New Italian Book: The Mystery of the Shroud by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta

clip_image001There is a new book, Il Mistero della sindone (The Mystery of the Shroud) by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta. Here is a Bing Translation from the publisher’s site:

"A mystery of the cross and light": that inexplicable and UN-reproducible nature body image imprinted on the towel is the testimony of the passion and death of Jesus, but also of his resurrection. The words uttered by Pope Benedict XVI will return to Shroud the whole truth that scientific research had been trying to downsize. In 1988, the HHH, malluchandaragi dating, scientists determined that the Shroud is a perf VAT at medieval times. Today, thanks to a multidisciplinary work promoted by the University of Padova and lasted fifteen years, the team led by Giulio Fanti proves that radiodating was distorted from environmental contamination, and goes right at the time of the early death of Jesus; that the traces of dust, pollen and spores route toward Middle Eastern origin; the body depicted on linen has undergone violence narrated in the Gospels of the passion; and that the image was produced by the exceptional radiation developed at the time of the resurrection. This book, co-authored by Fahmi and Saverio Gaeta, is the exciting account of a discovery and the narrative of the extraordinary history of the most precious and revered relic of Christendom.

I look forward to an English translation of the book.

16 thoughts on “New Italian Book: The Mystery of the Shroud by Giulio Fanti and Saverio Gaeta”

    1. You sure at an arrogant snob. Colin’s Razor: given two different hypothesis, the one most likely to be correct is one proposed by a chemist.

    2. Hard-core scientists are dolts. For hundreds of years they’ve been using their own ‘consciousness’ to argue what ‘consciousness’ really is; they have yet to realize that “you can’t make a scale weigh itself” …..Only scientists who believe in God realize the limitations of that which man himself creates.

  1. Dear Colin Berry,
    I have not yet read that interesting new book.
    Probably the analyses about the environmental contamination
    and the pollen (after the attempts by Max Frei, etc.)
    are interesting.
    — —
    Years ago I was curious about the DHM = Digital
    Holography Microscope.
    If you have taken an interest in that analytic
    field there is a study titled :

    DHM (Digital Holography Microscope) for imaging cells
    You can read that work under the address :

    Denis Gabor invented in 1948 a way to encode the phase as an intensity variation: the “hologram” [D. Gabor, A new microscopic principle, Nature, 1948]. The DHM implements digitally this
    powerful hologram …
    — —
    In any case I believe that Giulio Fanti is able to work in the
    field of Applied Mechanics in order to show something of interest about the linen fibrils.
    — —
    See also, for example, the study :
    Comparative Research of the Dynamic Young’s Module of Fibres
    Więcek T, Konecki W.
    published in :
    FIBRES & TEXTILES in Eastern Europe 2012; 20, 5(94): 36-40.

    >This work presents an investigation of the dynamic Young’s modulus for fibres of varied thickness performed on an Impulse Mechanical Spectrometer (IMS) and Dynamic Mechanical Analyser (DMA). The IMS was designed and built by the authors and the DMA instrument was produced by TA Instrument Co (USA). Because different methods are applied for determination of the dynamic Young’s modulus it was necessary to perform a comparison analysis of the results received from the IMS and DMA, which are currently the most frequently used testers. This analysis shows that an IMS can be used when a DMA cannot be applied. The parameter set comprising the dynamic Young’s modulus for longitudinal vibrations can find application in material engineering in industry. The DMA method does not require the application of mathematical formulas to determine Young’s modulus but requires calibration as apposed to IMS. Measurements of the elasticity modulus were carried out under automatically stabilised climatic conditions. The compliance of the results obtained allows us to evaluate positively the performance of the Impulse Mechanical Spectrometer. Comparison of the results makes it possible to determine the measuring possibilities of the DMA and IMS and show the advantages of IMS over DMA.
    — —
    What is your opinion ?
    Probably we can work (with a particular device)
    using a single linen fibril …
    — —
    Do you know Structural Mechanics ?
    There is the three-point bending test with an AFM apparel that is an interesting way to use.
    In my opinion this is the way to know the answer
    from the linen fibrils.
    — —
    I hope in your reply …

  2. Well, I’m always fascinated to hear you describe the latest in gee-whizz technology, Piero. In fact I was wondering only the other day whether your frequently mentioned AFM might be of use in revisiting the question as to what came first – blood or image.

