Coins on Eyes Issue Again

imageMax-Patrick Hamon writes:

Please find attached a 6 page illustrated extract from my 2011 Totun research paper on the Turin Shroud coin-on-eyes issue by way of reply to Yannick Clément’s December 9, 2012 at 6:42 pm | #28 post

"Max, Max, Max… Can I remind you of one FACT concerning Barrie’s negative opinion about the whole question of the possible coins over the eyes ? He cleverly based his judgment on the profesionnal opinion express by Don Lynn at the beginning of the 1980s who was the true imagery expert of STURP (he worked on many important project for the NASA) and who analyzed the question in deep. Lynn was categorical about the FACT that it was scientifically impossible that so tiny coins letters could get imprinted on the kind of coarse threads of the Shroud in such a way that they could be readable… That’s the definitive argument that convinced Barrie that the whole coin thing is scientifically untenable. Barrie’s opinion is truly based on a real imagery expert and I hope you’ll finally realize that.".

The TRUE fact is Schwortz & Lynn’s opinion IS TOTALLY BIASED & MISLEADING as it is contradicted by metrologcal, optical and experimental FACTS: tiny partial ancient blood decals of 15 mm high letters in average CAN have been recorded on a 3:1 twill weave linen. as blood image resolution limit is ten times higher than that of the body image.

For the sake of GOOD archaeology and fairness of debate, thank you therefore for publishing in your blog this illustrated paper extract by way of reply to Yannick Clément.

It follows here:




AS A PRELIMINARY APPROACH, we shall use here a set of rhetorical questions to probe the optical and numismatic potential of the linen clothe in connection with the coin-on-eyes issue. Hopefully, the real quality of both arch sceptics’ and arch advocates’ main opinions and reasoning will emerge in the following and help the reader to judge for himself on more solid and objective grounds.

1/Are there any buttonlike protrusions over the eyes?


Figure 1 Somewhat rounded suspected areas on 1978 Tamburelli’s 3D reconstruction

From 3D reconstructions of a close up of the Shroud face, three eminent forensic medical examiners [namely Pr. Buckling, Pr. Baima-Bollone and Pr. Zugibe]1 and four computer science experts (among whom a 3D image analyst) [namely Mottern, Halarick, Pr. Tamburelli and Pr. Balossino]2 confirmed the finding, by the American physicist John Jackson3, of flat somewhat rounded foreign solid object imprints on the eye areas. Unless one can demonstrate the eight researchers’ intersubjectivity, this is a rather well established optical and “extra-anatomical” fact.

Actually the whole problem the Shroud researchers were facing was to correctly identify the said object imprints. In 1978, the late American theologian, Francis Filas, submitted a photographic enlargement (a third generation reversed photonegative copy) of the right eye area to the American professional numismatist and Greek classical coin expert, Michael Marx4.

clip_image004.clip_image006 clip_image008 Figure 2 Right eye area photonegatives flanking Pilate coin obverse side photograph taken under raking light

The latter could then identify the possible reading of “UCAI” – between 9.30 and 11.30 o’clock – as a fragment of the full Greek legend TIBEPIOY KAICAPOC, ″of Tiberius Caesar″, that appears on the obverse side of a small Roman colonial bronze coin 15.5-16mm in diameter minted under the authority of the prefect of the province of Judea, Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE).

Between 29-32CE, two small bronze coin types, a “dilepton” and a “lepton” featuring a “lituus” (short curved wand used by Roman priests to foretell the future) and a simpulum” (libation bail with angular shaft and handle) on their respective obverse side, were actually minted under the authority of Pontius Pilate. Both coin types bear the Greek legend TIBЄPIOY KAICAPOC, ″ [coins] of Tiberius Caesar ″.


Figure 3 Augur’s wand/Laurel wreath & Libation bail/Three ears of barley types

In the 80’s of the past century, some Shroud researchers who were neither professional numismatists, nor archaeological image analysts or cryptanalysts or even familiar with late ancient Greek alphabets, claimed to have found half a dozen lituus dilepta (Greek plural of dilepton) showing a rounded U (without a tail) substituted for an upsilon (Y) and a lunate sigma (C) for a kappa (K) by a die maker confusing his Latin and Greek in the legend TIBЄPIOY KAICAPOC.

