The Raes samples that Rogers used had been switched?

Tomorrow, we are expecting Thibault Heimburger’s paper from the St. Louis conference
on the chain of custody of Rogers’ C14 samples
.

HOWEVER, on the Holy Shroud Guild website, today, we read, “Gonella then said
that he had reason to believe that some or all of Raes’ samples had been switched
with materials not originally from the Shroud.”

imageGoogle spotted this NEW item on the HSG website yesterday. It is a short statement linked to a short questionnaire that, as such, has the appearances of being one big loaded question. (Google Cached Copy of Same)

The HSG hosted statement begins with this paragraph following an innocuous title that reads, Ray Rogers, Thermochimica Acta:

All researchers have an ethical responsibility to be factual when writing an academic or research paper for publication.  Publication journals are responsible for reviewing the submitted work or manuscript before being published.  The interdependence between researchers and journals is imperative. Each body has control over public opinion, legislation, funding, and resources. Unethical work that is produced based on authors’ biases or journals’ agendas will have a negative impact for everyone.

“Unethical work . . .  based on authors’ biases or journals’ agendas. . .” What is being implied? Let’s see:

Rogers argued that ­the fibers collected in 1988 testing were not representative to the main part of the cloth (Rogers, 2005).  The most important evidence Rogers’ possessed were the threads he obtained. Rogers explained, 

I received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Prof. Luigi Gonella (Department of Physics, Turin Polytechnic University) on 14 October 1979. I photographed the samples as received and archived them separately in numbered vials. Some of the samples were destroyed in chemical tests between 1979 and 1982, but most of the segments have been preserved” (p.188). Rogers continues and explains, “On 12 December 2003, I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample. (p. 189)

Rogers’ manuscript successfully established ownership for the threads; however, what Rogers failed to offer was the chronological documentation pertaining to the threads. It is possible, Roger’s familiarity with the threads made him sedentary procuring the proper protocol producing the chain of custody. . . .

“Sedentary?”

Dr. Nitowksi was an archeologist studying the Shroud’s image formation in Jerusalem during 1986. In her paper titled, Criteria for authentication: A procedure of the verification of the shroud samples, Nitowski writes,

On the evening of April 28, 1986, I and several of my companions returning from our Jerusalem testing relative to the Shroud of Turin, had supper with Dr. Luigi Gonella, and his family at their Turin apartment. Among other Shroud topics, Dr. Gonella and I spoke briefly about the Rogers Mylar tape samples on loan to Joseph Kohlbeck, my colleague, and currently in my possession. Included with those samples is a small glass vial labeled Raes Sample containing a 12mm long thread. I told Dr. Gonella that Kohlbeck had found it to be coated with starch by an iodine test. Gonella expressed amazement at this, since no one had reported such substance on the Shroud material previously. He then asked me if I knew for certain that the thread had a “Z” twist. I told him that I had not checked it. Gonella then said that he had reason to believe that some or all of Raes’ samples had been switched with materials not originally from the Shroud. (Personal archive collection of the Holy Shroud Guild, Nitowski, 1986) 

“Reason to believe?”

And there is this:

Rogers indeed received 14 yarn segments from the Raes sample from Gonella in 1979. However, Rogers never maintained them in his own custody prior to 1979, and some of the samples he received after 1979, he distributed to other scientist for further evaluations as documented in the letter by Dr. Nitowski. Notwithstanding, Rogers still may have found these threads suitable for his study. But in no way does that excuse the review process to do its due diligence and inquire detailed documentation concerning the threads. Even more questionable were the threads received by Rogers in 2003. In Rogers’ Thermochimica Acta manuscript, Rogers briefly mentions that is was Gonella who excised the threads before it was distributed for dating (p.189). What was never mentioned in Rogers’ Thermochimica Acta manuscript was by whom he received the threads from. . . .

Recently, Giorgio Bracaglia posted the following on The Holy Shroud Guild Facebook page:

By December I am planning to do a research survey with this audience. The topics will be about GMO (Monsanto) and Ray Rogers’ 2005 Thermochimica Acta manuscript. The articles are designed to represent faithfully only one perspective.Your task will be to read the two short essays (1/2 page each) and respond accordingly based on the readings. 5 questions in total for each topic.

This seems to be what he is talking about. It is almost December. There is a similar GMO paper, as well. It is interesting that the first paragraph of the GMO paper, which deals with the issue of ethical peer journalism, is identical, word for word with the article about Rogers’ paper.  So what is the GMO paper doing on the HSG website? 

Suggestion: Wait on, then read Thibault Heimburger’s paper from the St. Louis conference when it appears on shroud.com, hopefully tomorrow. Then and only then answer the questions from the short questionnaire, in which you choose to disagree or agree by degree):

  1. There are clear evidences that the threads excised for the radio carbon data was representative to the cloth
  2. The radio carbon data performed on the Shroud in 1988, is flawed
  3. The request by Arch. Bishop Saldarini to have the unauthorized threads return has no influence on Rogers findings
  4. Raes samples excised in 1973 are viable evidence
  5. Rogers demonstrates enough provenance of the threads used for his research

Or not.

A Guest Posting by Joe Marino: If another C-14 test is ever done . . .

At the recent St. Louis conference, there was an open discussion regarding future testing of the Shroud, with participation by Prof. Bruno Barberis.  Naturally, one of the topics discussed was another possible C-14 dating.

After hearing comments there and after rereading some material, especially Ian Wilson’s chapter "Carbon Dating:  Right or Wrong" in his 1998 book The Blood and the Shroud, I’m becoming more and more convinced that another C-14 test would be unwise and moreover, that the Shroud is simply not, and never has been, a suitable item to carbon date.

Wilson points out in his book (pp. 190-191) that in the 1960s, 2 Harwell lab scientists warned Vera Barclay, a British proponent of having the Shroud carbon dated, of pitfalls.

Dr. J.P. Clarke told Barclay,

There appears to be some doubt as to whether the carbon content of the material has remained constant over the years.  It would be an assumption of any dating that the addition of something at a date later than that of the fabrication of the Shroud.

P.J. Anderson told her: 

The history of the Shroud does not encourage one to put a great deal of reliance upon the validity of any C14 dating.  The whole principle of the method depends upon the specimen not undergoing any exchange of carbon between its molecules and atmospheric dioxide, etc.  The cellulose of the linen itself would be good from this point of view, but the effect of the fires and subsequent drenching with water . . . and the possibility of contamination during early times, would, I think, make the results doubtful.  Any microbiological action upon the Shroud (fungi, moulds, etc., which might arise from damp conditions) might have important effects upon the C14 content.  This possibility could not be ruled out

Wilson himself goes on to say: 

That such concerns have been far from eliminated by more modern methods is quite evident from a recent booklet by Dr Sheridan Bowman, Michael Tite’s successor as Keeper of the British Museum’s Research Laboratory, in which she lists the sorts of conservation and packing materials that archaeologists should avoid using when sending their samples for processing by a radiocarbon-dating laboratory: ‘Many materials used for preserving or conserving samples may be impossible to remove subsequently:  do not use glues, biocides . . . [etc.]  Many ordinary packing materials such as paper, cardboard, cotton, wool and string contain carbon and are potential contaminants.  Cigarette ash is also taboo.’  It is worth reminding ourselves here of the variety of already listed carbon-containing materials with which the Shroud maintains daily contact, e.g., a sixteenth-century holland cloth, a nineteenth-century silk cover – quite aside from the innumerable candles that have been burnt before it, the water that was thrown over it at the time of the 1532 fire, and so on.  And those are merely the events we know about.

One other excerpt worth noting here (pg 193):

Archaeologists, who routinely call upon radiocarbon-dating laboratories’ services, tend to shy from openly criticising the results they receive, even if they do not necessarily agree with some of them, but one who certainly has no qualms is Greece’s Spyros Iakovidis, speaking at an international conference in 1989:  ‘In relation to the reliability of radiocarbon dating I would like to mention something which happened to me during my excavation at Gla [in Boeotia, Greece].  I sent to two different laboratories in two different parts of the world a certain amount of the same burnt grain.  I got two readings differing by 2000 years, the archaeological dates being right in the middle. I feel that this method is not exactly to be trusted.’ [Italics in original]

Because of such opinions–and keep in mind the above ones are by people who actually used the C-14 technique, it was all the more unfortunate and detrimental that the C-14 test wasn’t at least done as one of many other tests at the same time.  Those other tests may have provided overwhelming evidence that the Shroud was from the 1st century, and since it’s not uncommon for C-14 dates to be disregarded in some instances***, there would not be as much ink being spilled on the Shroud C-14 results.

If another C-14 test is ever done, it will take a lot more background study, and hopefully it wouldn’t be done in isolation from other multi-disciplinary testing.

***Rogue dates are common in archaeology and geology . . . Such has been my experience as an archaeologist who has excavated, submitted and interpreted more than one hundred carbon 14 samples from Neolithic, Bronze Age and Early Historical sites.  Of these dates obtained, 78 were considered credible, 26 were rejected as unreliable and 11 were problematic.  I mention this merely to inform the non-specialist . . . —William Meacham, archaeologist, Centre of Asian Studies,University of Hong Kong, 2000

* * *

Joe

A warning about what we perceive

Nell Greenfieldboyce, an NPR science correspondent, has an interesting article in one of the National Public Radio blogs. We should see it for its cautionary value to us when we look at the shroud.

These X’s Are The Same Shade, So What Does That Say About Color?,” she proclaims in the title. They are:

clip_image001

Nell goes on to write:

Mark Fairchild, who studies color and vision science at the Rochester Institute of Technology, says that even physicists get it wrong when they confidently assert that color is just a wavelength of light.

"My usual quick answer to that is I can take any wavelength and make it appear almost any color," says Fairchild.

That’s because color is not something out there in the world, separate from us.

"The agreed-upon technical definition of color," says Fairchild, "is that it’s a visual perception."

So don’t try to tell Fairchild an apple is red. He’ll say, no it’s not, technically — red is just your perception.

"I could change the color of illumination on that apple and make it look green or blue or something completely different," he says. "The redness isn’t a property of the apple. It’s a property of the apple in combination with a particular lighting that’s on it and a particular observer looking at it."

All three of those elements are critical to the idea of "red" or any other color, he says. "You have to have somebody looking at that in order to combine all that information and produce a perception."

Fairchild likes to tell this story:

One night, when his daughter was young, he and his wife decided to have dinner by candlelight. They fed their daughter first, and his wife served macaroni and cheese.

The table was set, the candles were lit. But his daughter took one look and recoiled from her food’s color.

"She started almost crying and getting very upset and yelling at us because we gave her the white macaroni and cheese and not the yellow macaroni and cheese," says Fairchild. "Her favorite is the yellow macaroni and cheese."

Because he studies color perception, Fairchild immediately realized what was going on.

"I said ‘Hold on, stay right there. I can magically turn it into yellow macaroni and cheese,’ " he recalls, "and I walked across the room and I flipped on the lights."

The mac and cheese in her bowl, it turned out was, indeed, yellow. But when it was only illuminated by the candlelight, which is very yellow, the light reflecting off her food had looked almost identical to the light reflecting off the white bowl.

"She just responded to what her eyes created there, the perception her eyes created," Fairchild says. "She thought it was white because it matched the bowl."

Well written article on the San Antonio Shroud Expo

imageIt may be old news to us, now, but it’s a story that needs to be improved upon. Abe Levy, a religion reporter  for the San Antonio Express-News does just that. He has written an excellent news piece that is both objective and comprehensive. It’s a good example for others:

Does the ancient linen wrapped around Jesus’ entombed body still exist?

And does it bear miraculous images of his face and wounds from the Crucifixion — enduring evidence of his divinity?

An exhibit that opened earlier this month in San Antonio chronicles the saga of this disputed cloth, the Shroud of Turin.

San Antonio is the second of 70 U.S. cities on this tour designed by Immersive Planet, a for-profit company founded two years ago and based in Brighton, Michigan, that designs theme parks and other venues and bought the rights to put on the exhibit.

It opened here Nov. 14 and continues through Jan. 25.

Whether the shroud is a hoax or genuine has been a matter of longstanding debate among historians, anthropologists, scientists and religious leaders.

The presentation takes an informative tone, posing questions and gently implying validity but avoiding direct conclusions to this end.

“Everyone has their path in life and perception of things,” said José Juan Garrigó, CEO of Immersive Planet. “If I can plant a little seed in your mind, I did something right. . . . Anything that could have a connection or be a part of the history of Jesus, it will be controversial.”

[ . . . ]

The Archdiocese of San Antonio is not affiliated with the display but will send an official to view it, said its spokesman, Deacon Pat Rodgers.

“Anytime someone speaks of the shroud, it piques people’s interest,” he said.

1958 Lecture of the Holy Shroud Guild By Fr. Otterbein

Fun to watch

This was just uploaded to YouTube by the HSG. (The opening sounds like the creepy organ music played for the old silent movie, Nosferatu: A Symphony of Horror.)

It is an informative and enjoyable film.

 

Links:  Part 1  & Part 2

You’ve Got To Laugh: a real sales pitch for a Besancon Shroud print

imageYeah, that’s real inspiring! And it’s only $39.00 (click on picture for larger view)

Put some inspiration on your walls with a poster. Inspirational posters are great for motivation and goal setting.InspirationalPoster.org posters will help you, your family, your friends, your team to focus on any goal. Use the power of visual media to motivate, stimulate and inspire.

InspirationalPoster.org provides the motivational and inspirational posters needed to help every person inspire his self and reach his full potential. Inspiration and motivation have always been integral components in the long term success of any winner. Staying determined, focused and committed to any goal are the traits of a winner.