    Yes, there is a role for engineers, especially instrumentation engineers in Shroud research. But let’s not lose sight of the fundamental distinction between scientist and engineer. The first is concerned with ideas, hypotheses, theories etc, so has to be scrupulously careful about bias. The second is concerned primarily with practical applications of science, so on the face of it should not need to be so concerned on that score. But instrumentalists who discover a use for their ‘black boxes’ in solving particular scientific problems can get drawn in, and then slip by degrees into the role of scientist, which is OK, provided they know the pitfalls of bias and maintain self-discipline.

    But how much of the latter (self-discipline) can one expect from someone like our mechanical-engineer-turned author who thinks it’s OK to tack theological sections on the end of his conference papers, and who thinks he sees wound sites on the linen (wounds, not blood) where there are none, and highlights them in yellow, just in case folk fail to spot them? Or who claims to be able to see a time sequence in the different types of scourge mark despite the latter being imaged as blood – not as discernible lesions on the body image (skin indentations, cuts, tears, lacerations etc)

    And let me ask you this. Suppose the radiocarbon dating had returned a date for the linen of 20BC to 86AD. Suppose I had come along and said that the result was not to be trusted, because atom bomb testing had made the C-14 transmute rather than decay to C-12 at a faster than expected rate and that the statistics were wrong anyway, making the real age more likely to be 1260 to 1390. What do you think would be the response of the Fantis of this world? Would they have given me a fair hearing, and if so, how long would that have lasted – measured to the nearest femtosecond?

    Some might think that the “wrong” radiocarbon dating should at least have been an occasion for a little thought and humility, for maybe less speculation about corona discharges etc. and more about imaging via conventional physics (conduction, convection and electromagnetic radiation).

    Anyway, do let us know if you think AFM or some other untried technology could help. I’ve just written to the UK’s Royal Society, requesting independent assessment of present claims and perhaps new state-of-the art technology too for resolving existing controversies, but could always send them a late postscript (always a good excuse for tracking progress).

  3. In one of my comment of yesterday, I said to Colin that I agree with him on the fact that the Shroud is often used for very bad motives and this book of Fanti “the engineer” fits very well into that category… It is just one new example among a multitude of bad examples. Just from the summary provide by Dan, this is obvious! I just can’t believe how someone who pretend to be a real scientist is using the scientific term “proof” so loosely and so many times concerning things that are, in reality, very far from being proven!!! It just show how poor a scientist Fanti really is… I just can’t understand why someone intelligent and rational would trust or even just listen to anything coming out of that guy’s mouth or pen.

  4. I indicated the DHM (= Digital Holography Microscope) in order to investigate
    the pollen. Instead for linen fibrils I hoped to see something using the AFM
    techniques (but … also the pollen can be investigated using the AFM).

    I believe that now we have the possibility to control the linen fibrils
    using the SPM apparels (AFM, SNOM, etc.)
    We can see something of interest using the AFM techniques (included the Chemical Force Microscopy) on linen fibrils and thin layers on linen fibrils (and then we can also try to include in our investigations the famous “ghosts”) avoiding the bad destructions of the 14C tests.
    When we want to use the AFM techniques on ancient materials we have to take into account the past story for these reperts (included the mold, the fungal attacks, etc.).
    Pam Moon underlined that argument in a compilation/study titled :
    “Coloured Dissolved Organic Matter (CDOM) contamination, mould damage,
    biocides and the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin”.
    Then the Shroud of Turin was contaminated by water … and the idea by Pam Moon
    is that the major watermarks were caused by water that was contaminated, this
    is a possible controversial idea (see : the Fire in 1532 and the water used)…
    So, we have to try to work in a safe area (previously chosen using the optical
    microscopy), avoiding the area of presumed contamination (from the humic and
    fulvic acid from the soil).
    Is that attempt to work a credible way to follow ?
    In my opinion we have to do a good survey, testing both the areas : the safe
    and the (presumed) contaminated areas.
    The AFM and the Raman analyses can show the truth.
    There are the highest performance AFM-Raman systems…
    — —
    Here the useful addresses :

    Nanomechanical Characterization Modes.
    >Understand the physical properties of molecules, composites,
    and nanostructures …

    Nanoindenting and Nanoscratching
    Hardness and wear testing of nanometer-scale samples
    >Indentation is a common tool for determining the mechanical properties, such as the hardness or modulus, of a sample. With the help of diamond probes on AFM systems, researchers are able to nanoindent very small volume samples to obtain this valuable data. AFM can also perform nano-scratching and wear testing to investigate film adhesion and durability.
    — —
    I hope in your answer.
    — —
    Now I have not the time required to sketch a proper schematic drawing of
    the experimental setup for oscillation analyses (for linen fibrils) with
    videorecordings, because this is another interesting argument (if you have
    the time and the money to work in a good manner using the mechanical energy
    and observing the behaviour of the linen fibrils, without the great destructions) …

    Do you know the spring and the dashpot ?
    Do you know the Kelvin-Voigt model ?
    There is the useful address :

    >In the models springs and dashpots are used to simulate the elastic
    and viscous components of the stress/stain response …
    >Simple models using combinations of springs and dashpots do not correspond directly to discrete molecular structures, but they do aid in understanding how the materials will respond to stress/strain variations.
    — —
    If you want to improve your investigations or knowledges there is the following address :

    Click to access bericht_225.pdf

    — —
    Then the argument can also be seen as the Determination of Damping
    by Experiment.
    You can try to check (using Google) under the words :
    – damped free vibrations
    – viscous damping coefficient
    – damping ratio
    – logarithmic decrement (= delta)
    – damped natural frequency (= omega d)
    Where are the instrumentation engineers in Shroud research ?
    Have you find the useful Experimental Technique for Determining a Measure of Structural Damping on linen ?
    [B.T.W. : See also the treatments in the year 2002 … What is your opinion ?]
    — —
    In any case in a popular book (I presume this is the probable category of the book
    written by Fanti with Gaeta) is forbidden to fill the pages with mechanical
    tests, equations, etc., academic bibliography, etc., etc.
    The Shroud is important because we can see the Image of Jesus
    (after the centuries, see also : the conservation and the contamination).
    This is the main question to underline in a book written for Easter…
    — —
    The new (or controversial tests) are another problem connected with
    the scientific knowledge and our responsability to maintain self-discipline.
    I agree with you : a mechanical engineer is not a medical doctor.
    But we have to bypass the aversions or the arrogant behaviour.
    Now we cannot investigate the mechanisms of replacing exact solutions
    by approximate ones.
    First of all we have to read the book before to condemn an interesting attempt
    (… and years of research ?).

  5. Regardless of whether Professor Fanti is correct or not, and I’m rather inclined to think he is probably not, he is nevertheless in good company. In my 18 months of closely monitoring this site, I can only recall one occasion when Dr Berry had anything good to say about any others’ attempts to penetrate the mystery of the Shroud, a posting by Kelly Kearse on the character of the blood stains – but it did not last. He would sooner believe that some medievalist forger created a monumental anatomically perfect completely original bas-relief of a crucified Christ, obtained an image by carefully controlled scorching, and then this monumental bas-relief of which there is no record anywhere disappeared from sight and history.

    1. “Trying tp penetrate the mystery of the Shroud” rather says it all. Daveb betrays the inherent bias that exists on this site that is profoundly non-scientific. Science attempts to demystify. There are so many totems where the Shroud is concerned that need demystifying, one hardly knows where to begin. Like that alleged superficiality of the Shroud image that cannot be achieved with conventional physics or chemistry. How superficial? Er, well. less than 200nm. Are you sure about that? OK, maybe as much as 600nm. How do you know? Er, it’s because you can’t see the image layer properly under a light microscope when you pull the fibre away from the sticky tape adhesive. So how do you arrive at that figure of 200, sorry 600? Well, that’s the maximum wavelength of visible light, so if you can’t see it properly it must be less than 600. So you haven’t measured it directly? No, am I supposed to? Well, it would help, don’t you think, seeing as how you set so much store by it, and contemptuosly dismiss any model image that fails to meet your 200, sorry, 600nm criterion Oh, by the way, where do you think the image might be, if it’s a mere 200-600nm thick? No problem there, guv, it’s on an impurity layer, Mr.Rogers said so, and one is not allowed to disagree with Mr.Rogers. So what’s this impurity layer? Oh, lots of things, like starch and saponins. Pliny said so. Did Mr.Rogers find any starch or saponins on the Shroud.? Well, no actually, but I think someone else did. How do you know it is an impurity layer? Might it not simply be the PCW? The what? The PCW. What’s that then? It’s the primary cell wall. Oh.Mr,Rogers never said anything about that… to be continued…

    2. Message for Dave : Remember my paper about the evidence of the bloodstains ? Just from this solid piece of evidence, it is EVIDENT that the Shroud CANNOT be any kind of an artistic forgery. PERIOD. No need to go further!

    3. I thought the business of science was to penetrate mysteries of whatever kind, whether religious or secular. But with all his science, even if or when he discovers the truth, Dr Berry will never understand the Shroud, for it is beyond his understanding. His chemical bias can only take him so far, never further. So much for his science, pseudo- or otherwise.

      1. How to penetrate the mysteries if you never tried to do the true attempt ?
        The Science can be able to show us something
        using the proper tools …
        So …
        Here the words that you have to take into account (instead to speak in vain) :

        … What’s new about this book are Fanti’s recent findings, which are also about to be published in a specialist magazine and assessed by a scientific committee. The research includes three new tests, two chemical ones and one mechanical one. The first two were carried out with an FT-IR system, so using infra-red light, and the other using Raman spectroscopy. The third was a multi-parametric mechanical test based on five different mechanical parameters linked to the voltage of the wire. The machine used to examine the Shroud’s fibres and test traction, allowed researchers to examine tiny fibres alongside about twenty samples of cloth dated between 3000 BC and 2000 AD.

        The new tests carried out in the University of Padua labs were carried out by a number of university professors from various Italian universities and agree that the Shroud dates back to the period when Jesus Christ was crucified in Jerusalem. Final results show that the Shroud fibres examined produced the following dates, all of which are 95% certain and centuries away from the medieval dating obtained with Carbon-14 testing in 1988: the dates given to the Shroud after FT-IR testing, is 300 BC ±400, 200 BC ±500 after Raman testing and 400 AD ±400 after multi-parametric mechanical testing. The average of all three dates is 33 BC ±250 years. The book’s authors observed that the uncertainty of this date is less than the single uncertainties and the date is compatible with the historic date of Jesus’ death on the cross, which historians claim occurred in 30 AD.

        The tests were carried out using tiny fibres of material extracted from the Shroud by micro-analyst Giovanni Riggi di Numana who passed away in 2008 but had participated in the1988 research project and gave the material to Fanti through the cultural institute Fondazione 3M.

        Source :

  6. Thank you Piero for exemplifying the ideals set forth by colinsberry. You speak from the base of knowledge, not bias.

  7. Its all far too technical for me. I have been fascinated about The Shroud since I was a young girl I visited Turin in 2000 to see this marvel for myself. What ever it is, however it was created. one cannot argue it is magnificent. I hope that testing on more of the fibre is allowed as we are still awaiting more information on when and how is came to be. I myself would love to believe it is the cloth that Christ was wrapped in. Happy Easter.

  8. Can any tell me When did the new tests of both the Mechanical and Thermal imaging done on the Shroud by the Italian Scientists from University of Padua? Please someone shoot an e-mail to me the specific dates, and support your dates with added resources to support the dates. Thanks anyone. E-mail me at:

  9. “Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.” ~Albert Einstein

    They can send people to the moon and create atomic bombs, but they can’t replicate this image. How long have they been trying to solve this mystery?

    To have only cut a sample from one corner to represent the whole shroud was not scientifically kosher! I can’t wait for the new data to come out so we can put the C-14 data to rest.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: