Wonderful: Pam Moon’s New Shroud of Turin Exhibition Website


From the Home page:

This exhibition, featuring life-sized photographic replicas of the Shroud of Turin was created in 2008, using the 1978 photographs of Barrie Schwortz (www.shroud.com).  It aims to use the replica of the Shroud as a visual aid to tell the story of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and to examine the mystery of the cloth. The exhibition takes the journey of Jesus from his trial through the events of Good Friday to the empty tomb, using passages from the four gospels.  It tries to demonstrate what the flogging, the whip; the piercings, the nails and spear were really like, using the Shroud as a teaching aid.

Do visit the site and browse through the various pages.

7 thoughts on “Wonderful: Pam Moon’s New Shroud of Turin Exhibition Website”

  1. Good morning, Dan. Sorry, I think Pam Moon has leaped to conclusions when it comes to the Jospice Mattress.
    Why didn’t she present her findings by giving a talk about what she calls her “reflections” at the BSTS meeting in Beaconsfield in 2012?
    Did the artist steal a mattress from the Hospital, finish the painting with body fluids and then smuggle it back? No one noticed it?
    What was the purpose? Did the artist think that Les looked like Clark Cable?
    Does this goes to say that Father Francis O’Leary was either a fool or a liar?
    See the link:

    Click to access can_the_jospice_mattress_imprint.mht_2.pdf

    1. Point well taken. I was focused on the website, which is intended to promote exhibitions. It is well designed for that purpose. Perhaps it is not the place for papers, which are becoming more and more scattered and free of any review. I’ve done the same thing in the past. And Barrie has posted many papers without a formal review process. So have other researchers. And we do it here with guest postings. What I like about the blog setting is the facility for immediate comments that are permanently attached to the paper. I’m sure we will have many things to say about her papers and I hope she will participate in the discussion.

  2. I’m glad Pam has been able to publish her ideas somwhere, even if it is only on her own website. As so often happens, some worthwhile observations are obscured by over-speculative conclusions, which means that even the observations get ignored. In the case of the Jospice mattress, I believe her observations regarding the physiological irregularities are interesting and may have a bearing on the physiological irregularities of the Shroud. I do not agree that they represent incompetence on the part of a forger, but that does not mean they should be ignored altogether.

  3. In 2013 a paper is published by Elsevier: Bevilacqua, M., Fanti, G., D’Arienzo, M., & De Caro, R. (2013). Do we really need new medical information about the Turin Shroud?. Injury. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020138313004221
    This paper describes almost the same in juries as Pam Boom has done. So there is some scientific conformation of his exhibition. I don’t know whether the paper is peer-to-peer reviewed.

  4. Kees, no injuries are seen on the Jospice Mattress Imprint and, as far as I know, Prof. Giulio Fanti, one of the authors of the paper you cited, had no success in trying to get his paper on the imprint presented at a Shroud congress years ago.
    Now, I would like to know who this artist was, because he managed to fool a number of people: Father Francis O’Leary, the team the BBC brought, Dr. Phil Callahan, Professor A.Cameron, Dr.Frederick Zugibe, Ian Wilson, Courtauld-trained art scholar Thomas de Wesselow (who was present at the Beaconsfield BSTS meeting and mentions the imprint in his book) and myself.

Comments are closed.