InspirationalPoster.org gives you the posters to restore your confidence, motivate your self and be more creative.

The achievement of your goal is assured the moment you commit yourself. Keep commited with an inspirational and motivational poster. Buy inspirational posters online from InspirationalPoster.org.

The Makeshift Body Bag of Turin

New angle on that much over-hyped Hungarian Pray Codex . . .

image“Please be content for now with another new claim,” writes Colin Berry. . .

the so-called Turin Shroud was never intended to represent the final burial shroud. It was a makeshift body bag used to transport Jesus from the cross to his final resting place, the rock tomb. It was simply to provide a dignified transport of a blood and sweat-soaked victim pending the final washing and anointing prior to final burial, probably in WINDING sheets. It was the body bag that received the sweat and blood imprint, NOT the final burial shroud enclosing a washed, anointed, perfumed body.

(I used the same picture, above that Colin used because it effectively makes his point).

imageColin extensively examines scripture to support this contention. And then from left field:

New angle on that much over-hyped Hungarian Pray Codex: might that be Jesus on an opened-out body bag in the upper picture, with the replacement snake-like linen for winding in readiness?

But as Colin notes:

I never imagined for one moment that I was the first to propose the ‘body bag’ hypothesis, in view of the Gospel accounts making clear that ‘fine linen’ was used for immediate transport from cross to tomb. And here’s a comment from David Mo that includes a French quote (my italics) making precisely  the same point. My immediate response follows:

Here is what David Mo wrote (translation by Google):

More interesting: "The other Shroud which also bears an imprint of Jesus Christ is the one body called the Shroud of Besancon. The painting is not so strong or if the features that distinguish the Shroud of Turin. This is what has been told to those who gave the history of the one and the other, that of Turin had been used to wrap the body bloodied at the descent from the cross, and that of Besançon had been used to bury him after he was washed & embalmed. " It was a common belief que la mark Shroud of Turin Was Made with blood.

Colin tells us that:

Ian Wilson no less has expressed views that chime with mine (my bolding)

Wilson concurs with this as a possible explanation: "Although this may have been a me re chin band, it implies a more substantial piece of linen, and an alternative interpretation is that it could have been the Shroud we know today. The root meaning ofsudarion is sweat cloth, and the Shroud may have been intended as a temporary wrapping to soak up the sweat and blood from the body prior to a more definitive burial, which would have taken place after the Passover Sabbath." (emphasis is Colin’s)

A small catholic on relics

imageBill Tammeus, a Presbyterian elder and award-winning former faith columnist for The Kansas City Star, writes the daily "Faith Matters" blog for the Star‘s website and a monthly column for The Presbyterian Outlook. He calls himself a small catholic and his work appears in the National Catholic Reporter, this time with a column entitled, Relics mean something, but they don’t mean everything:

What the whole of Christianity depends on is not whether the Shroud of Turin is the real burial cloth of Jesus but whether Jesus, in fact, was resurrected.

And yet there’s something about the human condition that makes it easier for us if we can hold onto something solid, something verifiably original and authentic.

So our hearts long for the Shroud of Turin eventually to be validated as the true burial cloth of Jesus. And we want to know that this or that particular cup is the one Jesus used at the Last Supper. And that someone saved the ax George Washington used to chop down the cherry tree and, while they were at it, also preserved his wooden teeth. (Good luck with both of those myths.)

I’m happy for Pope Francis to visit the Shroud of Turin just as I’m happy for Protestant tourists to stop at the front doors of the Wittenberg Cathedral. (The original wooden doors were destroyed in a fire and have been replaced with bronze doors.)

I just hope the pontiff’s trip won’t lead people to imagine that it ultimately matters whether what he sees there is Jesus’ burial cloth. That would focus on a dead man. By stark contrast, Christianity is about the living Christ and our commitment to follow where his Spirit leads.

St. Louis Videos

imageRuss Breault tells us on his Shroud University website:

Experts from around the world met in St. Louis, MO for the first US conference on the Shroud of Turin since 2008. Here are over 40 papers covering aspects of science, medicine, art and history. Hear and see the latest research in streaming video.

imageThe following presentations from the St. Louis Conference can now be found on YouTube.  Links to them, as shown below, are from Russ’s site:


Frederick Baltz, M.D.

A Galatian Sojourn of the Shroud of Turin? Pollen, Paul, and a Public Portrayal of Christ

Video

Emanuela Marinelli

The Shroud and the iconography of Christ

Video

Daniel Spicer, Ph.D. and Edward Toton, Ph.D.

Charge Separations as the Mechanism for Image Formation on the
Shroud of Turin

Video

Robert W. Siefker

The Shroud: A Critical Summary of Observations, Data and Hypotheses Version 2.0

Video

Barrie Schwortz

Remembering Ray Rogers: A Personal Reflections On The Man And His Work

Video

Rev. Peter Schumacher

Study of Shroud Feature Evidence Using Video and Photogrammetric Analysis Methods

Video

Daniel C. Scavone, Ph.D.

Constantinople Documents as Evidence of the Shroud in Edessa

Video

Charles Mader, Ph.D.

The Raymond Rogers Computer Archive

Video

Ivan Polverari

From the Mandylion to the Shroud

Video

Veronica Piraccini

The prodigious painting "From the Impression of Jesus"

Video

Pam Moon

Further evaluation of the radiocarbon samples

Video

Flavia Manservergi and Enrico Morini

The hypothesis about the Roman flagrum: some clarifications

Video

Paul C. Maloney

Joseph M. Gambescia, M.D. and the Position of the Feet on the Shroud of Turin. The History of an Investigation

Video

Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo

About the Second Image of Face Detected on the Turin Shroud

Video

Art Lind, Ph.D. and Mark Antonacci

Hypothesis that Explains the Shroud’s Unique Blood Marks and Several Critical Events in the Gospels

Video

Kelly Kearse

A Critical (re)evaluation of the Shroud of Turin blood data: Strength of evidence in the characterization of the bloodstains

**Due to technical issues we could not capture the conclusion of this talk**

Video

Tony Fleming

Biophotonic Hypothesis of the Turin Shroud

Video

Guilio Fanti

A Dozen Years of Shroud Science Group

Video

Closing Remarks

Closing Remarks; End of Conference

Video

Russ Breault

Theology of the Shroud (7 Secrets of the Sacred Shroud)

Video

Cesar Barta, et al.

New discoveries on the Sudarium of Oviedo

Video

Prof. Bruno Barberis

Shroud, science and : dialogue or conflict?

Video

Petrus Soons, M.D.

The Halo Around the Head in the Image of the Man in the Shroud

Jeffrey Skurka, P.E.

The Enigma of the apparent age of the Shroud of Turin Give the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating

Video

David Onysko

The Shekinah Glory of the Lord and the Shroud of Turin

Video

Robert Villarreal

Spectroscopic Analysis of Fibers from the Shroud of Turin–What Do They Mean? by Jon Schoonover, Ph.D.

The Alpha-Particle Irradiation Hypothesis: Entering John’s Gospel, Solving the Mystery of the Shroud

Video

Andrew Silverman, M.D.

Natural, manufactured or ‘miracle’?

Video

Most Rev. Michael Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs

KEYNOTE: Science and the Mysteries of the Shroud

Video

Barrie Schwortz

Using the Shroud of Turin Website

Video

Raymond Schneider, P.E., Ph.D.

Dating the Shroud of Turin: Weighing All the Evidence

Video

Robert Rucker

MCNP Analysis of Neutrons Released from Jesus’ Body in the Ressurrection

Video

Joseph Accetta, Ph.D.

Speculations on the 14th Century Origins of the Turin Shroud

Video

Jack Markwardt

Modern Scholarship and the History of the Shroud of Turin

Video

Sebastien Cataldo

The Mandylion or the story of a man-made relic

Video

Forum

Open forum regarding the future of The Shroud research

Video

Roger Bassett

An Artist Explores The Facial Image of the Shroud of Turin

Video

Diana Fulbright and Paolo DiLazzaro

Earthquake-induced Piezonuclear Reactions and the Inage on the Shroud of Turin: Critical remarks

Video

Mark Antonacci

Science and Semantics

Video

Prof. Bruno Barberis

The Future of research on the Shroud

Video

Jack Markwardt

The Full Length History of the Shroud of Turin

Video

Fr. Otterbein Discussing the STURP Examination

This just showed up as newly published by the Holy Shroud Guild on YouTube on Nov 24, 2014: It features Fr. Otterbein discussing the STURP examination of 1978 (in two parts).

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

Links: Part 1  |  Part 2

Newly Published Paper: Othon de La Roche and the Shroud by Alessandro Piana

imageA paper, Othon de La Roche and the Shroud: An hypothesis between History and Historiography by Alessandro Piana (pictured) has just been published at Academia.edu. The introduction reads:

From the fourteenth century, when the Shroud appeared in the French village of Lirey, there are no historical gaps. Unfortunately, there isn’t a tradition of the precise way in which Geoffroy I de Charny has come into possession of an object of such importance [1]. Although the period prior to the fourteenth century we have no certain news as well as that of the centuries that follow, not for this has ceased to carry out research and, most importantly, does not mean that we must hold closed adversely research on the ancient history of the Shroud, especially considering the significant acquisitions that direct examination have over the years accumulated [2]. Even if it is accepted that the Turin Shroud and the cloth observed in Constantinople by the crusader knight Robert de Clari [3] (“Among other astonishing things there is a church called Saint Mary of Blacherne, where there is the sydoines (Shroud), in which Our Lord Jesus was wrapped and that every Holy Friday is lifted up vertically, so that the shape of Our Lord could be seen very well” [4].) were one and the same object, there still difficulties remain in establishing a chronology for the relic during the historical gap of more or less one hundred and fifty years, from 1204 in Constantinople to its reappearance in Lirey in the fourteenth century. Different hypotheses have been formulated [5].

In this paper, the author presents an additional hypothesis in an attempt to explain that intervening period during which the Shroud completely disappeared.

The paper goes from there through . . .

  • THE “GREEK TRACK”
  • OTHON DE LA ROCHE, MÉGASKYR OF ATHENS
  • BLOOD-LINE OF OTHO DE LA ROCHE
  • RAY-SUR-SAÔNE CASTLE
  • THE SHROUD IN RAY-SUR-SAÔNE?
  • THE SHROUD AND THE DE VERGY FAMILY
  • FAMILY TREES

and concludes . . .

A set of elements make suppose transit of the Shroud in Athens, thank to Othon de La Roche, at the beginning of thirteenth century. To this Burgundy noble family are linked a series of attestations that, if further confirmed, would help to set Shroud arrival in Europe a long time before the middle of fourteenth century. At present this hypothesis appears the most likely, well-documented and able to give a series of ideas for further researches that other hypothesis cannot suggest. This work has to be considered as the seeds of ongoing research, not the end but just the beginning.

Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem Videos

imageToday, the Holy Shroud Guild uploaded to YouTube two videos: Dr. Nitowski Part 1 and Dr. Nitowski Part 2. Both parts run about 21 to 22 minutes. The film title screens read, The Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem presents the Shroud of Jerusalem; produced and narrated by Sister Damian of the Cross, OCD. These video are so newly placed on YouTube that they both show no views as of 4:30 pm EST, today.

Check out the following (this & page 1, page 2, page 3) at the Holy Shroud Guild.

You can also read something about The Environmental Study of the Shroud in Jerusalem in Shroud Spectrum International, Number 17, Part 6:

Is the image disappearing?

imageA reader asks a question:

A friend told me that the image is disappearing not because it is fading but because the whole cloth is getting darker while the image is not. Is that true? Can it be treated with something to prevent it from happening?

According to Bryan Walsh, Alan Adler offered the following comments at the Richmond Shroud Conference in 1999:

The image on the Shroud is a conjugated carbonyl. Since the image fibers are at or near saturation and the surrounding cloth isn’t, the surrounding cloth will gradually get darker and darker with time until the image first becomes a silhouette and later finally disappears altogether. It is imperative, therefore, that we MUST archive, using the best possible imaging techniques available, the entire Shroud if only to preserve it for posterity.

I don’t know if this information has been confirmed by others. It should be important to know this for sure.  As for treating the cloth, I don’t know, but I very much doubt that anyone would want to. It certainly isn’t a painting in want of restoration. Much better to examine it now, as best we can, and continue to make high definition images for future generations. 

St. John of the Shroud: Priest, Servant of the Priest, Cousin to Jesus

imageIn his serialized attempt to convince us that Jesus took his burial shroud with him following his resurrection and gave it to John the Apostle who was the servant of the priest mentioned in a fragment of text from St. Jerome that quotes the Gospel of the Hebrews, Stephen Jones explains that Jesus and John were first cousins and that the Apostle John was also a priest.

I know that, didn’t I? Did I?  If so, I didn’t know why. Very ingenious analysis by Stephen:

Mark and Mathew evidently record the three prominent women disciples standing by the Cross after Mary, the mother of Jesus, had been taken by the Apostle John (Jn 19:26-27), her nephew (see below), to his home[11]. That the remaining three women mentioned are the same group in each account is shown by Mark listing "Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome" as the women who went to the tomb in the early morning after the sabbath to anoint Jesus’ body (Mk 16:1).

That means that Jesus and Apostle John were first cousins:

[ . . . ]

Mary was also a "kinswoman" of Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist (Lk 1:36 YLT)[13]. The Greek word for "kinswoman," sungenis, is simply the female of sungenes "a kinsman" (Mk 6:4; Lk 1:58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; Jn 18:26; Ac 10:24) including "of tribal kinship" (Rom 9:3; 16:7,11,21)[14]. Elizabeth was one of the "daughters of Aaron" (Lk 1:5), that is, she was of priestly descent and the daughter of a priest[15]. Therefore Mary, and Salome her sister, were descended from David (Lk 1:32) and so were of the tribe of Judah (Mt 1:1-6; Lk 3:30-31) and also they were descended from Aaron, and so were of the tribe of Levi (Ex 6:16-20). There is no contradiction in this, as while a priest had to be a descendent of Aaron, he was not required to take a wife from the descendants of Aaron but the only requirement was that she was an Israelite virgin (Lev 21:1,7,14)[16]. The conditions of Jesus’ descent from David (Mt 1:1; Rom 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16) are satisfied if at least one of Mary’s parents were of Davidic decent[17].

Therefore, for the Apostle John, the son of Salome, to be a priest, it was only necessary that his father, Zebedee (Mt 4:21; 10:2; Mk 1:19; 3:17; 10:35; Lk 5:10), was of Aaronic descent and therefore was a priest[18]. And that would have been so if Mary (and Salome’s) father, Heli (Lk 3:23)[19], i.e. "Eli" – a priestly name (1Sam 1:9; 2:11; 14:3), was a descendant of Aaron and therefore a priest[20]. And that would have been the case, if the father of Elisabeth, who was Mary’s and Salome’s kinswoman, was a brother of Zebedee, John’s father. Further Biblical confirmation that John was a priest is found in Jn 20:4-8, where John reached the empty tomb first but did not enter it until after Peter went in and confirmed that Jesus’ body was not there. It was forbidden for a priest to enter a tomb[21] where he might make contact with a dead body and so become "unclean" (Lev 21:1-3)[22].

Social Encyclopedia-ing, the Shroud of Turin and Channel 5

After all, we do find in Wikipedia “that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud.”

imageA reader from Spaniards Bay, Newfoundland, writes:

I discovered this morning that the “Shroud of Turin” entry in Wikipedia no longer contains attempts by Freeman and Berry to include their -hypotheses in this, their latest attempts at social encyclopedia-ing. In fact, their names cannot be found at all on the page. It was like awakening from a strange dream.

It was real. It wasn’t a dream. Moderator comments do state:

  • Deelted (sic) Colin Berrys removed as self promotion unsubstantiated in theory or peer reviewed in notable articles)
  • Removal of Charles Freeman theory article overloading on theories

Colin fired back on a discussion page that Wikipedia created for him:

I concluded my account with:

"Links to Berry’s ‘simulated sweat imprint’ hypothesis"

Note the term "hypothesis", meaning idea. So where’s the conflict of interest in expressing an idea? Where’s the self-promotion in expressing an idea? Why bandy around these silly terms in a way that totally misrepresents this researcher’s interest in the Shroud? Are you aware that I have published over 250 postings on my science buzz and specialist Shroud sites, many with original research findings you will not find elsewhere. As for deleting the earlier reference to my scorch findings that someone else, not I, chose to publicize, that is just small-mindedness.

My IDEA is any original one, as you can check for yourself by googling, that can be expressed in a few words,and which does not need "peer review" to which incidentally I am no stranger:

The faint yellow Shroud body image was almost certainly an attempt to simulate a sweat imprint on linen, as if from a recently crucified man. In reality it was probably a thermal imprint ("scorch mark") from a heated 3D or bas relief template.

Do you not consider that folk who consult wiki have a right to be informed of the latest thinking? Do you not understand the difference between hypotheses that invite further experimentation and tendentious claims?

Colinsberry (talk) 23:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Colin Berry PhD

Does Colin have a point? He has done a lot of experimenting (not that I’m convinced by it). I don’t buy into the simulation of a sweat imprint idea but, then again, compare it to some other ideas that have been floated. After all we find this on the Wikipedia page:

Lynn Picknett has written a book proposing that Leonardo da Vinci had faked the Shroud. Picknett and Larissa Tracy appeared on a Channel 5 (UK) TV program that announced that the Shroud was the oldest known surviving photograph.

Colin, it seems that all you need to do is appear on Channel 5.

Ignoring the Weight of the Evidence

imageJoe Marino writes in a comment to Second Annual Bertrand Russell Award in Sindonology:

Russell’s comments about the JFK assassination brings out an important point: despite thousands of books and articles that suggest that the Oswald-did-it-alone theory is not plausible, there are plenty of people who still buy into it. In other words, evidence doesn’t play a big factor in their opinion of what happened. It’s similar with the Shroud–and I realize that pro and con both feel that the other side is the one ignoring the weight of the evidence.

Is there a way to change that?

