A reader writes:
Please tell Dr. Di Lazzaro (real scientist) how admirably professional he appears compared to Dr. Nickell (PhD in literature) with his latest remarks, complete with misunderstood biblical wisdom. Should we tell the great skeptic that the meaning in Matthew 23:24 has Jesus saying, ‘You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel.’ Dr. Nickell, having just swallowed the camel, is his own worst enemy. Let it drop.
Yes, this really is a picture of Dr. Nickell playing scientist. It is a publicity shot provided by him. I kid you not.
What Nickell writes:
"Di Lazzaro equates the depth of colored coatings that were stripped from surface fibers (using adhesive tape) with the depth of penetration that might be determined by cross-sectioning of actual threads, then asserts that a single fiber’s examination (still apparently not cross-sectioned) has ‘confirmed’ the dubious claims. Given the tremendous evidence against the ‘shroud’ — its incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical record, bishop’s report of the forger’s confession, the still-bright-red ‘blood’ which failed forensic serological tests, the presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three laboratories’ radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence — it would seem that Di Lazzaro is straining at a gnat and attempting to swallow a camel. Let him produce a shroudlike image according to whatever theory he can muster, and we’ll talk again."
Source: Cosmic Log – Was Holy Shroud created in a flash? Italian researchers resurrect claim
‘Blood’ which failed forensic serological tests?? (Nickell)
Serological (antibody) test for serum albumin: passed
Serological test for serum immunoglobulin: passed
Serological test for ABO red blood cell molecules: passed
Serological test for MNS red blood cell molecules: passed
Serological test for anti-A and anti-B antibodies: negative, but expected result given the above findings for expression of ABO red blood molecules
Nickell on serological evidence: epic fail
Okay I stand corrected, Nickell’s may be a scholar with a PhD in Literature, but has anyone visited his site? Talk about having a swelled head lol, this guy thinks he’s God’s gift to this planet without actually believing in a God. To prove my point, of his “swelledness”, every point he makes in the above comment against the Shroud’s authenticity; Even I, a simpleton, non scholar type, can prove everyone of his points wrong and possibly in doing so, show his determination to ridicule without proper study!…..It’s a mystery how people believe this guy…He should have stuck to being a magician, or maybe he still is, as he seems to be able to convert people to his notions of utter nonsence.
R
Nicely done Kelly!
R
“bishop’s report of the forger’s confession”?
first: a report without the name of the forger: very strange indeed!
second: the bishop who reports the confession was not the bishop who listened the ‘forger’: very strange indeed!
How true! Anyone who studys the facts will undoubtably realize what the true situation was; D’Arcis was desperate for money, his chapel was falling apart, just a few miles away we have the Shroud being visited by many and making money hand and foot. He was grasping at straws, and yet there is no proof his papers where even sent to the reigning Pope at the time and no record in the Vatican libraries of such correspondence….It was a desperate act by a desperate soul.
R
The letter exchange was made between D’Arcy and the Anti-Pope of Avignon Clément VII (I dont think he was related to me directly !!!). There was A LOT of politics involved in this. The pope was a relative of the widow of Geoffroy de Charny ! And it’s pretty clear that, like you said, the Bishop D’Arcy was outraged by the popularity of the public showing of the Shroud in Lirey (not far from Troyes, in France, where the Bishop was). In the end, the reality is that the pope maintain the right for public showing, but at the same time, surely to calm the Bishop, he ordered that, at every public showing, the cleargy mens in charge of the showing would clearly state that it was just a representation of the true Shroud of Christ. When you read between the lines, it was a way for the pope to calm the war of words that was going on between Troyes and Lirey and that doesn’t prove one bit that the pope really believed the accusations of D’Arcy. In fact, we can think that if the pope would have really trust D’Arcy’s accusations, he would have simply stoped the public showing of the relic, period.