Yannick Clément writes (oh, what the heck, the whole letter, postscript and all. Do read it, postscript and all, and read the paper in your choice of language):
Hello Dan !
Since I know that you follow closely all that is written on your great blog, I’m sure you’re aware that I was working on a complete article based upon my recent open letter published on your blog some months ago. Because of the good reactions I get at that moment, and also because I noticed that the very good website of Pete Schumacher (shroudnm.com) had published a link concerning this open letter, I thought it would be a very good thing if I could make a more complete work to really emphasize the fact that science have proven long ago, especially when we look closely at all the data coming from the bloodstains, that the Shroud COULD NOT be any form of artistic forgery.
So, now, after a very high amount of hours, the work is completed !!! I give you in an attach file the complete article (the English version) in PDF format. This time, the quality of the English is very good because I had the help of Andy Weiss, the webmaster of Shroudnm.com !!! I’m so glad that this article is in a very good shape concerning the English because I will have the opportunity to propose it for publication to all the known Shroud website on the internet. And the big news is this : Shroudnm.com have already publish it on their website !
Here’s the link for the English version
And here’s the link for the French version
And guess what ? In a near future, there will even be a Spanish version of the same paper on this website !!! Great don’t you think ???
That’s the main reason why I wrote you this email : Because I want to ask you kindly if you could just wrote a news about that and give those links for the English and French versions of my article… I’m 100% sure that you will help me to share this article (the best I’ve ever wrote about the Shroud) with the world !!! Thank you in advance for your very good support !!!
To conclude, I just want to say this : Have a nice reading of my paper and don’t be shy to comment it to me via an email and/or to comment it directly on your blog !!! I’m almost sure that you will really love it !!! And be sure that I did it with honesty and with passion !!! Now, I’ll wait for you to help me sharing this article with all the persons interested by the question of the authenticity of the Shroud !!!
P.S. : In the news you can put on your blog about this article, it would be great if you, at least, can say that the main goal I had while writing this paper was, like I said in the beginning of this email, to emphasize the fact that science have proven long ago, especially when we look closely at all the data coming from the bloodstains, that the Shroud COULD NOT be any form of artistic forgery, but instead, it is a real burial cloth of a real tortured and crucified man who has bled a great deal prior to his death and who show all the stigmatas of Jesus of Nazareth during his Passion, as reported by the Gospels.
You have truly written a masterpiece explaining the over-whelming evidence supporting the Shroud’s authenticity. Congratulations.
Anyone who is interested in the Shroud from any perspective should read this article. Of course, one can expect the pseudo-skeptic trolls who seek to distract us, and avert our eyes (and theirs) to the truth revealed by the evidence will be soon best-us with the pseudo facts and pseudo science.
But before the fog rolls in, be advised that this is a clear and documented paper that sets the bar for the rest of us high, very high indeed.
Thank you John. Your use of the word “masterpiece” to describe my paper is way too much ! Anyway, it was very encouraging to read your comment. I see this paper as a good paper of scientific “popularization” for anyone’s interested by the subject. That’s the main reason why I wish this paper can be largely diffused everywhere !
Why is everyone trying to prove that it is Jesus on the cloth? Thus far no one has been able to do so. How about trying to find whose likeness truly is on the cloth?
The Shroud is real. It is not a fake. The proof is that it can be seen and it has been seen by millions. The question is whose image is imprinted on the cloth?. Does it necessarily need to be Jesus because he is the most acclaimed person to have been crucified? MAny other people were tortured and crucified. Who else has been crucified? Who else was tortured and crucified and dressed with a crown of thorns? We know the approximate time period the cloth was made (1310-1340 and from where it emanates (Palestine). How could such a cloth have survived 2000 years?
Some answers: First the cloth is probably not 2000 years old. It is probably more like 700 years old. The Templars were also known as heretics like Jesus was. They had brought back numerous objects and artifacts from Palestine including cloth and clothing. Many of them were burned at the stake. The most renowned was Jacques de Molay the leader of the Templars. He too was tortured in the same fashion Jesus was and he was crucified. This took place in France where the Shroud was first discovered not long after the death of de Molay. The markings on the cloth were made by blood, sweat and acids the body produces when it is in extreme agony.
PS: Even the Catholic religion does not claim the Shroud to be “an original” as in the true image of Jesus.
Jean wrote: The question is whose image is imprinted on the cloth?
My answer: In my paper, I don’t say anything else dear Jean !!!! I described 4 different possible scenarios that are, I believe, the only 4 that can still rationaly explain the Shroud and 2 of them didn’t imply that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth…
But concerning the idea that the Shroud can really be only 700 years old, this if almost impossible for numerous reasons that concern principally some very particular features related to the ancient technique of making linen cloths. Of course, you can think that someone in the 1300s was buried in a linen cloth made before the 8th century, but this idea is really unlikely in my mind.
“beset us” not “best us”
Yannick, congratulations and thanks for putting all this together. I think that this paper will be remembered as the four option paper, because truly, you put the situation where exactly it is right now.
Let me suggest to you a second paper following this one on your reflections on how research could move forward and identify which of the four is the good one.
I have just visited the exibition in Malaga organized by the bishop and after the exhibition one has the impression that the Church supports either option 3 or4.
At the entry of the exhibition there is phrase by poe John Paul II: The truth has to be proposed and not imposed. I think that like you mention in your last page with Pio Xi this is the position of the Church.
I am currently reading the book of William Meacham entitled The Rape of the Turin Shroud and, in part I of the book, it deals precisely with the idea you gave me for a second paper. You can be sure that I will definately think about your suggestion… I think it could be fun to write something in order to reflect in dept about the probability of each one of my 4 scenarios to be the correct one. I’ll keep you inform about that if I start writting a paper like that. Right now, I have also another paper in plan, but before I start to expose an interesting hypothesis I have in my head about the entombment of the man of the Shroud, I need to make some researches to see if my idea can have any chances to be correct. Be sure that if I start writting a paper like that, you’ll be the first to know it !!!!
I also want to comment about the last part of your message : I really think that “off the record”, a lot of people in the Church (and not just the Italian Church) really believe the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Christ, but the Pope will never say so publicly and officialy, not until science can really prove without any reasonnable doubt that this is the case. And acting like that, the Church prove that she is bright. I’m sure you have noticed how Pius XI had 2 different languages when he was talking about the Shroud personally and as the Pope ? This is a very good example of how it goes for many people inside the Church, and I think it’s the right way to act. Imagine one second if the actual Pope would declare the Shroud to be genuine and then, 10 years from now, some scientist could prove without any doubt that the cloth is not the one of Jesus ! That would be a disaster for the credibility of the Church and that’s the main reason why the Vatican will never claim something else than what science can conclude about the Shroud.
And right now, science is able to conclude that 1- The Shroud is a real burial cloth of a real crucified man who suffered the same exact tortures than Jesus of Nazareth, as reported by the Gospel. And 2- The body image on the Shroud come from an interaction between the cloth and the corpse it covered. That’s all what science can claim for the moment about the Shroud (without any reasonnable doubt) and that’s all the Church can also proclaim (for the moment of course). And the outcome of these 2 very solid conclusions is the fact that, in front of the Shroud, we are only left with the 4 scenarios I described in my paper (and nothing else). So, make your bets people !!! Which one of the 4 do you think it is ??? I say that correctly because right now, there is no certainties on that questions. On the contrary, there’s only probabilities. That’s why I think the Occam’s rasor principle is so important if we want to analyze these 4 scenarios honestly !!!
My congratulations to Yannick for an excellent paper. One particular aspect I liked about this particular paper of Yannick’s, is that It is self-disciplined withour excursions into speculation on theories which I know are close to his heart, but wisely he has refrained from including them and just given facts, and the consequential reasoning to logical conclusions,
I would make two observations of a semi-technical nature:
1) Identity of the victim: There were thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of victims executed by the barbaric punishment of crucifixon. So identifying the actual victim, “Whose image is on the Shroud?” is a fair and reasonable question. However, capping or crowning with thorns was never a normal part of Roman crucifixion. In the case of Jesus, it was a spontaneous act carried out on the whim of a Roman soldier, perhaps on sighting some thorn branches gathered for firewood, and to mock the claim that he was KING of the Jews. “They dressed him up in purple, twisted some thorns into a crown and put it on him; and they began saluting him ‘Hail, King of the Jews!’ They struck his head with a reed and spat on him; and they went down on their knees to do him homage.” (Mark 15: 16-19). The crowning (capping) of thorns then is clearly seen as being solely part of the mockery as King of the Jews. and UNIQUELY identifies the Shroud man as Jesus Christ. It is just too long a shot to assert that someone else was similarly capped and that it may have been some other victim. Even the Jesuit sceptic Herbert Thurston was obliged to admit in 1903: “If this is not the impression of the Christ, it was designed as the counterfeit of that impression. In no other person since the world began could these details be verified.”
2) Option 4: “In any way, a “dematerialization” of his body at the moment of the resurrection (accompanied or not by a burst of energy) could explain why the body left the Shroud before it started to corrupt,”
There is a physics problem with the literal notion of “dematerialisation”. As recently stated on a previous blog, dematerialisation would result in too great a burst of energy as matter would then be converted into radiation, someone estimating that it would be equal to a 10 GT nuclear explosion, which clearly didn’t happen. I prefer an explanation that envisages resurrection of the body as some kind of supernatural transformation – St Paul and theologians explain it as a “glorified body”. One explanation I offered was that the body entered some kind of parallel universe. In other words somewhere in all of creation, there is still a resurrected body of the Christ.
Thanks for your comment Daveb !
For the first point your raised, I invite you to read (again) the footnote #15 in my paper because it talks exactly about this specific question of the identity of the man of the Shroud.
And concerning the 4th scenario, when I think about a “dematerialization” of the body of Christ (by the way, as I said in my article, this metaphysical concept is not necessarily inconsistent also with the scenario #3), I really don’t understand why there should be a burst of light or a burst of energy of another kind ! The way I personally understand this concept (that goes way beyond our material understanding of the Universe), it is more of a disappearing of the material body of Christ from our material world (space-time) that went directly, instantaneously and without leaving any material traces into the Spiritual world (which is a completely different reality than ours here on Earth). And I really don’t think this line of thinking isn’t at all against the “glorified body” image used by St. Paul.
For me, the body of Christ is now Spiritual and that’s why we don’t see him with out material eyes (with the exception of some mystics over the years to whom Jesus WANTED to be visible, just like it happened for the disciples after the resurrection) !!!
That’s only how I personally see the concept of the resurrection of Christ and, of course, you’re totally free to see it otherwise.
Daveb, es una “desmaterialización-rematerialización”, probablemente instantánea en el tiempo que eludiría el “burst” de energía…….
Thank you very much !!! If you really believe in the burst of energy hypothesis, that mean you definately favored the 4th scenario I described in my paper !!! ;-)
I was going to comment earlier but was simply out of the house. It was truly a pleasure and honor to work with Yannick to make the English version more readable than it would have been. I have learned much from this project and truly got to know Yannick. It was completely enjoyable. Thank you, my new friend!
Here, I just want to give publicly a big THANK YOU to Andy Weiss ! Without him, the English version of my paper wouldn’t be as good and also I want to say that he was even able to give me some very good ideas to explore for this present paper. So, THANKS AGAIN MY FRIEND !!!
I also want to say THANK YOU to Thibault Heimburger who read my paper before it was complete and who also give me some good ideas to explore. Thanks Thibault !
Great piece Yannick.
I have one question you or others might be able to answer. I have often heard it said that there is no image under the bloodstains. Can someone please explain how this is known? would it not be impossible to tell without scraping away the bloodstains? Or has this been determined through some kind of scanning technology?
This has been troubling me for a while so an explanation would be appreciated!!!!
If you can, please purchase the great book of Alan Adler “The Orphaned Manuscript”. You buy it online here : http://holyshroudguild.org/orphaned-manuscript.html
In it, you’ll find a very good description of Adler’s work and analyses concerning the blood and the serum stains. To answer your question, Adler was able to show that when the blood and even the serum stains were removed from the surface of a fiber coming from the body image area (with the help of strong reducing chemical agents), it left a nice fiber free of any body image coloration, showing that the most probable explanation for this observation was that the blood and serum stained the cloth first and only after that, the body image formation begins to be active and this coloring process (I should say oxydizing and/or dehydrating process) was completely blocked by these biological stains on the fibers. When we consider the profesionnalism of Adler concerning the question of the blood on the Shroud, it’s pretty easy to think that this conclusion is solid (scientifically speaking), but it’s sure that it would be a very good thing if another independent researcher could do the same kind of analysis and come up with the same result…
I also want to say 2 observations about this discovery made by Adler concerning the absence of a body image coloration under the blood and serum stains :
1- As Ray Rogers said, this observation is one good indicator of a mild process that is responsible for the image formation on the Shroud (because even a very thin layer of serum seem to have been enough to prevent any image formation on the cloth).
2- The fact that Adler found a clean linen fiber free of any body image color after the used of a strong reducing chemical agent to remove the blood and serum on the fiber remembered me of the fact that the same Adler also found a clean linen fiber free of any body image color after the used of a strong reducing chemical agent (the diimide is the most known but there’s a few other agents capable of a similar result) to remove the body image color on the fiber. My personal feeling about this similarity in the results obstained by Adler is this : I think this point toward the fact that both the blood and serum stains AND the body image on the Shroud are “coating” substances that rest OVER the linen fibers and that has no direct effect on the linen fiber itself (including the primary cell wall). In the case of the blood and serum stains, the coating is biological (no doubt about that) and it affected the fibers all over the cloth (whether it be a top-most fiber or a fiber present deep inside the cloth), and in the case of the body image, the coating is made of carbohydrates impurities (if we believe Rogers opinion) that have been deposited only on the top-most fibers of the cloth during his manufacture (with probably a very ancient method of making linen cloths).
Reflect upon that folks !!! I have a feeling that this reflection of mine is not so far from the reality of the Shroud…
Could not the presence of blood have chemically affected the image eg. the blood was added on to the image, and the blood worked chemically in some way to erode the image?
I am not a scientist, but just offering up what seems a possible alternative consideration as a layman
Some have thought that the sweat of blood at Gethsemane could have taken part in the image formation process, but personally, I don’t think so. If there was substances in the sweat that could have had an effect on the image formation, I think it’s much more probable that it was urea and/or lactic acid. But anyway, the sweat itself (without blood in it, just normal sweat) has been proven by Pellicori of STURP to produce a coloration on a linen cloth that is very close to the body image on the Shroud. But one big problem with this hypothesis is the fact that the sweat should normally have been completely dried at the moment the corpse was put in the Shroud. All that could be left on the skin was substances like urea and/or lactic acid and/or other biological substances that were present in the sweat, but probably not the sweat itself.
Last comment : If the blood could have had some kind of oxidation and/or dehydration effect on the cloth, Adler wouldn’t have found a clean linen fiber under the blood. The fact is the opposite of that idea : The bloodstains have a protective effect (like a shield if you will) on the linen fibers during the time the image formation process was active at the surface of the cloth !
Very good job Yannick !
It reminds me of 1993 Rome symposium, and conclusions of French epistemologist Arnaud Aaron Upinsky who concluded to the authenticity of the shroud based on a serious argumentation.
Concerning bloodstains, there is actually a strange property :
I’m not aware of any other experiments on this property.
Bloodstains have been scrapped away… on small samples.
Hello Anoxie. Thanks for your comment !
Concerning your comment about the quote of mine, I’m not aware of any recent lab experiments either that would have been made to analyze this most intriguing aspect of the bloodstains on the Shroud. I know Vignon made extensive tests of blood transfer during the first half of the 20th century and never was able to reproduce this aspect of the stains. I’m also aware of another experiment done during the 80s by Gilbert Lavoie concerning the question of the transfer of the blood from the body to the cloth, but his purpose was not to analyze this particular and bizarre aspect of the bloodstains but to see the maximum range of time that was available after the cloting of blood on the skin in order to produce a good quality of stain on a linen cloth. Depending on many conditions and factors, Lavoie came to the conclusion that the maximum rang was no more than 2 hours and most probably 1 hour in normal condition. To me, this is a very good clue that the bloodstains on the Shroud were transferred on the cloth by a re-humidification of their surface instead of being transferred before they were completely dry, because in all logic, if this is really the Shroud of Jesus, we know that the body was probably not put in the Shroud before 2 or more hours after death (we can estimate this easily from the Gospel accounts and also, if the Sudarium was really in contact with the same head, we know that this cloth was in contact with the head during 2 hours or so before being removed for the deposit of the body in the Shroud). If my estimation about that is good, that would mean that Pierre Barbet’s hypothesis of a re-humidification of the blood clots once the body was trapped INSIDE the Shroud is also correct.
And concerning your comment about the quote from Matt, I should say that I don’t remember any experiment done by Adler, Baima Bollone or other experts that would have been done to “scrapped away” the bloodstains on small samples. Can you give me the reference of this experiment ? Does it come from the book of Adler or elsewhere ? Adler said that someone on the STURP team (I think it was Pellicori) used very delicately a probing needle while in Turin in order to see if there was some material (blood of body image or something else) trapped inside the weave of the cloth and inside the threads in order to determine if there was clear signs of fibers cemented together and/or signs of capillarity and/or signs of abrasion, but I’m not sure at all (in fact, I don’t think so) if that’s what you mean. For the record, with this on-site experiment, the STURP team was able to determine that these signs were only present for the “blood” material and not for the body image coloration, which clearly show that these 2 features on the Shroud are very different in nature.
Ok. I don’t know if this porperty is significant or trivial, but extraction of the corpse didn’t break linen fibrils, and there is a real issue here.
You’re correct, to be precise bloodstains have not been literally scrapped out but dissolved.
It really seem to Barbet, Vignon and Legrand in France as THE only sign visible on the Shroud of the resurrection, because this particularity of the bloodstains firstly is unexplainable scientifically (like I said, Vignon made many attemps to reproduce the exact shape of the bloodstains but never was able to do so) and secondly, everything about these bloodstains seem to point toward the fact that the body evaporated suddenly inside the cloth instead of being manually taken out of it…
For a Christian like me, when I first read this in Barbet’s book, it was awesome. I still think today that it is the only sign of the resurrection we can see on the cloth. That’s my personal feeling. But, of course, I would like to see some modern scientists investigate this aspect of the bloodstains more deeply to see if it’s really something that science can’t explain. Barbet was honest about that because he states in his book that maybe it could be explained in the future, as science will improve…
Here’s an important message for all the readers of my article:
Because I’m a perfectionist and because I wanted the 4 scenarios I describe in my paper to be the more complete it can, I have made some additional (and interesting) comments in the descriptions of the scenario #1 and scenario #2 and ask Andy Weiss from http://www.shroudnm.com to fix that in the PDF files you can download from his website. Now the job is done and the article is really in his final form. It was important for me to do this because the 4th scenarios I developed are the cornerstone of my paper and I wanted my description of each one of them to be the more complete I can do.
I also add, in a few footnotes, the reference to the marvellous article written in 1983 by William Meacham because it was a source of inspiration for my own article and because it provide a more precise information about one historical fact. Finally, I’ve made some important additional comments in the footnote #22.
So, if you have already download and save my article and/or print it on paper, I suggest you to download or print the file again in order for you to have the definitive version of my article. The additions I did don’t really change the heart of my article, but I definitely want you to read the final version of my paper anyway, simply because the descriptions of the scenarios #1 and #2 are a little bit more complete and precise now.
Take this as a sort of addendum !!! I don’t want to describe to you what are those little additions, I let you discover them when you’ll read again the descriptions of the scenarios #1 and #2 !!! Have a nice reading (or re-reading) !!!
Hi people !
First, let me thank all of you for your great words ! It’s definately encouraging. I particularly appreciated the one of Daveb. Effectively my friend, I think I have been able to do what I preach, i.e. to not let my personal feelings disturbed the heart of my paper and to not rely on speculative arguments. i simply and honestly followed the FACTS in the direction they led me. Note that I have no great merit since I choose to focus only on the bloodstains aspect of the authenticity debate, which is the most solid set of facts and observation we have concerning the true nature of the Shroud…
I must say that I also truly appreciate the tag “The 4 options paper” given by Gabriel. I think you’re right on the money my friend !!! It shows that you understood perfectly the heart of my paper…
Here’s a wish I make : I hope you, the readers, you’ll be able to share this paper to all of your friends and contacts that could be interested by the subject !!!
Bravo, Yannick! Another excellent article.
Thank you Chris ! I think sincerely that it is the best one I ever wrote concerning the Shroud. I think anybody that is interested by the subject should read it to know (or to remember again) the real hard facts concerning the relic (especially the blood and serum stains)and where those facts leads us… There’s so much misinformation and incorrect things that have been said in the secular media (and even in the Shroud world) about the reality of the Shroud that a paper like that has definately is place. I’m sure about that.
As I know you to be a French native speaker, I have read your French version. I must tell you the truth: I was really disappointed to realise it was written in very poor French to say nothing of the fact that you just made your own part of the 1993 analysis by French epistemologist Arnaud Aaron Upinsky…
I never read that paper from Upinsky. Sorry. I have just heard of it. And for the quality of my french, I will just say to you : MANGE UN CHAR DE MARDE !!!
The true Yannick’s coming out… avec tout son bagage intellectuel!
I think it’s time to end this string. C’est fine! Merci.
YC’s “great paper” is a very poor copy of Upansky’s.
Max, I just wanted to make sure you understand “quebec language” ! ;-) I apologize for the bad words anyway but it was you who started this… It was pure Max provoking once again !
Anyway, as I said, I never read Upinsky’s paper but I’m almost sure he has not developed the 4 possible scenarios I wrote in my own paper and I’m also pretty sure he didn’t put as much emphasis on the question of the bloodstains (particularly concerning the FACT that most bloodstains don’t come from complete blood in a liquid state but come instead from exudates of blood clots. That’s the 2 main cornerstones of my paper. For this reason, I think my paper is truly relevant. For example, how many persons who know the Shroud still don’t understand well the very particular and telling nature of the bloodstains ??? I’m sure there’s a bunch !!! So, yes, I really my paper is relevant…
YC char de marde wrote: “I apologize for the bad words anyway but it was you who started this”.
YC cdm does have a VERY SELECTIVE (or poor) MEMOR, see his own posts ” 8 (July 24, 2012 at 5:53 pm) and # 113 (July 27, 2012 at 10:46 am). Bad faith & hypocrisis seem to be YC cdm’s strong points as far as debate on the Turin Sindon is concerned.
YC cdm also wrote: “I never read Upinsky’s paper but I’m almost sure he has not developed the 4 possible scenarios I wrote in my own paper”.
YC cdm should better read Upinsky’s book and paper (if YC cdm really haven’t) before being so sure of it! Upinsky DID analyse all the possible scenari/scenarios as early as the 1990s. YC cdm STILL don’t know his stuff.
I don’t think someone need to have read ALL shroud papers in order to be hallowed to write his own paper on the subject. This is ludicrous Max !
P.S. : I see that your quebec french is pretty good !!! I have plenty other savourous expressions like that if you want ! ;-)
Just keep them for your own edification!
See A. A Upinsky’s two relevant books on the Turin Shroud:
1/ La Science A L’ Epreuve Du Linceul La Crise Epismologique, 1990.
2/ Procès Du Linceul, 1993.
Originally, YC cdm’s scenarios were only 3. Thanks to Gabriel (and me), he had to correct his draft….
…these are facts.
(just in case someone here could miss my post #11 (August 6, 2012 at 4:36 am)
I wrote: “As early as the 1990s (see my 1998 Turin Shroud International Congress
abstract in French and Italian), I wrote there were only 5 possible approaches to the Sindon image formation process mystery: the naturalistic, the “fraudulistic”, the “survivalistic”, the “supernaturalistic” and the “halakhistic” approaches.”
YC cdm also wrote: “It was pure Max provoking once again !”
If true facts and what is most likely to be true are provocative in YC cdm’s eye, I definitely AM provocative.
I have absolutely no doubt about that !!!
Just as I am too by the way !!!
To YC char de mardre: To present utter misinterpretations, half-truths and received ideas as full-truths or proven facts as as if you knew your stuff (which most obviously you don’t) is just intellectually dishonest and misleading.
Show me some examples Max.
Are you kidding or just totally unaware of the way you debate?
See e.g. our last debate/battle on your alleged facts (the TWO 705-707 c. CE Umbella epitaphoi.)..
Mistyping: 705-707 CE
Since I couldn’t get any help translating the paper into Spanish, I used Google translate to give Spanish speakers the general gist – http://shroudnm.com/docs/2012-07-26-Yannick-Cl%C3%A9ment-En-cuanto-a-la-cuesti%C3%B3n-de-la-autenticidad-de-la-S%C3%A1bana-Santa-de-Tur%C3%ADn.pdf
Comments are closed.