2/ Are misspellings such as TIBЄPIOU CAICAPOC or TIBЄPIOY CAICAPOC really to be found on extant Pilate coins?

In actual numismatic fact, the claimed misspellings cannot be observed on any extant Pilate coins. They are only due to misreading inscription fragments on much worn out coins. This is pretty obvious from the following figure presenting the three alleged “best specimens”.


Figure 4 Misspelling or misreading specimens?

In spite of my deep respect for Filas’, Whanger’s and Moroni’s pioneering work5, their “coin legend misspelling theory” shall therefore be dismissed here as totally erroneous.

Actually the reading of the “UCAI”-like fragmentary tiny inscription on the right eye area from authentic (first generation) reversed orthochromatic film or slide copies of the Shroud face and 3D image enlargements can be specifically associated with the same reading “UCAI” embedded within the inscription KAICAPOC on tens of existing Pilate coins minted in the 16th, 17th and 18th regnal year of Tiberius. This is a spy numismatic detail. Here are a few examples:


Figure 5 Possible reading of “UCAI” on both 3D enhanced right eye area and extant Pilate coins

In the hypothesis the impression on the right eye area would have been left by an ancient coin 2/3 the size of an average fingerprint:

3/Would not the Turin Shroud’s three up, one down twill-weave linen fabric have been far too coarse to resolve the average 1.5mm high letters on such a small coin?

The Shroud thread count is 38 lengthwise (warp) threads of 0.14mm in average diameter and 26 widthwise (weft) threads of 0.25mm in average diameter woven into a measured one-centimeter square of the shroud fabric6.

The 0.5cm Shroud body image resolution limit should not be mistaken for the 0.5mm Shroud blood imprint resolution limit that is also the visual resolution limit. Now – and contrary to the body image – it should be here emphasized that the intriguing faint and very tiny faint brown letter-grouping-like patterns on the right eye area do appear photographically positive like the blood stains on the linen cloth. If we apply the Occam razor principle (i.e. if we try to give the simplest explanation to account for sharply defined appearance of the very tiny impressions), in the light of a funeral custom, it might well be the kind of incomplete decal or tell-tale sign a coin manipulated with blood-stained fingertips and placed over the right eyelid of the deceased is expected to leave on the internal upper side of a shroud soaked with a watery solution and pressed to the face. This has been demonstrated by experiments [Rodante’s and Moroni’s]7 (see figure 6) and just bypasses the theoretical objection that the threads would be too large to show this type of faint brown tiny letters on the Shroud face image.”


Figure 6 Colour photopositive (a) and reversed photonegative (b) of experimental blood decal of a Pilate coin ilate coin’s;5mm) eriuson.a dozen of Pilate coins? 1.5mm high inscription fragment on a non-stretched 3:1 twill-weave linen fabric soaked with a watery solution and black & white reversed photonegative of the Shroud right eye area (c)

Therefore metrologically, optically and experimentally speaking, nothing at all precludes a 1.5mm high letter resolution blood decal to have been left on the facial image by a Pilate coin 16mm± 0.5mm in average diameter.

4/ Can the reading of “UCAI” on the Shroud be a “mere figure in clouds” due to the photographic procedure, the computer processing or the variegations on the linen cloth?

If we take a glance at digitized 2D reversed photographic enlargements of the right eye area from 1931 Giuseppe Enrie’s, 1978 Vernon Miller’s and 2002 Gian Carlo Durante’s photo-negative of the Shroud face, the same letter-grouping-like shapes can be detected (though as if a little bit out of focus on both Miller’s and Durante’s compared to Enrie’s). This means it is not an artefact of a certain photographic procedure as it can be depicted by photographs shot in different techniques whether orthochromatic, traditional silver and extensive digital.


Figure 7 Photographic enlargement comparison of the right eye area from Shroud face reversed photonegatives

The letter images are not apparent on 1978 Schwortz’s and 1997 Durante’s Shroud face photograph just because of the use of two different lighting techniques. In 1978, Schwortz lit the Shroud from the front so as to minimize weave appearance to invisibility thus causing some already faint bloodstain patterns nearly standing out on the Shroud fabric to technically disappear from the photographs. In 1997, the “UCAI” sequence orientation happened to be nearly aligned with the incoming light direction thus causing a form of obfuscation from illumination to occur.

As far as 2D to 3D conversion by digital processing is concerned in terms of reduction in the weave pattern and increased sharpness of image, it must be noted that no additional graphic data can be found in a resulting 3D image from an authentic (first generation) orthochromatic film or slide copy, had not the graphic information been integral to the original 2D image8.


Figure 8 Digitized reversed photographic enlargement of the right eye area from: (a) authentic orthochromatic film copy; (b) Tamburelli’s digitized 3D image; (c) 3D visualization within a maximum 16 mm diameter area

The letter-grouping-like shapes are thus clearly distinguishable from the vagaries of the weave. If the reading of “UCAI” had really come from the banding, both vertical and horizontal, encroaching on the area of the right eye, or been a mere “figure in clouds” on 1931 Enrie’s, 1978 Miller’s, 2002 Durante’s Shroud face photographs and 1981 Tamburelli’s 3D reconstructions of the said area, how come then the same “figure in clouds” can be also seen – visually embedded within the inscription KAICAPOC as a spy numismatic detail – on tens of existing Pilate coins minted in the 16th, 17th and 18th regnal year of Tiberius (see Fig. 5)?

The photographic, eidomatic and numismatic evidence offers therefore a complete rebuttal against the “mere figure-in-cloud theory”8.

5/ Can Enrie’s black and white orthophotographs of the Shroud face taken eighty years ago on large glass plate negatives still yield usable and accurate information?

Besides mechanical squeeze and 3D scanning, it is common knowledge, among archaeological analysts and cryptanalysts that the best aids for deciphering purposes of 3D encoded ancient images and inscriptions invisible or almost invisible to the naked eye are applying false colour, 2D to 3D conversion and digital squeeze of photographs taken under appropriate raking light.

1931 Enrie’s Shroud face orthophotographs are not simply very aesthetic as some Shroud researchers would too hastily think. Mostly because of a longer time exposure under appropriate raking light and the use of specially designed filters which enhance local contrast, they did capture the finest details of the Shroud face image and haematic (or blood) imprints along with the characteristic weave pattern and the folds and creases of the linen fabric at scales 1:1 and 2:3. As such and regardless of 2008 HAL9000’s high definition digital photograph that should allow researchers* to analyze the Shroud in unprecedented detail, Enrie’s reversed negatives and positives are still the best candidates available so far (along with 2002 Durante’s digital photograph of the Shroud face as double or triple check) for detecting and studying any possible 3D encoded blood-stained coin tiny patterns embedded in the suspected image areas. Enrie’s photographs do yield usable and accurate information even more modern photographs fail to do. This is made pretty obvious with the photographic enlargement comparison of the right eye area from Shroud face photographs shot in different techniques (see Fig. 7).

Max, I know some people look at this and find it very convincing. I don’t. Is the cloth too coarse? Is the nature of the film inadequate? Maybe. I don’t know. My problem is perception. I suspect that some of us have different, indeterminable acceptance thresholds where I think I see becomes I see. 

ENEA Magazine Special Edition: New Paper on Shroud of Turin Conservation

clip_image001A Special Edition of ENEA Magazine about the Knowledge, Diagnostics and Preservation of Cultural Heritage contains an article, “The Conservation of the Shroud of Turin: Optical Studies” by Paolo Di Lazzaro*, Daniele Murra, Antonino Santoni, Enrico Nichelatti. The abstract reads:

The ancient linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin is one of the archaeological objects most studied in history, mainly because of the unexplained nature of its image. We have recently irradiated linen fabrics by excimer laser pulses obtaining a Shroud-like coloration, and have recognized photo-chemical processes that may have played a role in the formation of the image embedded into the Shroud. Our results suggest some actions aimed at a long-term conservation of the Shroud and its image

Full Article: The Conservation of the Shroud of Turin: Optical Studies — Enea

Rogers changing his mind in a big way

imageYannick Clément, in an email, writes:

I have found an ancient quote from Ray Rogers that is incredible and says a lot about the high level of scientific honesty of that man !!!

This particular quotes comes from one section of a book written in 1999 by Bernard Ruffin about the Shroud that is entitled “Shroud of Turin: Up to date analysis of all the facts Regarding the Church’s Controversial Relic”.

Here’s the part of that book where we can find this awesome quote from Rogers: “In 1978, Ray Rogers of STURP was quoted in the Los Alamos Monitor: “I am forced to conclude that the image was formed by a burst of radiant energy –light if you will.

Were you aware of this? Don’t you think like me that this is an extraordinary historical finding? This quote sounds pretty much like Jackson’s hypothesis, don’t you think? J For me, that particular quote (unfortunately, I don’t know if Rogers said that before or after the team went to Turin, but I think it was before) is one more proof that he was honest enough as a scientist to change his mind drastically on some issues if NEW CONTRADICTORY FACTS AND/OR OBSERVATIONS were coming his way!

In reality, this is the 4th important example I have found (I’m sure there are even more than that in reality!) where Rogers changed his mind drastically about some issue related to the Shroud and it is ALL IN HIS HONOR. The other three examples are :

1- When he realized that the chromophore of the image could not probably be an oxidation-dehydration of the linen fiber itself (as he thought when he wrote his STURP paper)

2- When he realized that Benford and Marino’s hypothesis of an invisible repair in the area of the C14 corner was most probably correct (even if, at first, he though they were a bunch of lunatic and their hypothesis was irrational).

3- When he realized that Vignon’s vaporographic hypothesis wasn’t so crazy after all when it is confronted to all the most solid data and observations about the Shroud (even if, at first, he though that this hypothesis was a non sense).

This quote offer also another important proof: Rogers was not the close-minded hyper rationalist that all his detractors have wanted us to believe! It’s important because it clearly showed that his naturalistic hypothesis concerning the Maillard reaction was not driven by a will to crush down at all cost every possible supernatural hypotheses that have been put forward over the years, like many anti-Rogers persons (like Rolfe for example) have supposed (even on your blog)! In sum, this particular quote from Rogers is a proof that all these anti-Rogers folks are dead wrong concerning his real motivation versus the Shroud… And for me, this particular quote gave even more credibility to a natural hypothesis concerning the image formation because it shows that it is NOT what Rogers was first thinking and he later had to change his mind when he came accross new facts and observations from Adler!

So, I really think YOU SHOULD PUT THIS QUOTE FROM RUFFIN’S BOOK ONLINE RIGHT NOW, so that people can understand how professional and honest a scientist Rogers was and how much he was humble enough to CHANGE HIS MIND on something related to the Shroud… As my friend Barrie Schwortz told me more than once, to his knowledge, Rogers was one of the only Shroud scientist who was ever able to do this kind of prouesse ! And it is totally unlike most of the modern Shroud researchers by the way who, once they had their minds made up, they did everything they could to stick to their personal conclusions about the Shroud. [ . . . ]

In the end, there’s no doubt about that: Personal egos are the ruin and the shame of Shroud research and it would be time that another honest and rigorous scientist like Rogers come into the Shroud world (would be great if it could be an expert in biochemistry)!


imageSister Mary Ann Walsh, Director of Media Relations, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes:

With the push of a button, I sent a tweet to the pope at #AskPontifex, the new Twitter account the Vatican set up for Pope Benedict XVI. It’s nice to go straight to the top. Kudos to the pope who saw that, even at 85 years of age, he has to engage in social media.

[ . . . ]

Some fear the pope and other leaders might lose some mystique when they tweet with the hoi polloi. Yet plain speaking is not irreverent and being with the masses is not beneath a religious leader. After all, God did become man. Scripture proves simple speech can be holy. Think "Let there be light" at creation and Mary’s "Let it be done unto me according to thy word" at the Annunciation. Engaging the crowd means being with God’s children, such as the multitude Jesus addressed on the mountainside.

#AskPontifex it is time 4 a new STURP 2 for non-destruk tests & will you be my friend on Facebook.

Link: Sister Mary Ann Walsh: Tweet the Pope

That wraps it up or does it

clip_image001A fairly good short summary by Nick Backstrom in his blog, Things that I found. He leads up to this:

But even if you don’t believe in the Shroud as the burial cloth of Jesus, there are still questions that have to be answered. Why did other scientific testing, finding blood and other materials, tend to prove it authentic? Why did a Medieval artist choose to do an anatomically correct crucifixion when no-one, no-one, else depicted it that way? And finally, how was it done? Despite many efforts, no-one has been able to recreated a Shroud in any way that is believable or practical. Leonardo da Vinci has been mentioned of course, but the Shroud, even as a fake object, existed before he did. (One wonders how Leonardo found time to do anything with all the conspiracies he up to his hips in.) Even as a fake, the Shroud still poses questions for which we cannot find answers

Link: Things that I found: "That wraps it up!": The Shroud of Turin

For your Shroudie friends at Christmas

Google Shopping. And, of course, any number of books and DVDs.


<em>Shroud of Turin</em> T-shirt



$29.19 with est. tax & shipping

Jesus, Shroud of Turin This relaxed fit cotton t-shirt for men has a seamless rib collar with double-needle cover-stitching, shoulder-to-shoulder …

ENHANCED <em>Shroud of Turin</em> full image Jesus Christ Coffee Mugs



$20.79 with est. tax & shipping

Classic White Mug. Shroud of Turin This beautiful image of the shroud is one of the best full reproductions available for the price. We have …

<em>Shroud of Turin</em> Skateboard



$67.90 with est. tax & shipping

Skate or die…

Vintage <em>Shroud of Turin</em> Belt Buckle

Vintage Shroud of Turin Belt Buckle
$25.00 used

$29.00 with est. tax & shipping

This is for a very unique and rare vintage belt buckle. It comes from an estate sale (we have a collection of these 1970s and 80’s buckles). It is …

Vatican Scott Scott 1073-4 MNH** <em>Shroud of Turin</em> CV$3.75

Vatican Postage Stamos


$4.25 with est. tax & shipping

<em>Shroud of Turin</em> Mousepad

Shroud of Turin Mousepad


$19.19 with est. tax & shipping

The things we do for love – Tucson Liberal Christian

Margot, a regular columnist at writes, The things we do for love:

I remind my readers from time to time that I spend some of my time watching absurd television programs dealing with various pseudo-religious topics as well as legitimate ones. I consider my time well spent watching The Real Face of Jesus, which dealt with a study of the Shroud of Turin; I consider it a waste of time to watch programs that are now resurfacing about the coming of December 21st (the so-called Maya Apocalypse) because it isn’t going to happen.

Margot Fernandez is a retired educator and lifelong Episcopalian who lives in Tucson. Her involvement in religious scholarship includes many research projects subsequent to earning degrees from Northern Illinois University and the University of Guam in English and education. Margot lived for many years in the Pacific Islands, where she studied the many cultures and languages of the area. At present, she participates in the Education for Ministry program.

Secrets of the Shroud: What say you all?

imageA week ago, by way of a comment, Russ Breault asked:

Dan, Not sure if this is the best place to write this but I am interested in developing a secondary presentation to be called “Secrets of the Shroud”. In this presentation I want to cover many of the unique data points that are often left out of a general overview for time sake. These could be details related to the blood, the image, the cloth itself and even nuances of history. I would love to hear from your knowledgeable readers some of their thoughts on what to include.

I should have brought the matter to the top in a more timely fashion.

What say you all?

Have we now exhausted this off-topic?

imageFrequent shroud blogger and friend John Klotz (see posting yesterday, An Early Christmas Present from John Klotz), in his blog, points us to an observation by Tom Wright (pictured) about the role of women in the Gospels. In Jesus Christ, Feminist he writes:

It was the degraded state of women generally that makes it remarkable that the four Gospels record women as the first witnesses to the Resurrection. In fact, N.T. Wright, Anglican Bishop, and perhaps the foremost scholar of the Resurrection, uses that fact to conclude that the traditions that were formalized as the Gospels, predate St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.

“Even if we suppose that Mark made up most of his material, and did so some time in the late 60s at the earliest, it will not do to have him, or anyone else at that stage, making up a would-be apologetic legend about an empty tomb and having women be the ones who find it. The point has been repeated over and over in scholarship, but its full impact has not always been felt: women were simply not acceptable as legal witnesses. We may regret it, but this is how the Jewish world (and most others) worked. The debate between Origen and Celsus shows that critics of Christianity could seize on the story of the women in order to scoff at the whole tale; were the legend-writers really so ignorant of the likely reaction? If they could have invented stories of fine, upstanding, reliable male witnesses being first at the tomb, they would have done it.”  (Interior citations omitted).<!–[if !supportFootnotes]–>[vi]

The obduracy of the bachelor hierarchy to the ordination of women is an anarchism that the Church must put behind it. There is a desperate shortage of priests in many countries, particularly the United States. In the US, dioceses are importing priests from Africa. They are fine men, however, their presence in the United States is contingent to their strict hewing to the Vatican line.

Of course, I might wonder if allowing priests to marry might help the shortage problem. In the Episcopal Church in the US, we have a surplus of ordained priests. I don’t know why. Women priests? Married priests? Less strict hewing to any line?

And by now we have probably exhausted this off-topic.

So we are fruitcakes, just in time for Christmas

imageJohn Rentoul, writing in the Independent and the Huffington Post UK, wants you to know about his new book coming out just in time for Christmas. Here he focuses on newspaper headlines:

Many of them were picture questions, with a bias towards aliens and monsters. "Is This Atlantis?" (The Sun, February 2009.) "Is This the Monster of Lake Windermere?" (Mirror, February 2011.) "Is This a Squadron of UFOs Flying Over California?" (Daily Mail, May 2011.) "Is This a Secret Space Station on Mars?" (Mail Online, June 2011.) "Is This an Alien Spacecraft Parked Next to Mercury?" (Daily Mail, December 2011.) "Is This Life on Venus?" (Mail Online, January 2012.) Most of those could have been entitled, "Is This a Speck of Dust That Has Been Magnified So Much That It Looks a Bit Like Something Else?"

Any picture that included anything that could have been a blurry human-shaped figure would be headlined "Is This Bigfoot?" or "Is This Finally Evidence That Bigfoot Exists?" Or "the Yeti".

One of my early favourites was "Is the Turin Shroud Genuine After All?" a lovely question in the Mail on Sunday in April 2009, especially for that highly-collectable "After All" at the end, which brilliantly implies that the Mail on Sunday knows perfectly well that the shroud is a fake, but that some startling new evidence has come to light that suggests that the fruitcakes had been right "all along".

[ . . . ]

The collection now has 882 exhibits, the best of which are selected for a book published in time for Christmas by Elliott & Thompson.

(Bold emphasis mine)

A Pilgrimage to Turin

clip_image001Joe Marino sent along this link. An interesting personal account of a visit to Turin, The Holy Shroud: A pilgrimage to Turin in GMA News Online, "The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere":

Just below the brightly-lit yellowish positive reproduction were more thought-provoking and heart-stopping pictures: the negatives of the Holy Shroud. Said to be taken by amateur photographer Secondo Pia in 1898, these were the popular and iconic images of the Holy Shroud. In black and white but sharper now, a distinct countenance with its eyes closed could be clearly limned. The subject’s face was bruised, and its nose fractured. The bony hands and feet had old blood stains and wounds. But what struck me most was the facial expression: sad, desolate, and seemingly reproachful.

Monsieur the Scorch

clip_image001It looks like Colin will be experimenting with scorching linen again. He writes in French, and Bing translates:

Today I’m in France, the beautiful France, Antibes to be precise, in the old town, to be even more precise. There is a market on Saturday. Look what I just found, manufactured in brass. Can you guess what I will do with it when I get home, me, Monsieur the Scorch?

It’s a brass crucifix.

An Early Christmas Present from John Klotz

imageJohn Klotz writes in a posting on his blog, Living Free (Click on the picture)

In my research of the history of the Shroud, I have come across the unique contributions the late Rev. Peter Rinaldi.

He was a seminarian in Turin and was present for the 1933 exposition of the Shroud and served a an interpreter for an informal seminar of participants. The Enrie photographs were then being distributed in 1933, and seminarian Peter Rinaldi rubbed shoulders with giants such as Paul Vignon and Secondo Pia.

In 1934, he wrote an article on the Shroud for The Sign, a Catholic monthly in America. When he returned from Italy and was ordained, he eventually was appointed pastor of Corpus Christi Church in Port Chester New York . He established a shrine dedicated to the Shroud of Turin.

[ . . . ]

I was able to locate an archive of Sign Magazine which has long since ceased publication. I have a posted a copy of the 1934 article on my web site at:

Click on the picture

National Catholic Reporter: Ordain Women as Priests

Women Priests National Catholic ReporterOFF TOPIC: I only bring it up because we have discussed the subject recently:

Calling the priesthood a "gift from God … rooted in baptism," the National Catholic Reporter says that "barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand."

Full story: Women Priests Movement Endorsed By National Catholic Reporter

Tinfoil Hat x 2 Warning: Prince William is a Counterfeit

imageJohn(?) writes:

I don’t want to sound proud of boastful, but I am quite certain that I am one of the witnesses of Revelation (John the Baptist).

Sooner or later these end-of-time Internet prophets discover the Shroud of Turin. Now, we learn that Prince William is not the antichrist but actually a counterfeit antichrist. Got that? Of course, that makes perfect sense if the shroud is fake, which we know because it can now be revealed that Leonardo da Vinci was Jewish. We know this because of Jewish symbolism in his art (this makes him also Eskimo, Arabic and a Chicago Cubs fan, as well).

imageIt also means the Pope is Jewish. No, that is his miter with the six-pointed star and not a tinfoil hat that he is wearing.

No, really! I read only enough of the posting, Counterfeit Antichrist Prince William Cloned From The Shroud Of Turin? | johnthewitness to allow the coffee maker to finish:

Satan has concocted a brilliant plan based upon the idea that Prince William is the antichrist, cloned from the Shroud of Turin. As we will later show in this article, Prince William is merely a counterfeit antichrist.

clip_image001The pictorial evidence says it all.

To fully appreciate this, read Kelly Kearse’s comment, daveb’s response, and Kelly’s rejoinder to any earlier posting (and follow the recommended link):

Kelly: The Shroud, the Pantocrator, there’s even a reference to the Pray Manuscript (and the lack of visible thumbs/fingers)

Before pasting in your browser, pull your tin-foil hat down nice & snug (heavy duty foil is recommended); the evidence of AB blood is often mentioned in related stories as a clincher.

I’ve always thought Chris Martin (lead singer of Coldplay) might be worth a closer inspection as well…Viva La Vida

daveb: Thanks for this Kelly. Defiitely tin-hat territory. I also needed a tightly-bound cincture to avoid excessive side-splitting from laughter. Is this “getthetruth” site known for sustained tongue-in-cheek irony, or is it intended to be serious conspiracy theory? Much of it seems dependent on commonly available picture morphing software – you can morph any image to any other. I see they’re also demonising the Royal Navy insignia.

Kelly: To be honest, I am not really sure, but best I can tell it’s serious conspiracy theory, even though admittedly, the “clues” about the thumbs/fingers in relation to the Pray Codex took it to a whole new level. Searching for information on AB blood typing and the Shroud, the most common related subjects that consistently show up are the Sudarium of Oviedo (makes sense) and the Prince William connection with the Shroud of Turin (huh?). There is now actually a novel based on cloning Jesus from a sample taken from the Sudarium, a trilogy series no less. I was a bit surprised when I first saw just how prominent this idea with Prince William was (on images/you tube): cloning and the Shroud intertwined with blood typing, some wild stuff. I’m old enough to remember when such important and cryptic information was only revealed to the public via the latest Beatles’ album cover…

So what is controversial?

imageOverall, this is a fairly good, understandable overview, What is radiocarbon dating? in World News Australia:

Other high profile projects include the dating of the Turin Shroud to the medieval period, the dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls to around the time of Christ, and the somewhat controversial dating of the spectacular rock art at Chauvet Cave to c.38,000 calBP (c.32,000 BP) – thousands of years earlier than expected.

Rupert Sheldrake on Science and Religion

clip_image001RECOMMENDED: Rupert Sheldrake in today’s Huffington Post, Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion:

As I show in my new book, "Science Set Free," unexpected problems are disrupting the sciences from within. Many scientists prefer to think that these problems will eventually be solved by more research along established lines, but some, including myself, think that they are symptoms of a deeper malaise. Science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas.

Dr Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 technical papers and 10 books, including The Science Delusion. He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge University, where he was Director of Studies in cell biology. He was also a Research Fellow of the Royal Society. From 2005-2010 he was Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project, funded from Trinity College, Cambridge. His web site is .

Stephen Jones’ New Series Taking Shape

imageStephen Jones’ new series on the shroud is beginning to take shape. See Stephen E. Jones Starting a New Series of Posts (with 22 comments). Here is what he has so far:

Go take a look.

%d bloggers like this: