Google led me to a blog posting two days ago:
When I went there the posting was gone. Why? However, WordPress, the host for David Roemer’s blog recommended another posting from October that had been updated with an additional blurb at about the same time this month. Here is that blurb:
Email sent to Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States on Nov. 13, 2012
Your Excellency,Cardinal Dolan is suppressing my slideshow/lecture on the history, theology, and science of the Shroud of Turin (www.holyshroud.info), and I am hoping you can help us resolve this conflict. My correspondence with the Archdiocese of New York is on my blog at
http://newevangelist.me/2012/10/02/the-truth-about-the-shroud-of-turin/
Cardinal Dolan did not answer my rebuttal to his letter of September 5, 2012.
I’v attached a transcript of the slideshow. Feel free to call me at xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Yours respectfully in Christ, David Roemer (phone number removed by me.)
I read the entire posting, The Truth About the Shroud of Turin from Roemer’s blog, New Evangelist. It is not about the shroud. It is about a personal, long-running, escalating and seemingly pointless disagreement with just about everyone in authority in the Catholic Church over his cancelled presentation (and just for good measure evolution and the Big Bang, as well). How about this:
The Catholic Church grants indulgences to people who pray before the Shroud itself or an image of the Shroud. I feel my slides of the Holy Shroud are just as deserving of veneration as the cloth itself. I feel that the pastor desecrated the Holy Shroud by depriving his parishioners of the experience of seeing a miraculous artifact.
Here is a small sample about evolution. Yes, evolution!
Stephen Barr is a prominent physicist who writes about evolution on the pages of First Things. He is also a member of the Academy of Catholic Theology. He told me in an email that I was wrong and the AJP article was right, and that I was harming the Catholic Church. In my opinion, Barr is harming the Catholic Church. Barr does not go so far as to advocate ID, but he doesn’t say there is no evidence for ID. His argument is that ID is not science. In my opinion, Barr is helping atheists propagate misinformation about evolutionary biology. Barr should be expelled from the Academy of Catholic Theology because he is lying about science (http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/).
Or this to Cardinal Dolan (not on evolution):
Your Eminence:
I developed a slideshow/lecture about the Shroud of Turin (http://www.holyshroud.info, attached transcript) and think you should know about the negative reaction of Catholics to my analysis of the science, history, and theology of the Holy Shroud. After sending emails to Newman clubs, Catholic colleges, and Catholic churches in Brooklyn and Manhattan, I got only one invitation to speak. To my chagrin, the pastor cancelled the talk at the last minute on the grounds that I was not promoting the authenticity of the relic. I am the only one on the Shroud Speakers Directory of The Shroud of Turin Website (www.shroud.com) who does not think the Holy Shroud is authentic.
You wonder? I’m all for discussing and airing all arguments about the shroud. Maybe, in a realistic sense, it is his choice of venues. There is, in this posting, this implied threat. Read into it: If I can’t do my presentation in our/your churches, know that . . .
I am a member of the Princeton Club at 15 West 43rd St., and can get a meeting room in the morning with breakfast cheap. Without breakfast it is more expensive.
Separately, I received an email from David asking me if I would attend such a presentation at the Princeton Club on a yet unspecified date. I would love to. Of course! I’ve never had breakfast there but lunch is particularly good. Unfortunately I now live in South Carolina but if I am in New York when you have the presentation, I’ll try to be there.
Any New Yorkers?
It is sad that Googlers will read this as The Truth About the Shroud of Turin. It has nothing to do with the shroud. Hopefully David will get some New Yorkers for his Princeton Club talk.
The benefit of attending my lecture about the Shroud of Turin is that I will explain the connection between the Holy Shroud, intelligent design, and the Big Bang. I don’t want to schedule a time at the Princeton Club in New York City for my own lecture because I am afraid no one would come.
I have had a look at David’s blog and to say the least, I haven’t found very scientific opinions on evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. I don’t know his scientific credentials to support such “creative” approaches to for example, the second law, but I bet that he also denies that a climate change is going on at this moment. It usually goes in the same pack….In my view, if he denies the authenticity of the Shroud, in view of the rest of things he supports, paradoxically, his denial truly becomes a strong argument in favour of the authenticity.
I have a Ph.D. in physics from N.Y.U (1971) and have been trying to persuade the American Journal of Physics to retract an article titled “Entropy and evolution.” The editor of the AJP is using trickery to avoid taking responsibility for the absurd article, which contains a fake equation. My article explaining why the article is absurd was published in the Catholic Truth of Scotland. I assure you that even if you never heard of entropy or the second law of thermodynamics, you can understand why the article is a disgrace. My correspondence with physicists about the article is at
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/22/physics-department-of-new-york-university/
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/02/american-journal-of-physics/
http://newevangelist.me/2012/02/23/american-association-of-physics-teachers/
http://newevangelist.me/2012/05/06/american-institute-of-physics/
http://newevangelist.me/2011/12/07/american-scientific-affiliation-2/
http://newevangelist.me/2012/08/02/first-things/
My YouTube video titled “The Truth About Evolution and Religion” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKaF8vX6HXQ) also sheds light on this issue.
The following is a link to the article itself (Am. J. Phys., Vol. 76, No. 11, November 2008):
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bw0xQqr5YbtJQ09ybDR0ejd2TTA
On number 12, the following appears: Face, negative image – That the blood marks are not smeared and the image is so detailed means that the Holy Shroud is a work of human ingenuity, rather than a naturally occurring imprint of a crucifixion victim.
Comments: I don’t think this statement, that it is the work of human ingenuity because of the detail, can stand under rational scrutiny. No one in our advanced technological age can even come close to recreating most, much less all of the features of the Shroud.
On image 13 the following appears: 3-D – This is a computer recreation of the face image. The computer assumed that the image was determined by the distance between the body and a parallel plane.
Comments: This is not a computer recreation. Rather, it is the VP8 Image Analyzer processing the image and producing a brightness map of the face which is an accurate 3D representation despite the fact that the VP8 does not make 3D images. In a brightness map, everything that’s lighter appears higher in elevation, dark appears lower and middle range appears in between in depth based on the gradation of brightness. This is the only image in the world that, when processed with the VP8, creates this effect. All other image processing results in a distorted image, not a 3D image. This means the image has corresponding height and depth based on brightness.
Andy Weiss:
People admit they have bad memories and are not extremely intelligent, but no one admits they have bad judgment. In my judgment, the not-smeared blood marks means it is highly probable that humans created the image using methods that have been lost to history. You should keep your judgment that the Holy Shroud is authentic to yourself because it is like speculating about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
David R, I gather that you won’t admit to bad judgment on this. This comment makes no sense whatsoever, in my judgment, of course.
Dan: You are confusing intelligence with judgment. Intelligence is a measure of how much time it takes someone to grasp a theory and how well they can explain a theory. Judgment is needed when marshaling the evidence and deciding whether a theory is true or just probable. If my comments make no sense to you that means one of us is failing at the level of intelligence. Either you don’t understand what I am saying, or I am not expressing myself clearly or have an unintelligible theory.