow as a single video. Some are just jokes. A few have no bearing on the Shroud, one way or the other. A few are for a band called the Shroud of Turin.

Is this extraordinary growth or is this just the sort of growth we are seeing for videos in general?

Quote II for Today

imageI see a man [on the Shroud of Turin] who is respectful, who is afraid of making me afraid. Because God is a little shy. He’s shy because he is a begger for our love. Our God, who is all powerful, who could make the galaxies dance, is poor before me because he is waiting until I’m ready to open my door for him.

— Beatrice Guespereau
He is the Image of the Invisible God: The Shroud of Turin

Net For God TV Shroud of Turin Video

image

Watch this 35 minute video, “He is the Image of the Invible God: The Shroud of Turin

It may one of the best documentaries about the Shroud that has ever been produced.  (And while you are at it, watch “Mary was a Jew.” It is excellent and touching.)

NetForGod TV

Tinfoil Hats Continued: A Defense of Frank Tipler’s Christianity

James Redford writes:

You state that Prof. Frank J. Tipler “suggests that the Shroud of Turin is the key for figuring out how to save the universe from ultimate collapse …” That is incorrect.

And then he goes on to explain why I am incorrect here. I did not do a good job of explaining.

A bit down the page he writes:

You go on to state “… so that brilliant minds can build and sustain a computer simulation of our past lives, including consciousness and free will, thereby giving us immortality. Heaven is a virtual reality.”

I was trying to explain Tipler in a few words. James clarifies:

If by “brilliant minds” you mean superintelligent immortal minds, then that’s correct. In Biblical language, these would be the saints beheaded by the Beast government who take part in the First Resurrection. The general resurrection of the dead isn’t possible at the time of Jesus Christ’s Second Coming, since for almost all the dead their brains will be far too decomposed to be readable. Hence the Second Resurrection, which is the universal resurrection of the dead (both wicked and saint alike), must wait until enough computational resources come online within the universe, as eventually any desired amount of computational resources will be available, diverging to infinity.

Are there boundaries between science, revelation and imagination? I could never quite figure this out. James, I read the book in 2007. I had several discussions with members of the Shroud Science Group. When I was last in New Orleans I had hoped to meet up with Prof. Tipler. Unfortunately, he was out of town. I have a great deal of respect for him and I don’t doubt that he is brilliant. I just don’t buy his thesis.

Thoughts for a Sunday Morning: Tinfoil Hats « Shroud of Turin Blog

The Urantia Book and the Shroud of Turin

B&B writes:

Good tin hat posting. You might want to know that followers of the Urantia Book spend a lot of time looking for proof of their book’s “truth” in its prophetic power to predict scientific discovery and its coincidental power to explain phenomenon. They say their track record is great. Others see it very differently. Recently, they latched onto the Shroud of Turin. That is as regrettable. It can only hurt the shroud’s reputation. You might want to read about the book in Wikipedia.

I do agree that having the UB folks support the authenticity of the Shroud is not good for credibility. I think I implied that in my posting. I did read the Wikipedia article. It is interesting. This tidbit caught my attention:

According to The Urantia Book, multi-colored human races originated suddenly in one generation and in one family, producing brothers and sisters that variously turned blue, yellow, red, green, orange, and indigo when exposed to sunlight. Their offspring subsequently favored the parent color. Later, Adam and Eve produced a violet race. In the book’s account, the blue, yellow, and red races were considered "primary", and the green, orange, and indigo "secondary". The green and orange races were driven to extinction, and the rest mixed over time.

I bet Darwin missed that.

Quote for Today

Jonathan Bonar, Campus Pastor at Christ Fellowship Royal Palm Campus, in Wellington.Florida:

Some believe we have the actual burial cloth of Jesus. The Shroud of Turin is an actual burial cloth of someone who was crucified in Palestine during the time of Christ and some claim it to be the cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his death and before his burial and resurrection. Whether or not it is actually Christ’s burial cloth, it gives us incredible evidence and insight into Roman crucifixion. Guess what? Scientists have intensely studied the Shroud of Turin with the aid of technology and have identified that the person buried in the Shroud of Turin had lacerations over his entire body (from head to ankles) and even small bruises in the shape of dumbbells. Jesus would have been barely recognizable as he carried his cross to Calvary.

