Shroud 4 Kids: Great Site

Yahoo News was reporting out the following brief notice this morning. I’m not sure I know why:

THE SHROUD OF TURIN for Children – HOME

shroud4kids.com

THE SHROUD OF TURIN for Children: HOME; Here is the Story….. En Español: Some Interesting Facts: Your Drawings & Paintings: READ ABOUT THIS AMAZING PICTURE OF JESUS!

That picture looked familiar. Hadn’t I covered this before? Yes, and I was critical at the time. Diane, the owner of the site, promptly made changes and all looked good.

It was time to look again. I like it! And I like text that reads like this. It shows that you can write objectively, even for children:

But what is so special about this shroud? Well, the Shroud of Turin holds a mysterious picture of a man, front and back, and no one knows how this picture was made!

And although the picture is hard to see, you can tell where the man was wounded in his hands, feet, and side. He was crucified just like Jesus of Nazareth. Also, there are wounds all over his head, which could have been made from a crown or a cap of thorns.

A slideshow is in English and in Spanish. It is a gem.

Time will tell.

imageI’ve decided that I no longer mind it when one scientist calls another scientist a “Mickey Mouse Scientist,” as Colin Berry does this morning in his blog. I may be wrong, but I realize now that it is a cheap shot in lieu of being able to criticize effectively. My personal vision of a good scientist doesn’t embrace derision of colleagues. To so insult a fellow scientist defines the source.

Colin, in his blog, reminded me this morning (afternoon for him) of a posting from February of 2012. He writes, “Here’s a link to a Mickey Mouse scientist.” He is referring to Paolo Di Lazzaro. At Colin’s urging, go have a look.

Paolo never came back to this blog after the insult. Maybe I should have kicked Colin out then but I stood on principle. I wanted all voices represented. Too many people have been driven away by Colin’s insults.

I do happen to think the shroud is real. That is different from knowing it is real. Colin accuses me of pushing a pro-authenticity agenda. In another blog Stephen Jones accuses me of being anti-authenticity. Take your pick. Would I rather know the truth about the shroud no matter what it is? Of course, I would. Does Colin believe that? I doubt it. Should I wonder if Colin is completely objective?  Would I believe him if he said he was? I would like to think so. I wonder, though.

I am a skeptic at heart. I am skeptical of many things claimed about the shroud. I don’t think there are coins on eyes or images of flowers on the cloth. I’m not convinced by the evidence that there is no image content under the bloodstains. When it comes to possible material intrusion in the area from which the radiocarbon dating samples were taken, I’m not convinced that the blue quad mosaics tell us anything useful. I don’t buy some of the interpretations by John Jackson or Don Lynn concerning the 3D data inherent (not encoded) in the images. There are many things I doubt.

imageYou must read Colin’s latest posting in which he covers so many, many things. A thousand words is worth a picture, right? His newest posting, today, is more than 5,000 words. Read what he says about Paolo.

I agree with much of what he says and I disagree with other things he says. For now, there is too much to discuss. But have a look at the ImageJ work he is doing. Is that cityscape-like image partly the result of banding?  Click on the image to see it enlarged in Colin’s blog space.

I’m disappointed to see how he generalizes and characterizes people who think the shroud is real (Fair Use):

It’s got to be a photograph of the crucified Jesus, miraculously preserved , right,  albeit as a non-photogenic negative, intended as a present to 20th century man, right? Right? Do I hear any voices of dissension? No?  [ . . . ]

I am a voice of dissention. Colin should know it. I have repeatedly said that I have never found a single theory or hypothesis for the images that I can accept. Nothing yet appeals to me and it is not because of my world view or my religion or any assumptions. I have never seen enough evidence to convince me that the image is or is not God-made, naturally made or manmade. Who knows, maybe Colin will be proven right in the end. Maybe it is a contact scorch. Maybe it is a picture of Jacques de Molay. I doubt it but let’s see. Colin seems to think it is our job to prove that he is wrong.

Time will tell.

Emanuela Marinelli: Fantacies! Non Existent Objects

Flowers, tools of crucifixion, double impression of the right hand showing movement.

visionaries discredit the serious research on the Shroud

imageRobert Vitale over at the Amici della Sindone Facebook page, ( tell us (in Italian) about a new book (in Italian) which, as we read in the Bing translation:

It’s definitely one of the most controversial books written in relation to the shroud. The author, from Palermo Giuseppe Maria Catalano, Claims That Are Clearly visible on the Turin linen, traces of the resurrection of Jesus (in double impression of the right hand in the "movement" Among other things.) Not only. The author, as he Stated in His work, working on high magnifications Enrie photos, he noticed the presence of the fabric flowers, plants, (also on the helmet of thorns !!!), even of the tools used to crucify Christ. I have personally met Catalan, but blackberries than convinces me, I was confused blackberries. Have you ever read this book? And then, what do you think of the Sicilian scholar claims?

What the blackberries? Just ignore the fruit references; Bing is far from perfect.

Emanuela Marinelli, one of the world’s most respected shroud scholars,was quick to respond:

Fantasies! Catalano is not the first to see non-existent objects in every spot of the Shroud.http://people.duke.edu/~adw2/shroud/whanger.htm Unfortunately, these visionaries discredit the serious research on the Shroud.

Notice that Emanuela is pointing to the Duke University based site of Alan Whanger.

Roberto Vitale replies:

also add my testimony. Naturally skeptical of these claims, I just tried to figure out who he really was the "character" Catalano, visiting the photographic exhibition on the Shroud actually a commercial for his book,he set up in Palermo. Catalan is definitely an interesting character in his own way highly educated, but, and here I fully agree with Emanuela Marinelli, definitely imaginative. Just think of his thesis, definitely out of the ordinary, with which Catalan claims that the Earth’s axis has shifted due to an asteroid. There were also problems with the Center for Sindonologia, as Catalano wanted to use his lawyers accusing him of defamation that the Centre had allowed himself to define "questionable" his thesis. As far as I know, his only threats were not carried out. What impressed me though, was the great journalistic attention turned to a study of this kind, reflecting the fact that the press is thrown a dead weight on the sensational, not investigating the goodness of the content of what they publish.

And, of course, we have someone in Australia who sees the eyes opening in order to take a quick peek around the room.

More about banding on the Shroud of Turin

imageHugh Farey has prepared a helpful, four page, image rich PDF document on Banding on the Shroud of Turin. He points out, for instance, in referring to this image on the right:

This is the top of the alleged band which Barrie
Schwortz felt needed adjusting in density to
restore the image to a more realistic
appearance. It is two ‘pitches’ (1) wide, and
defined on the right by a bunch of thin warp
threads (2) forming the prominent stripe
visible on the Enrie image, and on the left, less
clearly, by the adjacent pitch (3), which is
darkened by ‘hair.’

Hugh concludes:

Conclusion. The weave of the cloth does produce the illusion of bands according to its illumination, which serve to enhance a viewer’s perception of the intensity of the image at various places, and give the illusion of over-defined dark and light bands in various places which are not as clearly vertical sided as they appear.. So the light vertical areas defining the sides of the cheeks are really present, but they are not as precise or as well defined as they appear, and are not merely artifacts of the cloth, but real areas where the image making process just didn’t happen.

A new paradigm for banding?

photo (1)WmW writes in a comment:

HF has made what seems to be a brilliant observation (see Aug 28, 3:42 am). Would love to see some pictures of just what he is looking at. Is that possible? This may be a whole new paradigm for banding

I made the screen shot shown here. You should be able to click on it to enlarge it.

This is what Hugh Farey wrote:

In Shroud 2.0, longitudinal banding is very clear, and is definitely related to the pitch of the zigzag, specifically the darkness of the shadows cast by the overlying warp threads onto the underlying weft threads. Thus the entire Shroud is covered in alternating lighter and darker bands. This pattern is not seen on the Durante photo. Here the various longitudinal stripes seem to me to be much thinner, where you can see them, and appear to be related to the ‘spines’ of the herringbone ribs, which may have formed into slight ridges or troughs as part of the rolling up process. I cannot find a good positive Enrie image, but the large scale negatives, which can be found at the link above among others, show a variety of bands, some very thin and some as thick as a width of a pitch. However they are much less consistent and the thick ones do not appear to be lighting artifacts as they sometimes extend over two or three bands of alternating pitch. It is not clear in any case that the pale vertical areas defning the sides of the cheeks, or the dark vertical areas defing the fall of the hair, are due to imperfections in the weave or the lighting of a photo rather than the shape of the image model itself. As such, attempts to ‘correct’ the image by removing them are probably misguided.

Colin Berry certainly agrees. Here, and in his blog, he writes, “Brilliant. Hugh. Possibly, nay probably the best contribution to ‘banding’ in all time.”

Two “brilliants.” I think I see what Hugh is talking about. I may need to agree with Colin. But, “the shape of the image model itself.”? Model? I would like to see pictures with pointed narrative. Hugh, can you send along a couple of screen shots from your perspective?

image
To make screen shots in Shroud 2.0, hold down the round “Home” button on the front of the iPad or iPhone and press the “Sleep/Wake” button. The screen shot is in your Pictures folder.

Breaking News on the Bari Conference


The Bari conference, officially the Workshop on Advances in the Turin Shroud Investigation, has posted the following information on the conference home page:

Only few papers accepted for presentation at the workshop exhibit a content within the IEEE field of interest. As a consequence, we regret to inform the Authors that the IEEE Italy Section do not award the sponsorship to the event.

image


David Roemer is taking credit. He sent me the following in an email:

Did you know the IEEE withdrew its sponsorship of the Shroud Conference in Bari? I’m taking credit for this because I explained to the leadership of the IEEE that conferences about the Holy Shroud are exercises in pseudoscience.

Now, David, you can get back to important things like having Cardinal Dolan investigated by the Inquisition because he thinks the shroud is real, disagrees with your views on the Big Bang or thinks you can be a quite unpleasant fellow when you paper is not accepted. 

Super Professional Looking Poster

those words came to mind

clip_image001

A Response to a Comment by Colin Berry

imageColin, you wrote a comment in this blog to which I want to reply to at the posting level. Clearly, you think the subject is important. It is, I agree. But I do have some issues with what you say:

You wrote:

I repeat: I shall be attaching a copyright statement to all my future postings.

You mean, of course, in your own blogs. That’s fine. It is a fine idea.  It is my understanding that what you post on your blog from the U.K. or in your travels abroad, and what I post in mine, is automatically copyrighted, anyway, under current law. Therefore, the only purposes for posting a notice is 1) to remind others, 2) to warn others that you intend to challenge violations or 3) to try and establish sufficient grounds to mount an argument against innocent infringement. None of that applies here, as we will see.

It is important to understand how I do things on this blog. First of all I carefully adhere to Fair Use provisions (sometimes called fair dealing in the U.K.) which allows a reasonable amount of quoting for criticism, review, or news reporting. Quoting some paragraphs or a few sentences in order to discuss what someone writes falls under these provisions. I do not quote full articles without permission except when they are press releases or notices that are intended to be copied completely, or unless I have permission to do so. From time to time, I post YouTube videos when embed sharing scripts are provided by the publisher and I always do so with appropriate credit. I never plagiarize by copying or quoting anything with the intent of claiming it is my work.

Occasionally, as has become the custom in the blogosphere, I post photographs and cartoons from various picture repositories and libraries. Only once has anyone specifically asked me to remove a picture and I did so immediately. It should be noted that the U. S. District Court for Southern New York has held that “exact photographic copies of public domain images could not be protected by copyright in the United States because the copies lack originality. Even if accurate reproductions require a great deal of skill, experience and effort, the key element for copyrightability under U.S. law is that copyrighted material must show sufficient originality.”

In other words, photographs of the shroud are probably not protected by copyright. Is this fair? Probably not. But the courts have said, in one form or another, that the more accurate the photograph the less copyrightable it is. What about contrast enhancements, ImageJ manipulations, etc. The courts are clear here, as well; “sweat of the brow” is not a “creative spark” which deserves copyright.

When you write in your blog that I have pirated your work, what do you mean?  I understand  it to mean misappropriation or theft of your content. (see Copyright infringement in Wikipedia). What have I stolen. Copyright law, at least here in the U.S. (see U. S. Copyright Office description of Fair Use), and I suspect similarly in the U.K. makes it clear that, “Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.” So what do you mean when you accuse me of piracy?

You continue:

That [=the notice mentioned in the preceding sentence] will continue for as long as material critical to my ideas appears on this site, notably by third parties in pdf form, where there is no facility for defending one’s work.

From that last sentence, your intent is clear. It is called chilling effects censorship. In other words, if I am critical of your ideas you will attempt to use or impose copyright restrictions to stop me from criticizing you or your work product. As a result, were it not for Fair Use provisions of the law, I would find myself with two choices: 1) summarize or sufficiently rephrase what you are saying risking inaccuracy or 2) ignore what you publish in your blog thus meaning you have successfully stopped me from offering legitimate criticism with chilling effects tactics. (See various Scholarly articles for chilling effect censorship, collected by Google).

You say, it seems as a way of justifying your tactic, that “there is no facility for defending one’s work.” When I posted the PDF file that seems to particularly upsets you, “The Scorch Hypothesis: New Experiments“ by Thibault Heimburger. I also announced it in a blog posting, The Turin Shroud Image is not a Scorch. That posting, dated April 17, 2014, received thirty comments, but not a single comment from you. You may still do so, however. Comments are not closed on this posting.

Note: That gives me a good idea. I will be providing a link for comments on at least those PDF files and videos that I keep in sticky places on blog pages. Thanks, Colin.

You continued:

One cannot have one’s research findings, the product of days or maybe weeks of work, lifted verbatim from one’s own site, . . .

Nothing but a few short quotations were used. Your research findings were not lifted verbatim. That is simply inaccurate. Most people are proud to have their work quoted. Moreover I have never met a good scientist who did not welcome frank discussion of his or her observations, hypotheses, discoveries and proposals. Can you show me specific instances of verbatim copying that go beyond Fair Use in fact or spirit of the law? I will happily address such instances.

The Stanford University Library makes this point and is often quoted: “Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism.”

You continue the sentence abovem writing:

. . . and then attacked here by third parties who are protected from criticism.

No one is protected from criticism on this site, particularly criticism by you. Of the last 1000 comments on this blog, 14.6% were by you. No one had a higher percentage during that period. Overall you have posted 1408 comments in this blog as of this writing. Do we need to read them to see that they are mostly criticisms by you of this or that or someone?

There are plenty of other opportunities for you to comment. For instance, you have your own two blogs, one at BlogSpot and one at Word Press, where you have offered plenty of criticism. I have frequently directed others to your blogs thus giving what you have to say plenty of exposure.  And, as you certainly must know, you are welcome to submit guest postings for consideration. You have never sought to do so. You know very well how many others have done so and faced significant criticism from you when they do.

You continue:

It’s a clear and flagrant abuse of the internet to have one’s copy used against one in this manipulative fashion.

I don’t do that. What I did, that seems to have upset you recently, is quote a single 47 word sentence that demonstrated how unfair you can be in your criticism of others. It was clearly Fair Use and there was no other way to make the point. I wrote the following, which includes a quote from you about various image formation hypotheses:

One need only look at the most recent post in your own blog to see this. You wrote: “Meanwhile, shroudology’s dwindling number of surviving non-contact models, some with total loss of brain stem activity, remain on life-support, being drip fed in a desperate attempt to keep them alive, or at any rate in a permanent zombie state, one that hovers somewhere between life and death.”

Yes, I too am critical of some of these non-contact models. Others are as well. But we try, not always successfully,  to avoid ridicule in lieu of analysis.

Word Press, the publishing host service for this blog, provides the following guidelines for Fair Use. They may be helpful for all of us in understanding what is permissible and fair.

What is fair use?

There aren’t hard and fast rules when it comes to defining fair use. However, the Copyright Act sets out four factors for courts to consider:

1. The purpose and character of the use: Why and how is the material used? Using content for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is usually fair. Additionally, using material in a transformative manner, that is to say, in a manner that adds new expression, meaning, or insight, is also more likely to be considered fair use over an exact reproduction of a work. What’s more, nonprofit use is favored over commercial use.

2. The nature of the copyrighted work: Is the original factual or fiction, published or unpublished? Factual and published works are less protected, so its use is more likely to be considered fair.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: How much of the material is used? If the “heart” (the most memorable or significant portion) or the majority of a work wasn’t used, it’s more likely to be considered fair.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work: Does the use target a different market/audience? If so, it’s more like to be fair use. It’s important to note that although criticism or parody may reduce a market, it still may be fair because of its transformative nature. In other words, if the criticism of a product influences people to stop buying the product, that doesn’t count as having an “effect on the market for the work” under copyright law.

It is significant to note that the U. S. Copyright Office description of Fair Use make this point:

Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.

The Stanford University Library makes this point:

Fair use is a copyright principle based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. For example, if you wish to criticize a novelist, you should have the freedom to quote a portion of the novelist’s work without asking permission. . . .

You may have the last word. And of course, you are free to comment. You closed out your comment thus:

Dan: it’s time you desisted from this control freakery. You should cease acting like some kind of Godfather of Shroudology.

I hope WordPress gets to read this soon, and will see the justice of my position,

Banding? Is it Real?

Can anyone explain how the image* on Colin Berry’s blog can begin to convince us that banding is not really all that real. Maybe you can understand what Colin is saying. Something about “bilateral symmetry.” If anything, it helps to convince me that there really is banding there. You really need to see it in its full size in Colin’s blog space so CLICK HERE.

Barrie Schwortz did some of the earliest technical work to show one optical illusion effect of the banding. (Use Google translation after obtaining the linked-to page in order to see it in English). It is well worth reading.

The left image shows vertical banding on the outside portion of each cheek that extends upward and downward well above and below the face, particularly so on the right side. The middle image shows the area Barrie chose to add +20 points (Photoshop calibration) of RGB luminance. The effect is immediately obvious in the right picture.

image


The banding is particularly obvious when shown with transmitted light. 

image


One day I received an email from Robert Doumax, an imaging expert in Bordeaux, France. He had created a Fourier transform filter to isolate both vertical and horizontal banding in the fabric of the shroud. His filter produced the bottom image of three below.


Subtracting one image from the other image produces a tentative, partial banding map:


* About the colorful ImageJ image.  It has not been copied, stored or reproduced in anyway. The thumbnail preview is like a window into Colin’s site. It is an inline link to Colin’s blog space. By clicking on the image you can see it in its full size on Colin’s site. Even so, the use of a thumb nail image is considered fair use. Wikipedia is a good place to being reading about this.

[A] pointer causes a user’s browser to jump to the proprietor’s server and fetch the image file to the user’s computer. US courts have considered this a decisive fact in copyright analysis. Thus, in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,[6] the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit explained why inline linking did not violate US copyright law . . .

The thumb nail is too small to be a copyright concern. It is merely a graphical link.

John and Rebecca Jackson to Speak at Conference in Hanover, Pennsylvania

We learn from the website and blog of Saint Joseph Catholic Church in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, that John and Rebecca Jackson will be speaking at a special Shroud of Turin conference in mid-October

Attend a fascinating study on the science, history, and controversy of the most important relic in the history of Christianity. The conference will be held on 17 October from 3:00 – 9:00 PM and on 18 October from 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM at the historic Sacred Heart Basilica, located at 30 Basilica Drive, Hanover, PA 17331. Guest speakers include: Dr. John Jackson, founder of the Turin Shroud Center (Colorado) and the Lead Scientist in the 1978 Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP); and his wife, Mrs. Rebecca Jackson, co-founder of the Center and convert to Catholicism from Orthodox Judaism, who specializes in the 1st century Jewish background of the Shroud. Forregistration and tickets contact Luz Socrates at 873-3650 or uzvsoc@hotmail.com.

So if you will be anywhere in the area, about 20 miles south of the turnpike, I-76, about half way between Philadelphia and Pittsburg or to put it another way, about an hour north of Baltimore, you should try to catch this.

In Memoriam: Dorothy Crispino – January 1916 to August 2014

Barrie Schwortz has posted a very special tribute to Dorothy Crispino, “the founder and editor of the world renowned journal, Shroud Spectrum International, the first and only peer reviewed journal dedicated solely to the study of the Shroud of Turin.”

The tribute includes a 1997 perspective by Dorothy on her work and messages from Mons. Giuseppe Ghiberti, Richard Orareo, Joseph Marino, Diana Fulbright, William Meacham, Russ Breault, John and Rebecca Jackson, Rex Morgan, Dan Scavone, Ian Wilson, Mary Hines, Kevin Moran, Mark Guscin, Emanuela Marinelli, Paul C. Maloney, Ray Schneider, Marcel Alonso, David M. Onysko, Phil Dayvault, Alessandro Piana, Piero Iacazio and Traudl Wally.

Stephen Jones has also written a special posting on his blog. Stephen has been scanning all of the past issues of Shroud Spectrum International and his very familiar with her work.

I never knew Dorothy but knew of her by reputation, by many of the wonderful comments I heard about her from some of the people mentioned above. I encourage you to take the time to read the two tribute pages.

( Also see, Rest in Peace Dorothy Crispino )

Barrie indicates that he may add additional messages from others as he receives them.

The photograph, inline at shroud.com, was taken by Barrie Schwortz at Dorothy’s home in Cavour when he and Mary Hines visited her and her husband Luigi in May of 2010.

Shroud Encounter in Minnesota on August 28

imageRuss Breault lets us know through the Shroud Encounter Facebook page:

Anyone in Minnesota? Shroud Encounter comes to Immaculate Heart Catholic Church at 35208 County Road 37 in Crosslake, MN on Thursday August 28th at 6:30 PM. A lifesize replica will also be on display. If you know someone in the area, let them know about it!

Rest in Peace Dorothy Crispino

The translation of the obituary for Dorothy Crispino into English is difficult, but you should figure it out:

We are sad to communicate the death in Cavour of our sister Dorothy Crispino, born Zimmer, of 98 years. Born in the USA, had also spent time in Italy and France. The encounter with the Holy Shroud, which occurred in the USA in the environment led by Fr Rinaldi, literally transformed her life. Dorothy was a reference point for lovers of the Shroud (scholars and devotees) not only in the United States for years, and published a popular magazine on Shroud [SHROUD SPECTRUM]. For the love of the Holy Shroud she decided to spend the last years of his life in Italy, namely close of the Shroud. The nearest place she found was Babano, a fraction of Cavour. In these last few years she was received in a nursing home in Cavour, where her husband visited her with touching regularity. His memory is a blessing and is a model of generous dedication to the cause of the Shroud.

The burial is scheduled for Thursday, August 21, at 11:00 am.

Gian Marco Rinaldi offers some help:

On might think that the news has been given by any of her brothers or sisters. But the Italian word is “consorella”, not just “sorella” (sister). The obituary is in the website of the Confraternita (Brotherhood) del Santissimo Sudario (related to the church of Turin and the CIS). The members of the Confraternita are called “confratello” and “consorella” and that means just a member of the Brotherhood.

Indeed Mrs Crispino had not any brothers or sisters left . . .

Royal Oak Exhibit of the Shroud of Turin Extended

clip_image001We covered this in Seventy Cities in Twenty Years Starting in Royal Oak, Michigan. Now we learn from the Gannnett newspaper, the Observer & Eccentric:

As the new academic year begins, many schools are planning field trips to see the Shroud for its historical and scientific significance. After Royal Oak, the Shroud will head to San Antonio.

The Shroud of Turin has been believed for nearly two millennia to be the cloth used to wrap the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The Shroud itself has been a source of comfort to Christians and a source of controversy for scientists as to its authenticity.

People of all religions have come to their own conclusions by visiting the exhibit at 3506 Rochester Road, just north of 13 Mile.

This self-guided, audio-visual, one-hour tour has 12 chambers with more than 50 artifacts from throughout history dating back to 14 AD. Artifacts include a relic containing an actual piece of the Shroud from Pope Clement XII dated 1730, a Solidus coin from 685 AD — the first to feature the face of Christ — the Tiberius Tribute coin, manuscripts, a 1st century Roman spear from the first century, and a painting of Christ on cotton that was shown in Lisbon for over 200 years,. The exhibit is available in English, Spanish, Russian, Albanian and Arabic.

The exhibit will visit 70 U.S. cities over the next 20 years. It was created in Spain by a man named Alvaro Blanco. He researched the Shroud for many years, and almost went bankrupt locating unique historic pieces and setting up the exhibit.

Resting on Our Laurels

imageThomas writes in a comment:

[A]s is always the case with the Shroud it seems hard to think that meaningful follow ups will occur, unfortunately.

That could almost be a slogan for what I wish this blog could be.  Axiomatically, Thomas  is referring specifically to Max Frei’s analysis. How many other shroud findings or hypotheses does this apply to?

And David Goulet, just yesterday, wrote of a newspaper story:

It’s often pointed out here how authentists have turned certain ‘myths’ about the Shroud into ‘accepted facts’ simply by repeating them enough. I see what’s good for the goose….

Colin Berry, very correctly, is expressing similar sentiments in comments he wrote:

Have you ever wondered why Messrs. Fanti, Di Lazzaro, Jackson etc etc are not beavering away as we speak, accumulating and publishing more and more experimental data in support of their corona discharge, laser beam or other radiation models? Go figure, as they say.

Colin goes further. He thinks the onus is on Fanti et. al.  I agree, mostly. We also need to encourage independent re-examination. by others That applies to Frei’s work. And Rogers. And Zugibe. And the carbon dating labs.  It applies to many things. How many things have we talked about in this blog? The Blue Quad Mosaics come to mind. What else? There seems to be something, maybe pot shards, over the eyes. Really? Still, with newer photographs?

Now, why did Colin have to throw in this unnecessary little gem of a quote directed at another commenter.

Thinks: who was it who said ” I won’t insult your intelligence by suggesting you really believe what you just said?

Who was it? Were you thinking William F. Buckley? Colin, we’ve been there before  when you declared that William F. Buckley wrote, “The purpose of an open mind is to close it . . .”

Can we confirm either of these often-attributed-to-Buckley quotations? Wikiquotes would like to know.

What many beliefs about the shroud need to be confirmed? Colin, to his credit, has not rested on his laurels. Many others have not. Many have. Many do. 

Another Case of Incorrect Journalism

imageNicholas Boer gets it wrong in SFGate, the online edition of the the San Francisco Chronicle.  Or was it CAMS director Graham Bench who got it wrong?

My tour guide, CAMS director Graham Bench, related how radiocarbon dating has helped convict elephant poachers by showing that their booty was taken after the 1989 ivory ban. By testing bits of underground wood, CAMS has measured the frequency and intensity of past earthquakes. (Interpreting this data is how the U.S. Geological Survey is able to announce the likelihood that any particular fault will produce an x magnitude earthquake in x amount of time.)

CAMS pegged Kennewick Man at circa 7500 B.C., and the Shroud of Turin came in around A.D. 1300 — a wee bit after the time of Christ, causing a lot of unwanted controversy. “But for any scientist,” says Bench, “it’s case closed.” Any object less than 50,000 years old is within CAMS reach.

CAMS pegged it?  CAMS is the the Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Everyone knows (well almost) that the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin took place in Arizona, Oxford and Zurich in 1988. Livermore’s CAMS didn’t open until 1989.

This isn’t correct, either:  “But for any scientist,” says Bench, “it’s case closed.”

It is an opinion, since many scientists disagree. The journalist should have made that clear so that Bench isn’t made to appear incorrect.

More About CAMS

New Mexico Shroud Museum to Reopen

imageAndy, the webmaster for Shroud Exhibit and Museum Inc. (iSEAM) writes:

I thought you might like to announce we have a new location donated by generous benefactors (not ready to be announced yet – visitors to our page will see it when announced).  I have posted an announcement at the top of our pages.

That is good news.

The museum used to be located at the at the White Sands Mall in Alamogordo, NM,

There is a brief notice on the iSEAM website.

Coming Out of the Closet on Pollen and Plant Images

imageStephen Jones has put together an interesting posting on the pollen found on the shroud and apparent images of plants some claim to see on the cloth. He does so from the perspective some material in a 2005 book, A Grain of Truth: How Pollen Brought a Murderer to Justice by Lynne Milne.

Stephen writes:

Milne has `come out of the closet’ and is clearly a Shroud pro-authenticist (whether she realises it or not), differentiating herself from Shroud sceptics, pointing out that the Shroud must have had an undocumented history outside of Europe before 1352, in the Middle East, the carbon-14 date for the age of the Shroud cannot be correct and indeed has been "discounted"!

Out of the closet? A pro-authenticist (whether she realizes it or not?

But when Milne writes in her book that . . .

The carbon-14 dating has since been discounted. The linen threads that were dated are chemically different from most of the’ Shroud linen. Was this younger thread used for mending the Shroud when it first arrived in France, or before it was taken from Constantinople?

Stephen disagrees. She is wrong, he tells us because the only satisfactory explanation for errors in the carbon 14 dating is Stephen’s own so far unsubstantiated theory that a computer hacker fudged the dates.

Another Overlay: Divine Mercy Image and the Shroud of Turin

OK writes:

If we are in the topic, of video overlays, I suggest this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t2-_FKLiEk&index=39&list=LL4yJUdvepzVxkrJMBlVppdQ

Such comparison was once mentioned on your blog, but I don’t know if you remember: https://shroudstory.com/2013/03/21/more-from-the-tours-of-the-nine-replicas/

Here is Wikipedia article on the history of the image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_Mercy_image

I forgot. Thanks for reminding me. Here is the video you mention:

Looking for a paper by Mark Andersen

imageA reader from Costa Rica writes:

I’m sorry to bother you, but I would like to ask you, if you have some paper or report which comes directly from Mark Andersen. According to what I found Materials evaluation, Volume 40, Issues 1-5, 1982, Page 630, is one of the Andersen studios, but I have been trying to see what it says but I couldnt. Please help me!!, cause there`s a lot of people who thinks McCrone`s word is "sacred".

Anyone?  The website for Materials Evaluation.

Another Video Overlay Match Up: Akiane Kramarik and the Prince of Peace

A reader writes:

There is another video overlay matchup similar to the one you posted Aug 19 [*].  You can find it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2AdNTKcGnc.  It was posted by the child prodigy Akiane Kramarik.

In fact, here it is, It is only 21 seconds long, just long enough to show the similarities between the shroud face and her world famous painting, Prince of Peace. It is believed that Akiane had never seen the Shroud of Turin before creating her painting.

 

The video seems to be an extract from a video by Phil Dayvault that I covered in a posting, Heaven is for Real, the Akiane Prince of Peace, the ISA Mosaic and the Shroud of Turin on April 21st of this year.

The following is from Wikipedia:

imageAkiane Kramarik (/æˈkiːænæ/; born July 9, 1994) is an American poet and artist. She is known as a child prodigy and has begun drawing at the age of four. Kramarik is world-renowned for her paintings, but especially for her piece, Prince of Peace, which was completed at the age of eight.

Akiane Kramarik was born July 9, 1994, in Mount Morris, Illinois to a Lithuanian mother and an American father. She is homeschooled.

She is primarily a self-taught painter. She states that God spoke to her when she was four years old, encouraging her to paint and draw her visions.[2] Her parents were atheistsat the time (they later converted to Christianity because of Kramarik’s paintings and visions). She started drawing at the age of four, and advanced to painting at six, and writing poetry at seven. Her first completed self-portrait sold for US$10,000. A portion of the money generated from sales is donated by Kramarik to charities. According to Kramarik, her art is inspired by her visions of heaven, and her personal connection with God. Her art depicts life, landscape, and people.

At the age of 10, she appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show and at the age of 12, on CNN.

To date, she has completed over 200 published art works, 800 literary creations and published two best selling books.

* Matching Faces. Is it Possible? Do read the many comments under this posting about issues related to the validity of such matching.  I find it helpful but not certain.

The Search for the Face of God

clip_image001James Day, a campus minister at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles, in Catholic Exchange finds acheiropoieta – images of mysterious origins encouraging in our era.

In the third millennium, the face of God has become an archaic relic, entire generations having turned its back on it. Christ is now an acceptable cartoon while Catholic-raised artists and writers ignore encouragement to follow the footsteps of Michelangelo, Dante or Mozart. The Incarnation and Resurrection have gone from the world’s greatest events to childish after thoughts. Facebook five hundred years ago might have been a collection of Veronica images from Edessa to Oviedo.

And yet, in spite (or precisely because of today’s visual ego) the Veronica, the Shroud of Turin and the tilma of Our Lady of Guadalupe, three images known as acheiropoieta—“not made by human hands”—captivate the imagination of all people of goodwill. That images of mysterious origins continue to catch our dulled eyes is both a telling sign of God the Artist’s eternal masterwork and a divine invitation to conversion.

The search for the face is newly enabled:

The search for the face of God dominated the Old Testament, most especially in the Psalms. “Your face, Lord, do I seek!” intones Psalm 27. Modern technology has immensely aided the psalmist’s longing by providing an outlet for close scrutiny of the acheiropoieta images, whether it be Juan Diego’s tilma in Mexico City or the ancient Shroud in Turin. It was a photographic negative that uncovered the figure of a man in the Shroud in 1898, just as digital photography today has transmitted the Holy Face in Manoppello to the rest of the world.