Site icon Shroud of Turin Blog

A Guest Posting by Giulio Fanti

imageI am Giulio Fanti, associate professor in Mechanical and Thermal Measurements at Padova University (Italy) (http://www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/fanti-ingl.html). I study the Turin Shroud from 1997 from a scientific point of view; some publication on the argument are at the address: http://www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/Shroud.htm Other more recent publications on the Turin Shroud are listed here:

2011
– G. FANTI, "Hypotheses regarding the formation of the body image on the Turin Shroud.
A critical compendium", accepted for J. Imaging Sci. Technol. Nov-Dec. 2011.
– G. FANTI, T. HEIMBURGER, "Letter to the Editor: Comments on – Life-Size Reproduction of the Shroud of Turin and Its Image" by L. Garlaschelli- " J. Imaging Sci. Technol. Vol. 55, 020102 (Feb 25, 2011)
http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=JIMTE6&Volume=LASTVOL&Issue=LASTISS
– G. FANTI, "La Sindone, una sfida alla scienza moderna", Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Galileiana di Scienze ed Arti in Padova, Anno Accademico 2009-2010, Vol. CXXII, Parte II, pp. 27-46 (2011).

2010
– FANTI G., "Can a Corona Discharge Explain the Body Image of the Turin Shroud?", Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, Vol. 54, No. 2, March/April 2010, p.020508-1/10.
– G. FANTI, J.A. BOTELLA, P. DI LAZZARO, T. HEIMBURGER, R. SCHNEIDER, N. SVENSSON," Microscopic and Macroscopic Characteristics of the Shroud of Turin Image Superficiality", J. of Imaging Sci. Technol., 54 No. 4, p. 040201-1/8, (2010).
– G. FANTI, R. BASSO, G. BIANCHINI, "Turin Shroud: Compatibility Between a Digitized Body Image and a Computerized Anthropomorphous Manikin", J. of Imaging Sci. Technol., 54 No.5, p. 050503-1/8, (2010).
– P. DI LAZZARO , G. FANTI, E. NICHELATTI, G. BALDACCHINI," Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image", J. of Imaging Sci. Technol., 54 No. 4, p. 040301/6, (2010).
– RIANI M., FANTI G., CROSILLA F., ATKINSONS A., "Statistica robusta e radiodatazione della Sindone" SIS Magazine http://www.sis-statistica.it/magazine/spip.php?article177
– FANTI G., PRIVITERA C., "A Quantitative Image of the Turin Shroud for Details Recognition", Proc. Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– HEIMBURGER T. FANTI G., "A Scientific Comparison between the Turin Shroud and the First Handmade Whole Copy", Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, – ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– FANTI G., J.A. BOTELLA, F. CROSILLA, F. LATTARULO, N. SVENSSON, R. SCHNEIDER, A.D. WHANGER "List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud", Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– FACCINI B., FANTI G., "New Image Processing of the Turin Shroud Scourge Marks", Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– M., A.C. ATKINSON, G. FANTI, F. CROSILLA," A robust statistical analysis of the 1988 Turin Shroud radiocarbon dating results", Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– A. C. LIND, M. ANTONACCI, G. FANTI, D. ELMORE, J. M. GUTHRIE, "Production of Radiocarbon by Neutron Radiation on Linen", Int. Workshop on the Scientific Approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, ENEA Research Center of Frascati (Italy), 4-5-6 May 2010, ISBN 978-88-8286-232-9.
– G. FANTI, "Sindone – La scienza spiega la fede", Ed. Messaggero S.A., Padova, 2010, ISBN 978-88-250-2629-0.

2009
– FANTI G., Proceedings of Shroud Science Group International Conference "The Shroud Of Turin: Perspectives on A Multifaceted Enigma", Ohio State University, August 14-17, 2008, Libreria Progetto, Padova, Italy 2009, ISBN 987-88-96477-03-8.

I am Christian Catholic by faith and I had the privilege to confirm more than one time my faith by means of personal physical proofs.

From my researches on the Turin Shroud and on other Objects connected with the Supernatural I understood that positivism is not always applicable and that there is necessary to suppose the existence of something that is out the traditional science to explain some phenomena connected with God, to the Mother of God, or to Religion in general.
I therefore approach problems related to the Turin Shroud and to other supposed relics knowing that Science and Faith are not in contrast each other but the one helps to explain the other.

I am sure that the Turin Shroud is authentic in the sense that it enveloped the dead Body of Jesus Christ and I tend to suppose authentic also the Oviedo Sudario, the Tunique of Argenteiul and the Titulus Crucis (being the first more reliable for me than the last) from knowledge I have on these Objects (that is not so wide as the knowledge I have for the Turin Shroud).

I am the leader of a Research Project on the Turin Shroud financed by the University of Padova also addressed to study the possible environmental effects that could have influenced the radiocarbon dating on the Turin Shroud and also from these on progress results I formulated the hypothesis recently presented. I repeat, it is only a working hypothesis that should be tested in the future, but for me it must not be a priori discharged.
There should be too much to write about the argument and much of it should be read in my publications, therefore my messages must be synthesized as much as possible. For example in this view I only presented two hypothesis in my recent posting in reference to the two possibilities of authenticity or falseness of the four Relics of Christ.

In fact there is obviously a third possibility that can be shared in other sub-possibilities that can be, naming T=True and F=False in reference to: A)Turin Shroud, B)Oviedo Sudario, C)Argenteuil Tunique, D)Titulus Crucis:

1) AT-BT-CT-DF; 2) AT-BT-CF-DF; 3) AT-BF-CF-DF; 4) AT-BT-CF-DT; 5) ….
but for the aim of discussion it seems less relevant because if we accept sub-possibility 1) for example, the discussion changes of a small quantity because it is only developed in reference to three Relics that can be true or false instead of four.

If sub-possibility 2) is accepted we still have two Relics that put in discussion the radiocarbon results and my discussion still holds.

I want not comment here some free observation made in the blog attempting to smear the name of Shroud Science Group only using my personal point of view because it is obviously tendentious. And before to affirm that my proposal is biased there should be shown scientific proofs, but not proofs only based on a positivistic conception of the physical world.

Who freely defines the facts related to Medjugorje as "ludicrous" is certainly an ignorant in the sense that he ignores the scientific results obtained by University Professors who physically measured particular phenomena using calibrated instruments. And the hypothesis that something surrounds the body of special person is not a fantasy but it is also sustained by those physical measurements.

Instead to almost blindly make reference to R. Rogers’ findings (that refer to non well defined samples), it should be better to make reference to direct analysis performed on samples taken from the Turin Shroud with the aim to propose a clear evidence of the contamination that could have affected the 1988 radiocarbon result.

I stop here because I want not to waste time in sterile a discussion that I am convinced will only produce rivers of words trying to evidence the fact that I am in error or worst to try to discredit my name. I want only to say to those bloggers that it should be better if they study the Turin Shroud in the details, with the wish that in such a way they will be closer to the real Truth and in particular to the Truth hidden by the Turin Shroud: the Resurrection of Christ.

Exit mobile version