. . . I’m young to have stage four metastatic colon cancer. I’ve got a wife and kids to provide for. I’ve sought to honor God with my life and serve Him full time as a pastor. I don’t smoke. I don’t even drink alcohol. Life is not fair! Then I recall life is not meant to be fair, Jonathan! Jesus never even sinned! All He did was travel through the countryside proclaiming grace and forgiveness, healing the disabled and sick, offering love and acceptance to those who had been cast away by society! He did not deserve that beating! He willingly submitted to it because it was part of saving my soul!

Johathan, know that others are praying for you and with you.

Full post at Road Trip with Jonathan Bonar: Life isn’t always fair (Part 1)

Thoughts for a Sunday Morning: Tinfoil Hats

It is enough to make you want to become a skeptic.

In recent years, we have seen a world of craziness when it comes to skepticism about the Shroud of Turin. Perhaps none was as historically dyspeptic as a great conspiracy theory woven by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince: Leonardo da Vinci created the images on the Shroud.

image This wasn’t their only conspiracy theory. In The Stargate Conspiracy we learn that the CIA and MI5 are actively manipulating a secret cult of powerful and rich leaders, including leading scientists who believe that they are in direct contact with extraterrestrial intelligent beings from the star Sirius. These extraterrestrial beings are claiming to be the gods of ancient Egypt, the very gods responsible for an image of a face on Mars. Why are secret American and British agents, with help from NASA, doing this? To create a new insidious mind-control religion. As icing on the cake P&P tell us:

We reveal the ground-breaking research that provides a plausible answer to the most enduring questions about the ancient Egyptians’ achievements and beliefs – and, explosively, uncover the true nature of the gods themselves . . .

In How Leonardo da Vinci Fooled History we learn from P&P that the greatest painter and polymath in all of history secretly invented photography and then created a gigantic camera obscura. He discovered how to make film out of linen, how to chemically develop pictures and fix them. He was, after all, they remind us, a genius. He understood the camera obscura. So did many educated people, even for several centuries before Leonardo. He had experimented with chemistry. That, too, was a passion of many educated people in his day. Moreover, the authors tell us, he was, “[a] known joker, conjuror and illusionist, and a Church-hating heretic.” Is all of this not proof enough? Not even if it were true, which it isn’t.

A big problem for Picknett and Prince was the fact that Leonardo was born a century after the shroud was exhibited in Lirey. It was therefore necessary that he have an opportunity to replace one fake shroud with another fake shroud of his own making. He might have been welcome at the Savoy family palace, P&P tell us. After all they may have owned one of his drawings. Not only did he do all these things, say the conspiracy duo, he dabbed on blood in all the right places. He replaced the head of the crucifixion model with a photograph of his own head. P&P figured this out by comparing the head on the Shroud to a drawing of Leonardo and found, generally speaking, that the eyes and the nose and the mouth of both men were all in about the same place on their respective faces.

There were other strange skeptical theories about the image. There was the Shadow Shroud, a dust painting of a corpse lit by candlelight in a tomb, and another photograph theory sans Leonardo. On and on, theory after theory.

But hasn’t that been the problem of the proponents of authenticity, as well? To some extent, yes. You could say ‘yes’ and leave it at that. But there has been a stark difference. Proponents of authenticity always seemed a bit more reserved, somber, tentative. They spoke mostly of hypotheses and philosophical notions like Occam’s Razor. They sought and obtained publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

image The skeptics, on the other hand, at least some of them, tried not to get too close to science. According to Joe Nickell, not being a scientist is advantageous as researcher or investigator. In an article entitled, “An Interview With Joe Nickell,” Eric Krieg of the Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking, describes Nickell (using Nickell’s own words) as an “investigator” and formerly an “undercover detective, teacher, draft dodger, river boat manager, carnival promoter, magician and spokesperson.” 

“Joe [Nickell] impressed on me the difference between being a scientist and an investigator,” Kreig continued:

Joe seems to have no significant credentials . . .  Joe remarks that a scientist tends to approach an investigation from the narrow view of his own specialty – where as a ‘jack of all trades’ would come up with more avenues of investigation.

But the skeptics always sounded confident and certain. “It happened this way,” they seemed to say. That sounds admirable, of course, until you realize that that no two skeptics were saying the same thing.

Lest you think that such nuttiness is reserved for skeptics, it ain’t so. The tinfoil hat crowd has arrived from wherever, perhaps from the star Sirius, to tell the world that the Shroud is real. It’s hard to pin down when all this started, but the publication of Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Christianity seems defining. Tipler is a professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University, a theoretical physicist, a quantum cosmologist. But . . .! In his newest book, The Physics of Christianity, he suggests that the Shroud of Turin is the key for figuring out how to save the universe from ultimate collapse so that brilliant minds can build and sustain a computer simulation of our past lives, including consciousness and free will, thereby giving us immortality. Heaven is a virtual reality. There is more. Here I must quote from Martin Gardner’s review of Tipler’s book to touch on one other aspect of the Shroud:

All conservative Christians believe Jesus was free of the original sin that resulted from the Fall, which has been passed on to all descendants of Adam and Eve. Catholics think that Mary, too, escaped original sin. (It is a Catholic heresy to reject the Immaculate Conception.) How does Tipler explain the way Jesus and Mary differ in this manner from all other humans?

Tipler’s answer is wonderful. There must be genes that carry original sin! This could be verified some day, he writes, by first identifying the gene. Thus, failing to find evidence of the gene on the Shroud of Turin would explain the sinlessness of both Jesus and his mother.

(I am, dear reader, doing my best to keep a straight face while I summarize Tipler’s convictions.)

image image There is, of course – I say ‘of course’ because everyone follows crop circle reports – the account, just this year, 2010, of two crop circles in Wickham Green, just South of the M4 highway, near Hungerford, in Buckinghamshire, in England, in the United Kingdom. There are images in each of the crop circles. If you overlay these two images after flipping one of them around left to right, and you squint, it is obviously the face seen on the Shroud of Turin. This discovery left one pundit to suggest that there were only two possible explanations: either extraterrestrial beings – may I suggest Picknett and Prince’s friends from the star Sirius – are trying to tell us something or some very talented pranksters used the image on the Shroud for some chicanery.

More recently we have been entertained by a pseudo-chemistry and pseudo-history that proposes that the shroud was a Jewish tallit. Now there is a soon to be released book that argues that the images are quantum bio-holograms. If that is not enough there is a published report from The Urantia Book crowd:

image It [=UB] says that Jesus’ resurrected body was like that of angels and that his physical body still lay in the tomb after the resurrection and that the angels were given permission, upon request of an archangel,  to cause the accelerated dissolution of his physical remains. This permission was requested and granted so that they would not have to witness the decay of his body. The correlations have primarily to do with the superficial nature of the image and current theories about corona discharge and nuclear medicine  imaging.

It helps to understand that the UBers believe that Jesus was the name that the most senior angel, Michael, the ruler of Nebadon, used, temporarily, after the incarnation and before the resurrection. The administrative angel Gabriel, his second in command, ruled the universe while Michael, a.k.a. Jesus, was visiting this planet. He is currently using the name Michael, not Jesus.

And finally – well for now anyways – from a book called Lost at Sea, we have explanations for errors in the carbon dating that defy human comprehension:

They label this skull fell back into dust in the radiocarbon year 5020 bc where this soul ate the fruit of this tree around the calendar ring—that is 6000 years before Christ rose into light: Here this ancient temple wall fell back into dust, around this soul on this raised mound, these doctors call Broca’s area, named after a brain surgeon, where they discover these tongues of many language begin to speak out through these gates and where they look for the Creator of the word— in this wilderness from this historic cross over  point through time—with the AMS. . . . The image locks in the location where this seed buried in the ground rose up into light and left its image to prove that the AMS can’t count the number of times this ancient body rose up into light and it circled these souls —lost at sea—as shown on the stump . . .

(Yes, AMS stands for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, the method used to date the Shroud of Turin.)

Get out your tinfoil hats. It is only going to continue. It’s enough to want to become a skeptic.

Chart of the Day

Why the wider spread of dates for the Shroud of Turin then for the control samples? This chart is from a new text book, An Introduction to Archaeological Chemistry, Price, T. Douglas, Burton, James H., 1st Edition., 2011 (Springer-Verlag, New York, September 2010). In case you thought of popping out to your corner bookstore, the price at Amazon is $169.00. (You can read one chapter, online, for $25.00).

image

One of many Shroud of Turin claims

ub Folks, you are free to have and hold any opinion, religious belief, anti-religious belief, theory, hypothesis, etc. But when it comes to the Shroud of Turin we need to deal with facts, proper science and objective history. What follows, quoted below, is not. And, frankly, given that I have and hold opinions, as well, I think the quoted paragraph is bizarre. No, I’m not saying I don’t respect the religion of Halbert Katzen and his followers, whatever it is and based on something called The Urantia Book. It becomes bizarre when, as I see it, belief become the evidence in support of the belief. As such, I do not think that it offers credibility to the Shroud of Turin.

image Mr. Katzen tells us that the picture at the right was created using an algorithm he created to give us the best possible image of Jesus derived from the Shroud. If that is so, what is the algorithm? Let scientists examine it and work with it. I can see that banding has been minimized. Banding is a technological problem that many Shroud of Turin scientists have struggled with. What is the algorithm? What happens to the 3D data?

From Urantia News – Verifying History and Science in The Urantia Book:

The Urantia Book says the angels performed a time-accelerated elemental disintegration of Jesus’ body and this has intriguing correlations with the image found on the Shroud of Turin. It says that Jesus’ resurrected body was like that of angels and that his physical body still lay in the tomb after the resurrection and that the angels were given permission, upon request of an archangel, to cause the accelerated dissolution of his physical remains. This permission was requested and granted so that they would not have to witness the decay of his body. The correlations have primarily to do with the superficial nature of the image and current theories about corona discharge and nuclear medicine imaging . Additionally, there are intriguing correlations related to the Sudarium of Oviedo, a face napkin said to have covered Jesus’ face as part of the burial process.

I’m afraid that we are going to see many peculiar “theories” in the months and years ahead. They are piling up fast. I need to write more and I will.

Google Blog Searching Carbon Dating

imageGo to blog search and type in Shroud of Turin. First Google reports that there are three carbon dating specific blogs (and more to be listed if I click):

  • Headlights Glowing: Carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating which measures ages based on the amount of radioactive decay that has
  • GOD, CHRIST: QUESTIONS & FAITH NOT ABOUT CARBON DATING, BUT THE CARBON DATING OF THE SHROUD IS MENTIONED
  • Dating  THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT IS FROM THAT SITE.  SAY HELLO TO CARBON.

     

    Next Google gives us several recent postings:

    You get the idea.

     

  • The 1993 Shroud of Turin Conference Now Online as Video

    We hear from Russ Breault. And I add fantasitic!

    image The entire 1993 Rome Conference featuring 49 separate videos is now online and can be viewed in streaming video free of charge.  Many thanks to Paul Bershon for filming it originally and recently encoding for digital.  Thanks also to Dan Scavone who translated the Speaker Index from Italian to English.  All speakers are in English.  Where the original speaker was Italian or French, the translation track was used.  My apologies to those in France or Italy who would prefer their native language.  You may access this from the www.ShroudUniversity.com home page.  This monumental project is part of the education mandate of The Shroud of Turin Education Project, Inc.

    The following is a complete speaker index:

    • Conference Intro
    • Pjilippe Bourcier de Carbon, Schedule of the Paris Symposium in 1989
    • Arnaud-Aaron Upinsky, Clarification of the Scientific Debate
    • Rebecca J. Jackson, The Holy Shroud in Hebrew
    • Robert Babinet, The Shroud of the Gospels
    • Bernard Ribay, Apologetic and Historical Significance of John 20. 3-8
    • R.P.A.M. Dubarle, The Homily of Gregory Referendarius
    • Gino Zaninotto, The Image of Edessa: Impression of the Whole Body of Christ
    • Rex Morgan, New Evidence for the Earliest Portrait of Christ
    • Antoine Legrand, The Representations of the Mandylion
    • Q&A Session 1
    • Blandina Pascalis Schlomer, The Uknown Relix: the Veil of Manoppello
    • Heinrich Pfeiffer, The Veil of Manoppello, The Shroud, And the Authentic Image of Christ in Art
    • Jean-Maurice Clercq, The Shroud and Byzantine Coins
    • Yvonne Bongert, The Iconography of Christ and the Shroud of Turin
    • Jerome Lejeune, The Cloth of Lier and The Prayer Codex
    • Luigi Fossati, The Memorandu, of Pierre d’ Arcis and the Writings of Clement VII Through the Screen of the Critics
    • Rene Laurentin, The Historicity of Jesus
    • Maria Grazia Siliato, The Shroud of Turin and its Conservation
    • Alan D. Adler, Conservation of the Shroud of Turin
    • Gabriel Vial, The Seam of the Side Strip
    • Mario Moroni, The Age and Proposal for photo-colormetric Control of the Shroud
    • Paul Maloney, Should the Shroud be Vacummed? A question for Conservation
    • Ian Dickinson, Communication for Conservation
    • Robert Bucklin, A Doctor at Calvary – The Second Opinion
    • Tarquino Ladu, Drops of Bloody Sweat on the Shroud of Turin
    • Silvio Diana, Optic Activity and Racemization
    • R.P. Jouvenroux, Confidence Intervals Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud
    • Remi Van Haelst, Radiocarbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin. Critical analysis statistics
    • Marie-Claire Van Oosterwyck-Gastuche, Radiocarbon Dates on tissue of well-known Archaeilogical Age
    • Andrey A. Ivanov, Biophysical correction to the old textile radiocarbon dating results
    • Georges Bene, The Age of the Cloth: Critique of the 1988 Dating
    • Olivier Pourrat, The 1988 Dating: Methodological Questions still Without answers
    • Maria Grazia Siliato, The Shroud of Turin and Radiodating
    • Q&A Session 2
    • Sebastiano Rodante, A Flash of Light on the Shroud
    • Isabel Piczek, Is the Shroud of Turin a Painting?
    • Bernard Ribay, The Vegetal Imprints Observed by Prof. Volckringer
    • Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes, Biogenic Varnish and the Shroud of Turin
    • Eberhard Lindner, Hypotheses Explaining the Formation of all the Marks on the Shroud
    • Jean-Baptiste Rinaudo, New Mechanism of the Formation of the Shroud’s Image Capable of Causing a False Medieval Radiocarbon Date
    • John J. Jackson, New Evidence that the Turin Shroud was the Mandylion
    • Ian W. Dickinson, New Evidence for the Shroud since 1988
    • Arnaud-Aaron Upinsky, Scientific Demonstration of Authenticity: the Scientific Status, Recognition, and Identification
    • Daria Bertolani Marchetti, Pollen and Sindonic Research: New Lines of Investigation
    • Antoine Legrand, Dating by Iconography
    • Michel Bergeret, The Historical Gap: !204-1357
    • Ernesto Brunati, Incongruence in the Reports Illustrating the Dating of the Shroud
    • Carlo Goldoni, Human Blood on the Cvioth of Oviedo?
    • Q&A Session 3

    More on Helfand on the Shroud of Turin

    Al of Chicago repeats the question: How many mistakes can I find? Is Dr. Helfand not even embarrassed for writing this? And here is my list.

    The Shroud of Turin project began in the late 1970s when a group of scientists and engineers, a large fraction of whom came from the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Laboratory (which I find a frightening thought), lugged millions of pounds of equipment over to Turin and were granted unlimited access to the shroud in order to perform scientific experiments on it to prove that it was the burial shroud of Christ. And indeed, the first experiments, all released through press releases and not scientific journals, were very encouraging. There was iron in the blood on the places where the nails had gone through the hands. The image on the cloth was not possible to produce prior to the age of photography and on and on.

    Finally, ten years later, when the church relented and allowed two square centimeters of the cloth to be shipped off to two independent laboratories for double-blind tests of the age dating of the shroud, the age in both cases came back at about 650 plus or minus 20 years, or roughly, 1351 when historians had already shown that the Avignon Pope had excommunicated a French bishop for displaying a fraudulent burial cloth of Christ, "very cleverly painted." My question is, suppose the Carbon-14 data on the shroud had come back differently. Suppose it had come back with a date of A. D. 26. Would then Prof. McGrath or anyone else have said, "Oh, but science has nothing to do with religion, so we won’t take that data into account?"

    1. the goal never was to prove that the shroud was the shroud of Christ
    2. one in four was from Los Alamos, but only half of them went to Turin. It is an exaggeration. But Los Alamos scientists are excellent. BTW he got the name of the lab wrong.
    3. hundreds of pounds of equipment not millions. Helfand must be thinking about Hubble telescope. Nah, it only weighed 24,500 pounds.
    4. access was very restricted, limited to non-destructive tests and just five days, where does Helfand get this stuff
    5. almost all results were published in peer-reviewed scientific journals unlike the carbon dating which was first released in a blackboard-stunt presser.
    6. there was iron in blood, of course, not particularly where the nails went through but because blood contains iron. in fact, it was blood.
    7. wrists not hands
    8. we do not know that image could not be produced before the age of photography, and we still don’t know how the image was produced
    9. the church didn’t relent, they were part of the process, this is pure hyperbole.
    10. it was seven centimeters of cloth not two, half held in reserve and half divided among the labs
    11. it was three labs not two, the difference is important. and they
    12. the carbon 14 tests were not double-blind tests, he should read the report. It is clear that Helfand has relied on the writings of an English teacher, Joe Nichols (sic) who denounces the value of science for his work.
    13. the results were not 650 years old plus or minus 20 years in both cases. many tests were run and the statistical result was 95% certainty between 1260 and 1390, a span of 130 years. but now we even know that this was wrong
    14. the tests have since been proven wrong by several people in different organizations
    15. tt was not cleverly painted. again, Nichols (sic) and not science. good grief, Helfand.
    16. And where did this date 1351 come from? does Helfand just make up dates.
    17. the Avignon pope did not excommunicate a bishop. are Helfand’s astronomy lectures as filled with mistakes.
    18. why 26 ad? why not 30 or 33?

    I haven’t counted the others yet. So keep writing in.

    A Metaphor for the Carbon Dating the Shroud of Turin

    By way of Al of Chicago:

    image

    Brown, yellow and green had been there since the beginning. For the most part, red had been there, too. But tan was cut out and replaced with blue.

    Along came some scientists. They cut off a corner and removed a single sample. They cut it into three parts. They looked at the parts. Then came the announcement. It was written on a big blackboard. BLUE!

    All M&Ms are blue.  It doesn’t matter what you think you know, we have examined one sample and are 95% certain that all M&Ms are blue.

    Here ends the metaphor for the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin.

    Editor’s Note: Chart is from Wikipedia. It shows the history of M&M colors.

    Russ Breault Presenting at Georgia Highlands College

    image If you get a chance to see Russ Breault doing a Shroud of Turin presentation, don’t miss him. If you can get to  campus of Georgia Highlands College on Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 7 pm do so. Here are some more details:

    (Media release) Russ Breault, researcher and expert on the renowned and intriguing Shroud of Turin, will present a 90-minute multi-media lecture titled Shroud Encounter at the Lakeview Building, Floyd campus of Georgia Highlands College on Wednesday, Nov. 10 at 7 p.m. The event is free and open to the public.

    The authenticity of the Shroud of Turin has been debated for years, and Breault has been featured on the History Channel’s "The Real Face of Jesus" and the CBS documentary "Mysteries of the Ancient World" discussing its mystery and the research that has been undertaken on the subject. He has also spoken at a number of colleges and universities on the subject, including Duke, Auburn and West Point.

    The Shroud of Turin has been the most analyzed artifact in the world, yet it remains a puzzle. The 14-foot long linen cloth has resided in Turin, Italy for more than 400 years and bears the faint front and back image of a five-foot, 10-inch bearded, crucified man with apparent wounds and bloodstains that match the crucifixion account as recorded in the Bible. Millions of people over the centuries have believed it be the actual burial shroud of Jesus. The historical trail tracks back through Italy, France, Asia Minor (Turkey) and may have originated in the Middle East according to botanical evidence.

    A team of 40 scientists in 1981 concluded it was not the work of an artist. They found no visible trace of paint, pigment, dye or other artistic substances on the cloth. Other discoveries have defied explanation. For example, why does the image show up as a positive image in a photographic negative? The blood found on the material is AB positive with human DNA. But if the cloth indeed wrapped a corpse, there are no stains of decomposition. A mystery indeed.

    The Shroud was largely dismissed in 1988 when three carbon dating labs indicated a medieval origin. However, the only sample taken was from a corner, which apparently was a repair dating to the Middle Ages. As a result, many scientists now believe the carbon dating results are probably invalid.
    National Geographic called the shroud "one of the most perplexing enigmas of modern times."

    Shroud Encounter features more than 150 images of the shroud, and will cover all aspects of the history, science, art and theories of how the image may have been formed.

    Northwest Georgia Press Releases: GHC Lecture Series Features Shroud of Turin Presentation

    Leonardo the Time Traveler of 1356 and 1838

    CNN is doing a story on it right now. (I guess they ran out of news). Is this fuzzy shape (see CNN) the first person ever photographed? What will this story do to the conspiracy theory of Picknett and Prince? They, as we know, think it was Leonardo da Vinci, whose face appears on the Shroud of Turin. Solution: Since we know that Leonardo accomplished this neat trick that by travelling back a century in time to pose for and photograph the shroud, maybe he also travelled forward a few centuries to pose for and actually take this Daguerreotype.

     

    According to Wikipedia:

    Boulevard du Temple, Paris, IIIe arrondissement, Daguerreotype. The purportedly first picture of a living person. The image shows a busy street, but due to exposure time of more than ten minutes, the traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is the man at the bottom left, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show. Look closely and you will also see another man sitting on a bench to the right reading a newspaper. Also in the upper left hand side you can also see another man standing under the awning of the 3rd building from the left. What looks to be a woman standing under the street lantern at 10 o’clock from the man getting his shoes shined and another one in the big white building,1st row 3rd window down. Notice the child in the top floor window of the white building in front. Note that the image is a mirror image.

    Here is a CNN link: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/11/04/exp.nr.france.first.pic.cnn?hpt=C2

    Promoted Comment on “I think I see the Shroud of Turin”

    Michael A. Iacono writes:

    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

    With all due respect, Michael, I have studied the Shroud of Turin for many years. I have been to conferences. I have read everything that the Whangers and Danin have written. I have sat through presentations by them. I have talked with them and many other scientists. I have not read Barbara Frale’s book but I am completely familiar with its premise. I remain unconvinced that there are images of coins or flowers on the Shroud. Frankly I think they are a distraction from the legitimate arguments in favor of authenticity. That is my opinion.

    Yes, dear readers of this blog, read everything on the above list. Can someone convince me that there are coin images on the shroud. I’ll publish in this blog any argument offered unless it is “Tin Hat” weird.

    I might be better convinced about the pollen (I’m not doubting it but have concerns) if extant material was reexamined by members of the Shroud Science Group or their representatives.

    But, I am very familiar with the subject of French reweaving thanks to Joe Marino’s help. I accept that explanation fully as the best explanation for the evidence developed by Rogers.

    I don’t think there is enough public dialog about the Shroud. That is why I’m blogging. Not everyone can go to conferences. Frankly, the number of books is growing very fast and YouTube videos are exploding. Some are simply zany.

    I wish there were more blogs. I wish there was more back and forth. I wish there was more sharing of evidence and observation. I am a member of the Shroud Science Group but I cannot share what goes on in those discussions without permission. I would love to have some of them publish here.

    Michael, thank you for writing. Please comment any time.

    Comments on “I think I see the Shroud of Turin: Postings that l” ‹ Shroud of Turin Blog — WordPress

    Mental Health Break

    It gets funnier and he gets more confused as the video continues. Did Dr. David have to take a bathroom break or what?

    He has most of his facts wrong and confuses the “theys” with “the scientists” who are usually one in the same. And who are the scientists sticking by the carbon dating? Some more theys?

    Enjoy!

    How many mistakes can you find?

    image The two paragraphs below, pertaining to the Shroud of Turin, were delivered as part of a debate speech by David J. Helfand, chair of the Department of Astronomy at Columbia University and co-director of the Columbia Astrophysics Laboratory during a speech at Columbia. The number of errors of fact, both historical and scientific is extraordinary for such an esteemed scientist.

    How many mistakes can you find?

    The Shroud of Turin project began in the late 1970s when a group of scientists and engineers, a large fraction of whom came from the Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons Laboratory (which I find a frightening thought), lugged millions of pounds of equipment over to Turin and were granted unlimited access to the shroud in order to perform scientific experiments on it to prove that it was the burial shroud of Christ. And indeed, the first experiments, all released through press releases and not scientific journals, were very encouraging. There was iron in the blood on the places where the nails had gone through the hands. The image on the cloth was not possible to produce prior to the age of photography and on and on.

    Finally, ten years later, when the church relented and allowed two square centimeters of the cloth to be shipped off to two independent laboratories for double-blind tests of the age dating of the shroud, the age in both cases came back at about 650 plus or minus 20 years, or roughly, 1351 when historians had already shown that the Avignon Pope had excommunicated a French bishop for displaying a fraudulent burial cloth of Christ, "very cleverly painted." My question is, suppose the Carbon-14 data on the shroud had come back differently. Suppose it had come back with a date of A. D. 26. Would then Prof. McGrath or anyone else have said, "Oh, but science has nothing to do with religion, so we won’t take that data into account?"

    Stay tuned. A copy of History Channel’s “The Real Face of Jesus?” DVD to the winner. Answer by comments or email to drporter@optonline.net. I’ll get back to you in the same way, if you win, to get a shipping address from you privately.

    The Shroud by Harold Robbins now in paperback

    According to Publishers Weekly:

    image Podrug’s workmanlike fifth contribution to the Robbins franchise (after The Looters) ventures into religious thriller territory. Madison Dupre, disgraced antiquities expert, is scratching out a living in New York City when Henri Lipton, the hated associate who she thought had been killed in an earlier adventure, offers her much-needed cash to help him track down a religious artifact—a supposed painting of Jesus that was buried in His tomb after the crucifixion. Lipton intends to sell the painting to a Russian holy man, Boris Alexandrovich Nevsky. Maddy survives several attempts on her life and has numerous sexual encounters as she races from city to city in an effort to locate the artifact. Even though Podrug employs the Robbins fundamentals—sex, action and exotic locals—the result lacks the primal heat of Robbins’s best. (Oct.)

    From what I gather, this book never took off much. I haven’t read it in hardback, was never Kindle-ized or made into a audio book.

    %d bloggers like this: