Home > Lectures, Presentation, Video > New DVD of the Women of Grace Programs on the Shroud Plus Some

New DVD of the Women of Grace Programs on the Shroud Plus Some

April 10, 2014

imageA reader writes:

There is a brand new DVD out. It is called The Secrets of the Shroud, featuring Dr. Wayne Phillips, the leading expert on the Shroud of Turin. It includes five wonderful programs from the Women of Grace show. There are stunning slides and images of the Shroud and all the current scientific research. The cost is $25.00.  Order it at http://shop.womenofgrace.com/product/1821/

Here are the shows that appeared on EWTN on the Women of Grace program:

  • DVD – 1
    • 10350 – Revelation of the Road: The Shroud’s Journey
    • 10351 – The Shroud of Turin Research Project
    • 10352 – Carbon Dating and Image Formation: Science and the Shroud
  • DVD – 2
    • 10353 – New Discoveries, New Theories: Science and the Shroud
    • 10354 – Dynamic Duo: The Sudarium and the Shroud
  • I linked to these shows in September 2012: EWTN Series on the Shroud of Turin. Apparently, the first of the five programs is still available for viewing on EWTN:  Revelation of the Road: The Shroud’s Journey (Program 10350) with Dr Phillips and Father Edmund Sylvia. You might want to view this first before shelling out $25.00.

Also, I found a recent Jesuit high school lecture in five parts featuring Dr. Wayne Phillips. It was uploaded to YouTube just a week ago. According to information at YouTube, J. Wayne Phillips ‘is an expert Shroud of Turin and has a degree in Shroud Studies from the Vatican Apostolorum College. He also has a medical degree from the University of Miami.

Part 1    Part 2    Part 3   Part 4    Part 5

 Watch Later

      Categories: Lectures, Presentation, Video
      1. Hugh Farey
        April 10, 2014 at 8:28 am

        “The leading expert on the Shroud of Turin.” “A degree in Shroud Studies from the Vatican Apostolorum College.” Why do claims like this irritate me, and prejudice me unfairly from the start?

        It’s the “The” I really don’t like. But I’m not keen on ‘leading’ either. Or ‘expert,’ for that matter…
        To be an expert at all you have to have a fairly good, accurate and honest knowledge of all the evidence, and it is not obvious from the high school lecture linked to above that Dr Phillips is aware of any of the evidence contradicting the statements he presents as fact. (To save others the bother of ploughing through it, he is a member of the Shroud Science Group and adheres to the “body and shroud floating in space” hypothesis of image formation). He is also factually incorrect in one or two places – a photo he shows specifically to illustrate that the blood stains are undisturbed is actually of a blob of wax, for example, and he is hopelessly confused about the directionality of the radiation supposedly emanating from the resurrecting body.

        What is the Vatican Apostolorum College? Those words, in that order, appear on the internet exclusively in connection with Dr Phillips himself. If I wanted to accredit myself to something, I would at least name an institution that could be confirmed. There is a ‘Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum’ or in English the Pontifical College of the Queen of the Apostles which offers a Diploma in Shroud Studies and lists a very impressive team of Teachers/Lecturers, so perhaps he means that.

        • daveb of wellington nz
          April 10, 2014 at 3:44 pm

          Hugh, Only because you’re a stickler for rigour, I’d comment that in English usage the word “The” in this context need not mean that Phillips is the primary leading expert on the Shroud, but might be understood as distinguishing him from any other person styled Dr Wayne Phillips not so qualified. I’ve noted that radio interviewers for example seem to have acquired this habit when introducing their subjects. Your other points seem well taken.

        • J.Wayne Phillips,MD
          April 11, 2014 at 9:19 pm

          Hello. I am J.Wayne Phillips, MD who is slightly misquoted by Dan using “Vatican Apostolorum College” incorrectly.The college is the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum College. Hugh is correct. However, I beg to differ with Hugh, but the wax IS blood. The blood photo was not made by me but taken from a shroud book. Hugh is accusing that author of fabrication. Also the theories of Jackson, Fanti, and Paczek include a need of a radiation released in a 360 degree fashion with some degree of simultaneous flattening of the cloth. Therefore the sides of the body show no image since the cloth no longer covered the sides. These are accurately portrayed theories. Hugh seems to think that these are my ideas but I have no personal theories in this presentation. All ideas come from the SSG experts. I am a messenger only.

          • Dan
            April 12, 2014 at 12:05 am

            What I said was, “According to information at YouTube, J. Wayne Phillips ‘is an expert Shroud of Turin and has a degree in Shroud Studies from the Vatican Apostolorum College.'” That is taken directly from the YouTube channel of the Jesuit High School in Tampa. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q12CdHhAXOE&list=UU6q1mAq8po0aOv3NdFMqoRw&index=3. I did not verify what they wrote but I did provide my source.

            • J. Wayne Phillips, MD
              April 13, 2014 at 12:09 am

              Dan ,

              1) It will take time but I will get you the exact quotes of who said what if you would like. The perpendicular radiation theory certainly comes from John Jackson and Gulio Fanti just form memory. The dominate talk and publications do favor the perpendicular radiation. It is the most repeated and make the most sense. At this point I do not think the totality of the shroud can have a “natural “explanation. I also think the SSG does about a good a job as possible with the ego’s flying around as they do.The data is on the shroud. If you work backwards from the given characteristics of the image, the shroud in 2 positions with perpendicular radiation is presently the best explanation. I can’t argue much since I personally have no evidence. As an allergist I do know pollen well and I am convinced by the shroud pollen as to its partial accuracy certainly to the point it could not be faked. I read data and make my own conclusions just as you do.

              2) Kelly Kearse has provided a possible blob of wax picture. I will have to check her sources and my sources.
              3) Joe Marino is one of the organizers also of the St Louis conference.
              Doc

            • Dan
              April 13, 2014 at 11:06 am

              Okay, so it’s Doc. Let me address your comments in reverse order.

              3)Joe Marino is a good friend. He is a frequent contributor to this blog. Note a posting this morning comes from him: Another Enduring Belief Question: Jesus in the Nude
              He has been the source of most of the material about the St. Louis Conference. Search this blog on St. Louis for several postings. I don’t think it is a SSG hosted conference.
              2) I think the real problem is that there simply isn’t a good basis for saying that bloodstains are undisturbed. With centuries of rolling, folding, displaying, etc. it is hard to justify. Let me see one picture that is clearly not possibly just a worn down bloodstain.
              1) Perpendicular radiation? What makes it perpendicular? How does this work? Radiation, by the way, is natural. Only the source of it is in question. Miraculous is it? Wouldn’t 100% miraculous nonenergetic information transfer and molecular chemical change work just as well? Why depend on an accidental byproduct of a miracle? If it is not accidental but purposeful why not just go for another miracle? Philosophically, Jackson, Fanti, et. al. don’t make sense? Theologically, they don’t make sense. Scientifically, they don;t make sense. I think the image is real but I don’t see sufficient evidence from anyone in SSG or anywhere else for any explanation of the image. Not yet. As for the pollen, it is suspect right now and nobody gets to exam it. Why is that?

              Welcome to the blog, Doc. Lots to discuss. We are getting about 2,500 page reads a day, right now.

          • Hugh Farey
            April 12, 2014 at 5:13 am

            Hi Dr Phillips,

            Thank you for dropping by. As you will know from your own examination of Shroud 2.0, the “drop of blood” which appears between 1:50 and 2:15 in Part 5 of the YouTube video of your lecture to the Jesuit high School Tampa is indisputably a blob of red wax, and looks absolutely nothing like any of the reputed bloodstains. You accompany this photo with the words “…none of the clots are disturbed; they’re complete, perfectly shaped clots as they originally bled out into the cloth.” Actually, as you must know, every single bloodstain has been almost wholly erased, leaving minute particles of blood tucked into interstices of the fibres and threads, and a pinkish stain indicating their original extent.

            You may well have taken the photo from a shroud book in good faith, but it’s wrong. Regular readers of this blog will know that I very rarely accuse people of fraud or fabrication, and this misidentification is almost certainly an honest mistake, but that doesn’t make it less wrong.

            From 3:59 of the same video, you say: “So, the atoms disintegrate into all the components of the atom … and radiate 360 degrees in all directions. … But where is the shroud? It’s only at 180 degrees; it’s on the bottom, and it’s the top, so all the radiation going this way [indicates horizontally] doesn’t do anything about an image. Therefore no ears, no cheeks.”

            In this statement you cover two angles of radiation, not 360. If the tip of the nose, for example, emitted radiation in all directions (an expanding sphere of radiation, in fact), the radiation from that one point alone would contact the shroud as a disc of radius approximately 50cm, most intensely at 90 degrees (vertically above the nose) and diminishing towards the circumference of the disc. The trouble with this is, of course, that every other point on the body would do the same, producing an amorphous blur across the sheet.

            “These are accurately conveyed theories,” you say. Well, I’m sorry, but accurately conveyed non-sense is still non-sense, wouldn’t you agree?

            • J.Wayne Phillips, MD
              April 12, 2014 at 3:45 pm

              Sorry Hugh,
              I still beg to continue a gentleman’s disagreement with you and find everything I said as presented on the “theories” of image formation proposed by the 3 authors to be correctly presented.
              Of course you can pick apart details because no theory yet fits the 100’s of characteristic proven to be part of the image and there are “holes”. These theories are considered to be the best attempts so far at explaining the image. These researchers are members of the Shroud Science Group of which I am a member and represent the leading researchers in the world on the science of the shroud. I am not a researcher only a communicator. The membership consist of many the original STURP team of 1978 and whose peer revieved publications have in my belief debunked the C14 dating of 1988.

              All this information I quote is available on the web site “shroud.com”. As a member of SSG I have had access to their emails daily for almost 3 years. I,like you, have been a student of the shroud for 35 years.Please check into their work. It is amazing.

              Let’s stop arguing please. Everything I said is published, many in peer reviewed scientific journals, and sounds plausible to me. Please read the work of Dr.Jackson (fall through hypothesis + perpendicular radiation), Fanti (corona radiation hypothesis) and Paczek (weightless perpendicular radiation hypothesis). All 3 (the actually the majority of SSG members) agree the shroud had to some how achieve somewhat of a stiff plane like unwrapping to give such a perfect photographic image. The SSG will be hosting a conference in St Louis October 9-12. Maybe we could continue this dialogue in person? Thanks for listening,
              Doc

            • Dan
              April 12, 2014 at 9:23 pm

              I was not aware that SSG was hosting the conference in St. Louis. As far as I know there are two sponsors: 1) Mark Antonacci’s Resurrection of the Shroud Foundation and 2) Salt River Production Group whose president, if I am reading his blog correctly is part of Antonacci’s foundation.

              What we do here is argue. Everything should be scrutinized. As for peer review, most of what is being claimed to have been peer reviewed lately is pure pay-to-play vanity publications.

              I was not aware that the majority of SSG members “agree the shroud had to some how achieve somewhat of a stiff plane like unwrapping to give such a perfect photographic image.” I have been a member of SSG since day one and I very much doubt that claim. Can you substantiate it? And frankly, I do not agree with your assessment of SSG’s work.

            • Dan
              April 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm

              I should add, I’ll see you in St. Louis. I’ll be blogging from there.

        • Dan
          April 12, 2014 at 12:27 am

          Hugh, you write: “a photo he shows specifically to illustrate that the blood stains are undisturbed is actually of a blob of wax . . . “. Do you have the part number and a time mark?

      2. Louis
        April 10, 2014 at 9:54 am

        One has to presume that Regina Apostolorum offers something really good in Shroud studies. One priest’s paper was posted around two years ago, which had nothing to do with the Shroud and the theology was flawed.

      3. anoxie
        April 10, 2014 at 12:48 pm

        I thought jesuits liked to be factual and scientifically correct.

      4. Louis
        April 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

        Well, Jesuits tend to be scientifically correct, there are some in the Vatican’s Observatory, however theology is another story, involving speculation, and systematic theology is even more complicated. That is because science, particularly physics, has made some discoveries and the theories can be changed, making the Catholic Church at least avoid making any official pronouncements. Theologians can say what they like in a situation like this and I did have to tell one priest-scientist who was writing about theology that, like icon artists, they would have to pray for inspiration before getting on with their work. Sometimes it is the other way round and scientists indulging in theology, although for the right reasons, can make a mess because they indulge in speculation. That appears to be what happened to Tipler.

      5. daveb of wellington nz
        April 12, 2014 at 7:07 am

        I think that one of the first references to the possibility of radiation being the cause of the image is in the concluding chapters of Ian Wilson’s 1978 book “The Turin Shroud”. He seems to have picked up the idea from scientists at an Albuquerque pre-STURP conference, some of whom had been involved in the nearby atomic bomb tests. Many will recall Wilson’s illustration of a permanent shadow of a pipe-line hand valve left by the Hiroshima 1944 explosion.

        For radiation to be the primary cause of the image, it would seem necessary to have recourse to a miraculist explanation, which seems to be the road that Giulio Fanti and his associates seem to be pursuing. However a miraculist explanation ought only to be pursued when other explanations, particularly naturalistic explanations have been exhausted, and this is far from being the case. Quite simply, the experimental studies have not been pursued. No-one can say what happens to a linen cloth fabricated to the ancient processes, containing a dead body for say 36 hours given inhibition with aloes and other spices, under the right environmental conditions.

        Ray Rogers succeeded in obtaining some coloration of Edgerton bleached linen treated with dextrin and saponaria on exposing it to ammonia. This is as far as experimental work has gone. It says nothing about image resolution of detail. Rogers believed that Maillard reaction was the primary cause, but also believed that it required something else. He was dismissive of radiation being involved, because of the superficiality of the image which could not be attained by radiation.

        Giovanna de Liso’s 12 years of experiments in the moderately seismic area of Piedmont has produced to my mind some of the most promising images so far. She claims that images only formed under certain combinations of specific conditions: earthquake, release of radon gas (common in earthquakes), simultaneous variations in the geo-magnetic and electric fields, and in the presence of iron-bearing rock. It is conceivable that radon gas may have an important bearing, perhaps on collimating the molecules forming the image. Perhaps this is why the image is orthogonal apparently aligned parallel to the gravitational field. Perhaps the time-dependent instability of these molecules were a key factor in image intensity producing the 3-D effect.

        There remains considerable scope for further research before nauralistic explanations can be excluded. Notions of a body floating in space between two parallel horizontal layers of linen being spontaneously radiated by body emanations tend to bring serious Shroud research into disrepute, and is properly labelled by skeptics as pseudo-science of the worst kind.

        Throw away the excimer lasers, and concentrate on some proper and credible scientific experimental research. Exhaust the naturalistic explanations before prematurely copping out in claiming a miracle.

      6. J.Wayne Phillips, MD
        April 12, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        Dan,
        Sorry my mistake. Your name for the college is what the Jesuit introduction included. I hadn’t heard what they actually said.They did not have it exactly right. I do feel it was close enough for most folks to look up and recognize that the college contains some of the best world experts on the shroud. I have no problem with the misquote.
        J. Wayne Phillips. MD

      7. Kelly Kearse
        April 12, 2014 at 9:25 pm

        Hugh Farey :
        Hi Dr Phillips,
        Thank you for dropping by. As you will know from your own examination of Shroud 2.0,
        the “drop of blood” which appears between 1:50 and 2:15 in Part 5 of the YouTube video of your lecture to the Jesuit high School Tampa is indisputably a blob of red wax, and looks absolutely nothing like any of the reputed bloodstains. You accompany this photo with the words “…none of the clots are disturbed; they’re complete, perfectly shaped clots as they originally bled out into the cloth.” Actually, as you must know, every single bloodstain has been almost wholly erased, leaving minute particles of blood tucked into interstices of the fibres and threads, and a pinkish stain indicating their original extent.
        You may well have taken the photo from a shroud book in good faith, but it’s wrong.

        “Every single bloodstain has been almost wholly erased”. Almost wholly erased-this would be in the 80-90% range for every one? Even through to the back of the cloth? Is there any exaggeration/speculation at work here? How do you know what the bloodstains looked like at t0, in the beginning?

        Regarding the picture, I believe it is the same one featured on the bottom left of p. 20 in the book, The Shroud a guide, by Gino Moretto-in the PowerPoint, it is rotated to the side-in the book, the caption reads “Left, traces of wax, Centre and right, burns and patching (Photo A Ghio, 1978)-Dr. Phillips, you might want to double check this book (or another source with this photo to compare)

      8. Kelly Kearse
        April 12, 2014 at 9:30 pm

        Dan :
        Hugh, you write: “a photo he shows specifically to illustrate that the blood stains are undisturbed is actually of a blob of wax . . . “. Do you have the part number and a time
        mark?

        Dan,

        See comment #5 by Hugh for time mark, part 5

        & comment #15 from me with book title & page #

        can send scan if you like

      9. Hugh Farey
        April 13, 2014 at 4:35 am

        Doc. The radiation hypothesis is not one I ascribe to, but however it is expressed it must make sense. The radiation could all be vertical, in which case, perhaps, it might correlate to the image, but it cannot, as you describe, be “360 degrees” unless the radiation from any particular part of the body vastly overlaps the radiation from all the other parts. I am fully aware of all the ideas of the Shroud Science Group (of which I too am a member), and am familiar with all the STURP papers. I am also very aware of what has been, and what has not been, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. That is precisely the reason why I am able to challenge them. I am happy to suspend judgement on some ideas in order to follow the arguments presented on a “what if” basis, but where two clearly contradictory statements are presented as “sense” then it behoves me to point out that they aren’t.

        You’re request to stop arguing is slightly bizarre, if I may say so. I never argue with persons and if we were chatting in a bar together I would be happy to move on to a different topic. But this blog is a (semi) public forum, and arguments put forward are there to be explored as a way of increasing overall understanding of the shroud. If they don’t make sense, somebody should explain why. If my explanation is faulty, or my data incorrect, then I would like somebody to point out how (and they do – often! – see Kelly above and below!).

        And Kelly, yes, at least 80%, unless the original blood drips were so diluted as scarcely to be dignified by the name ‘blood.’ Look at ME-06, which is a photomicrograph of the “dense blood at the small of the back.” Not a single thread is obscured by particles – indeed, barely a single fibre. I submit that a drop of blood on a similar cloth, left to dry and ‘undisturbed’ (which has often been claimed by some researchers) would retain at least 5 times as much substance as we actually see. (Sadly, it is no more than a claim, as I am suffering from a lack of suitable material to compare it with just at present!)

        • J. Wayne Phillips, MD
          April 13, 2014 at 8:31 am

          Hugh,

          Thank you for your response.

          Here is my simple take away after digesting all the previous sources I quoted.

          The “radiation theory” makes sense to me because I accept a 2 position cloth transfer theory. I presented the “hovering” 2 position theory. Dr Jackson’s “fall through theory” through a mechanically transparent body also requires some tautness in the cloth for a high resolution photograph affect -therefore 2 positions. You have not mentioned the 2 position theory so you must not accept it. It is necessary for both theories of radiation image formation-fall through or hovering.

          This is all conjecture but working backward from the facts of the image in all its totality of characteristics, it is my opinion that the hovering is the most plausible of all theories and the “fall through” second. I am sure Dr Jackson would disagree with me. Obviously this has to be a supernatural controlled event as explained.

          2 positions theory:

          1) the cloth is wrapped tightly in the tomb and blood stains transfer to the cloth.

          2) at the moment of the resurrection the cloth unfolds and becomes incompletely taught. At that time a radiation of some type emits from the body in 360 degree fashion as the body dematerializes. Since the cloth is semi-taught, it has no sides–only top, bottom and head. The image transfers in columnar/perpendicular fashion only to the top, bottom, and head areas. The radiation provides a photograph like image in those 3 areas only. Any radiation emanating perpendicularly from the sides of the body goes off into the tomb walls or some where? Since the reach of the image transfer mechanism is believed to span only a distance of 4-6 inches this adds to the weakness or lack of image production from the sides of body.

          Where is the contradiction now? Your prior explanation is faulty and your data is incorrect possibly because you did not know the details of my subjective/objective mix belief. With the details above, your opinion would be appreciated even if it is still negative. I hope these details helps our discussion. It is what I call the “best guess” theory.

          If you have a better explanation for image formation or want to discuss any thing above, I am willing to engage.
          Doc

      10. daveb of wellington nz
        April 13, 2014 at 5:55 am

        In his discussion on the burial, Barbet maintains that during the transport, the vena cava would have emptied itself of blood, and the blood-stain across the small of the back is merely residual clots. The blood resulting from the spear wound would have been lost during transport unless separately collected. That look like at least 80% to me.

      11. Kelly Kearse
        April 13, 2014 at 6:01 am

        Hugh Farey :
        And Kelly, yes, at least 80%, unless the original blood drips were so diluted as scarcely to be dignified by the name ‘blood.’ Look at ME-06, which is a photomicrograph of the “dense blood at the small of the back.” Not a single thread is obscured by particles – indeed, barely a single fibre. I submit that a drop of blood on a similar cloth, left to dry and ‘undisturbed’ (which has often been claimed by some researchers) would retain at least 5 times as much substance as we actually see. (Sadly, it is no more than a claim, as I am suffering from a lack of suitable material to compare it with just at present!)

        I’m content to leave you submission as a claim as well-I’m not so certain a drop of blood on a similar cloth left to dry is the best comparison-a clot transfer from skin to cloth will not be 100% efficient, and is dependent on multiple factors. No one knows the original appearance, conditions of the bloodstains-we’re talking about a cloth hundreds to thousands of years old, it was not carefully sealed up in a type of time capsules- it is unknown how things originally existed-these type of things can become overextension rather quickly

      12. Kelly Kearse
        April 13, 2014 at 6:40 am

        daveb of wellington nz :
        In his discussion on the burial, Barbet maintains that during the transport, the vena cava
        would have emptied itself of blood, and the blood-stain across the small of the back is merely residual clots. The blood resulting from the spear wound would have been lost during transport unless separately collected. That look like at least 80% to me.

        If I understand Hugh correctly, he is suggesting that every single bloodstain is a mere shadow of its original appearance, that it was once there but has mostly rubbed, flaked off. I’m not certain how one can quantify this, even in estimation, without having an original for comparison. I have done trials similar to Lavoie, with parallel sets applied directly to the cloth-there are multiple factors that can affect the extent of blood transfer, absorption to a cloth-

        The 80% referenced here-is that in relation to the bloodstain volume or amount remaining or amount gone? In my own opinion, there are so many unknowns even with the transport, let alone, what might or might not have happened in the tomb once the body arrived there. Regarding transport, I am not a physician and have a healthy respect for Barbet, but who really knows? What if someone firmly grasped or applied pressure to that area using cloths as a makeshift stretcher, or elevated the body in a certain position-could the same notion be applied? It’s natural to try to fill in the gaps and speculate what may have or could have occurred, but I think one can only go so far-

      13. Hugh Farey
        April 13, 2014 at 11:47 am

        On the way back from mass this morning I picked up a dead pheasant off the road and have acquired some blood! Not as much as I would like, as it must have been dead for a few hours and even the blood in the liver and heart had already clotted. Photos to follow.

        Meanwhile, I have been racking my brains to try to produce anything sensible from Dr Phillips’s description of the radiation which although in 360° degrees, does not interfere with itself as it affects the cloth. I have come up with a possible solution (Suggestion 3 in the link) but canot see how it could make an image. If anyone thinks they understand this hypothesis better than I do, perhaps they could illustrate it in a similar way? Here’s my attempt: http://imgur.com/LqtaLr0

        • April 13, 2014 at 1:34 pm

          Meanwhile, I have been racking my brains to try to produce anything sensible from Dr Phillips’s description of the radiation which although in 360° degrees, does not interfere with itself as it affects the cloth.

          Let it interfere, Hugh. Remember our discussion about holography yesterday.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography

      14. Hugh Farey
        April 13, 2014 at 2:01 pm

        Ye-es… Unfortunately I think the interference I’m thinking of is entirely additive and could not produce a hologram of any kind.

        • April 13, 2014 at 2:13 pm

          So think about different interference… I am thinking how to make a model with coherent beams from all the body points, + some absorption & scattering in the medium between body and the Shroud creating some hologram with body-cloth distance information saved on the linen…

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer

          • Hugh Farey
            April 13, 2014 at 2:15 pm

            I wish you the best of luck!

          • Dan
            April 13, 2014 at 2:33 pm

            That would be extraordinarily interesting. You could change my mind.

      15. April 14, 2014 at 12:49 pm

        Dear Wayne,

        You wrote (Entry #20):

        “The “radiation theory” makes sense to me because I accept a 2 position cloth transfer theory. I presented the “hovering” 2 position theory. Dr Jackson’s “fall through theory” through a mechanically transparent body also requires some tautness in the cloth for a high resolution photograph affect -therefore 2 positions. You have not mentioned the 2 position theory so you must not accept it. It is necessary for both theories of radiation image formation-fall through or hovering. This is all conjecture but working backward from the facts of the image in all its totality of characteristics, it is my opinion that the hovering is the most plausible of all theories and the “fall through” second. [..]Where is the contradiction now?[..]It is what I call the “best guess” theory. ”

        With all due respect to Dame Piczek, Dr. Lavoie, and Dr. Jackson: these theories are highly speculative for no reason whatsoever. Dame Piczek has never presented any measurements or well founded geometric argument to support her “tightly taut” theory. She uses her artistic intuition to support this theory. Is artistry the way to approach such a complex subject? Dr. Lavoie made many interesting observations about the bloodstains in relation to the image. But there are major contradictions as part of them based on simple geometric reasoning regarding the two-position cloth theories (in a few words, the two-position cloth theories imply that there would be incoherence between the bloodstains and the image due to the vertical shift, a point on which Dr. Lavoie has never addressed because he focused on the hotizontal shift.) . Dr. Jackson theory of the the cloth falling through a “mechanically transparent body” has no numerical foundation.

        You have to look for the simplest explanation possible that explains the facts (Remember Einstein’s statement here, the modern statement of Ocam’s razor principle). And the simplest one is that there is only one position. I invite you to read a paper I presented at the 2005 Dallas conference. The slides of that presentation are here:

        http://sindonology.org/papers/latendresse2005aSlides.pdf

        The full details with measurements and a real life demonstration on a body:

        http://sindonology.org/papers/latendresse2005a.pdf

        Best regards,

        Dr. Mario Latendresse
        Computer Scientist
        SRI International

      16. whennecke
        April 18, 2014 at 1:56 pm

        Good afternoon Wayne,

        I just saw the special that you had with Women of Grace on EWTN today on Good Friday. I enjoyed it very much.

        Would you please forward me information about your presentations that you give to parishes on the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium. I would be interested in your presentation to be given to my parishes. Thank you and God bless you.

        Fr. William W. Hennecke, Jr.
        St. John Parish
        Leopold, MO
        573-238-3300

      1. No trackbacks yet.
      Comments are closed.
      %d bloggers like this: