Paper Chase (NEW): The Shroud: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses

imageAs Gabriel recently noted in a comment:

The Colorado center has just made public http://www.shroudofturin.com/shroud.html a very interesting document ” The Shroud A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses ” with many of the things we customarily discuss in this blog.

Here is what the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado is reporting:

The Shroud: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses

Use this link [or click on the picture of the cover page shown here] to view the above titled PDF document. This is a large document so it will take a minute to download: View PDF . The document includes all of the important scientific observations from the STURP expedition. In addition, the most important data from research conducted by our TSC scientific team, other scientists, forensic and historical researchers, both before and after STURP, is included along with our comments and evaluation. We will maintain this document on a continuous basis. The document is designed to be revised over time to include all important new research findings and thinking on the Shroud. All changes will be documented in a formal log of changes to help support the user stay up to date on the Shroud. The document includes detailed references to source research material.

imageThe Critical Summary is a copyrighted document but you are given permission to print it for private and for non-profit educational purposes.

If you have comments or suggestions regarding this document please send them to us by Email here(ShroudFacts@gmail.com).

It is 44 pages long including title material and end notes. Here is the description at the Turin Shroud Center of Colorado

5 thoughts on “Paper Chase (NEW): The Shroud: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses”

  1. This paper silly and unscientific.. It is overly biased and omits so much. It is as big an embarrassment as Giulio Fanti’s attempt at doing something similar . . you remember David Rolfe’s attempt to use Fanti’s image characteristics before he settled in on that rushed up cabalistic Valencia “consensus”?

    Example: “No image can be found under the bloodstains, because they formed before the body image.”

    Give me a break: a scientist would never write “because” in an observation statement, particularly one that is not all that well confirmed. He or she might say is that the observation suggests a possible conclusion, never that it is explained by a conclusion.

    Example: “There are images of teeth and bone structures associated with the face . . .”

    Completely junky “I think I see.” Maybe there is something that looks like teeth and bones for which there are alternate explanations.

    This ought to wake up Colin Berry and Yannick Clement. Why did Jackson allow this on his website?

    1. Why ?
      Have a look at table 3 page 19 on evaluation of image formation hypothesis.
      Guess which hypothesis has 0 item dubious or inconsistent.

  2. “There are other water stains on the shroud that are known to be much older [than 1532] because they appear on artistic drawings of the Shroud made before the 1532 fire.”
    Is there a shred of truth in this? I am aware of one painting of Christ whose concave abdomen resembles one of the water stains, but ‘drawings of the Shroud?’ Not that I’m accquainted with.

  3. “There are other water stains on the shroud that are known to be much older [than 1532] because they appear on artistic drawings of the Shroud made before the 1532 fire.”

    This looks like a garbled confusion of two separate features. This water stain damage is discussed in some detail in Ch 6 of Ian Wilson’s 2010 boook. He was able to write authoritatively on this feature as he was involved in a TV demonstration with Italian photographer Aldo Guerreschi who had photographed the stains identified during Dr Flury-Lemburg’s 2002 restoration work. The repetitive pattern of the stains shows that they occurred when the cloth was loosely folded accordion style into some 52 segments making a bundle roughly 12 inches by 13 inches. It had to be in some kind of container to hold this arrangement. Flury-Lemburg and Guerreschi thought an earthenware jar the most likely as other similar ancient articles had been found so stored. A reasonable explanation is that the staining was caused by a puddle of water in the bottom of the jar, possibly as a result of condensation. The TV demonstration replicated this water-staining damage.

    In the same Chapter 6 Wilson also mentions the folding implied by the well-know four sets of the “triple poker hole” patterns. The cloth then had to be folded in four making a package roughly 7 feet by 2 feet. An artist’s copy of the Shroud datd 1516 shows these holes, which were therefore unrelated to the 1532 fire. They also seem to be suggested in the Hungarian Pray manuscript of 1195.

    It would therefore seem that the writer of the comment has confused the two incidents – the water staining and the poker holes. It seems credible that the water-staining may have occurred during the Shroud’s very early Middle East history, as other artifacts have been found so stored. Alternatively it may even have occurred during one of its frequent post-1355 peregrinations around central Europe (France-Italy-Swiss Alps). Check Wilson’s 2010 “The Shroud” for a fuller description. I would doubt that the water staining damage was ever shown in any pre-1532 drawing without some specific reference to it.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: