David Rolfe has provided a new page on this website entitled Consensus at Valencia. Strong opinions have been voiced on this blog and it looks as though our voices were heard (or we are also geniuses). Take the time to read the full report. Here is a part of that page:
The Valencia Shroud Enigma Challenge
The International Congress of the Shroud of Turin In Spain.This 2012 conference celebrates 25 years of activity of the C.E.S. To mark this event, and in the light of the evidence accumulated over that period, the Congress issues the following challenge:
The Shroud and its image must be regarded as a unique enigma that has to date defied a scientific explanation despite the C14 test carried out in 1988.
Anyone asserting that the Shroud of Turin is a medieval artefact and who also wishes to claim scientific credentials must first show how it can bear an image with the following characteristics:
1 The body image is created by molecular change of linen fibres. There are also bloodstains. There is no body image beneath the bloodstains.
2 The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres. The body image is not visible when illuminated by transmitted light. The bloodstains are.
3 The body image varies in intensity that correlates to expected cloth-body distances had the cloth covered a body.
4 The sides of the body are not represented even where blood has transferred to the cloth and between the head images.
5 The resolution of the image is sufficient to resolve body features of a few millimetres.
6 There are no outlines or directionality to the body image within the plane of the cloth.
7 The body image has the visual characteristics of a photographic negative. That is, normal light and dark areas are reversed.
The above consensus was reached under the auspices of the conference chairman D. Jorge Manuel Rodriguez (left). Those contributing to and reaching the consensus on the basis of their special interest in the nature of the image include: Dr. John Jackson (USA), Paulo di Lazzaro (Italy), Cesar Barta, (Spain); Alfonso Munoz-Cobo y Bengoa, (Spain); Prof. Giulio Fanti, (in absentia) (Italy); D. Bruno Barberis, (Italy).
Contributing to the discussions and also concurring with the consensus were: Barrie Schwortz, (USA); Dr Andrew Silverman, (UK); Ian Wilson, (Australia) and Mark Guscin (Spain).
Why have such a list? . . .
Gut reactions so far:
- “molecular change of linen fibres” Is that an established fact? Rogers hypothesis is out?
- “The body image does not penetrate below the surface fibres.” What does that mean? Or is it the surface of the fibres? Is this the limit of superficiality statements?
- the image does not fluoresce under UV light is unmentioned. Why?
- I’m moderately happy with the way the body issue is addressed with “expected cloth-body distances.” Expected is better than nothing.
Thoughts?
- There is more, so read: Image specialists agree on a basic set of image characteristics on the Shoud of Turin.
It is a bad idea to refer to a ‘consensus’ when making a scientific point. One should not try to add weight to a statement by referring to an underlying ‘consensus’. Truth has nothing to do with ‘consensus’ and the expression ‘scientific consensus’ is, at the bottom, simply a contradictio in terminis. ‘Group think’ cannot be; thinking & judging is, by its very nature, an individual activity.
It’s amazing to see a “consensus” like that being approved by a so-called panel of Shroud scientists. What is easy to see is that the point #1 is far from being proven. And since the time Rogers proposed his hypothesis about the thin layer of impurities, there’s at least one solid hypothesis that is out there to challenge seriously this point #1. I’m sorry but Rogers hypothesis regarding the chromophore of the image is far from being dead ! No scientist have been able to show solid proofs that can completely discard this hypothesis. That’s why I’m a bit surprise that they choose to stick with only one hypothesis, i.e. that the color come from a molecular change in the linen itself (hypothesis that come directly from STURP papers), since it is not proven yet.
Also, I have to say that I’m not impressed by this list of facts that can challenge any hypothesis regarding a medieval forger. I’m far from being a scientist myself, but nevertheless, I think the arguments I brought in the other day about the evidence of the bloodstains (see my recent open letter) are much better when it comes to challenge any medieval forgery hypothesis.
Besides having point out the most solid fact (the blood is really blood) we know for sure about the Shroud that can permit to reject any forgery hypothesis involving any artistic technique, they choose to point out some facts (far from being an exhaustive list) about the body image and, in this list, there’s even one or two facts that are still disputed among Shroud experts !!!!
Personally, I think this list is pretty weak and should at least have included the fact that the blood on the Shroud is real blood that comes from exudates of traumatic blood clots, proving that there was a real crucified men that was buried into that cloth, leading to one evident conclusion : The Shroud cannot be the work of a forger that used any form of artistic technique. This conclusion is sure at about 99.9 % and the list don’t even mention this important fact !!! It’s like they didn’t considered that fact has something important while it is THE most sure and solid scientific fact we have regarding the Shroud ! INCREDIBLE !!!
I made an error in the beginning of the phrase : Besides having point out the most solid fact (the blood is really blood) we know for sure about the Shroud that can permit to reject any forgery hypothesis involving any artistic technique, they choose to point out some facts (far from being an exhaustive list) about the body image and, in this list, there’s even one or two facts that are still disputed among Shroud experts !!!!
You should read “Instead” in the place of “Besides”. That will make more sense… Sorry !
I may be wrong but I thought that Barrie who seemengly supports this consensus also supported Roger`s hypothesis……
Are you sure Barrie support this consensus ? Really, I would be VERY SURPRISE ! In fact, when I heard this news yesterday, I thought immediately of him being there and being forced to hear that thing !!! Can someone tell us if Barrie did or not support (or even signed) that concensus ? Like I said, I would be VERY suprise because I know that the hypothesis of image formation he favored the most is the one of Rogers…