This past June, Business Insider did an entertaining and informative feature, 58 Cognitive Biases That Screw Up Everything We Do. It leads off:

We like to think we’re rational human beings.

In fact, we are prone to hundreds of proven biases that cause us to think and act irrationally, and even thinking we’re rational despite evidence of irrationality in others is known as blind spot bias.

The study of how often human beings do irrational things was enough for psychologists Daniel Kahneman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics, and it opened the rapidly expanding field of behavioral economics. Similar insights are also reshaping everything from marketing to criminology.

Hoping to clue you — and ourselves — into the biases that frame our decisions, we’ve collected a long list of the most notable ones.

Tip:  Click on the small link that says, View as one page.  And first pour a big cup of coffee or whatever.

How to Become Famous

Shall this become the future of the Shroud of Turin entries in Wikipedia, where every
person with an idea posts his own theory out there? What about the guy in Australia
who has discovered that if he tilts his laptop screen at a certain angle he can make
Jesus’s eyes open, thus proving he is alive. Or Stephen Jones (is there something
about the equator or something) who concludes that the carbon dating was hacked
by the KGB. And  . . . oh, no, we don’t want to tip him off to the idea.

imageColin Barry tells us in his blog:

Yes, I’ve taken a leaf from Charles Freeman’s book, and submitted a brief synopsis of my ‘simulated sweat imprint’ idea to wikipedia. Charles sent his to the History of the Shroud page, but noting there was now a version of the same at the end of  the main Shroud of Turin entry under "Recent Developments" . . .

Colin tells us that it was erased but . . .

Tried re-submitting my screed, but this time logging into wiki, which had fortunately remembered me from a long time ago, attempting to edit something or other (non-TS related).

My piece  now appears like an old-fashioned ticker tape/ telegram at the end of the Recent Developments section, and I’m still none the wiser about how to format in wiki.

It remains on the page in a strange, so-called edit format. This is what it says after you clear it up a bit:

Shroud researcher Colin Berry (mentioned earlier) has recently made a significant modification to his belief that the body image was imprinted onto linen as a scorch from a heated template. He had originally speculated that the scorch technology had been chosen deliberately to represent either Templar Grand Master Jacques de Molay or Geoffroi de Charney midway through being slowly-roasted to death at the stake in Paris, with a fanciful imprinting of hot tissue onto a burial shroud. In that view the de Molay image was later‘re-invented’ as that of the crucified Jesus by additions of blood at the appropriate wound locations described in the New Testament accounts.

The Templar link has now been abandoned. While Berry still considers the TS image to be a contact scorch, he proposes that it was intended to be seen by the very first cohorts of pilgrims at Lirey in 1357 as the genuine sweat (and blood) imprint left on linen by the recumbent crucified Jesus (228,229) . In other words, the scorch technology was designed to simulate the appearance of an ancient sweat imprint, yellowed with age. That interpretation may have found a resonance with mid-14th century pilgrims, given that the highly venerated Veil of Veronica had been attracting large numbers at the same time, notably in the ‘Holy Year’ 1350, just 7 years prior to the first known Lirey display. The ‘Veronica’ too, according to legend, was initially a body imprint, solely of the facial features of Jesus, captured onto a bystander’s veil as she stepped forward in a charitable gesture to wipe sweat and blood from the face of Jesus as the latter passed by, bearing his cross to the site of execution at Calvary. Might this idea of sweat/blood imprinting have served as the inspiration for a medieval ‘thought experiment’ combining art and technology, imagining how a similar whole body imprint, both frontal and dorsal sides, of the recently deceased and traumatized (bloodied/sweat-soaked) Jesus might look after 13 centuries of ageing and yellowing?

Links to Berry’s ‘simulated sweat imprint’ hypothesis

Ref 228 http://shroudofturinwithoutallthehype.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/the-shroud-of-turin-probably-not-miraculous-just-a-simulated-sweat-imprint-a-triumph-of-medieval-joined-up-thinking/

Ref 229 http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/checklist-of-reasons-for-thinking-turin.html

Edit contributed by Colin Berry, Nov 23, 2014

Paper Chase: The Shroud of Turin and its Radiodating

The proportion of the "youngest" threads is 32.23 % – almost a third of the total
– on the whole SAMPLE. In the case of the "cleaned", radio dated sample,
it increases to 41.65% – approaching the half.

imageIt was one of those things I had put in a stack of things to get around to. Don’t believe me if I say I didn’t have the time. I did. Maybe the best excuse I can invent is this: Those stacks, these days, are virtual, electronic reminders that buzz and beep at all the wrong times. I have developed many ways of ignoring electronic reminders. It was easier when papers piled up in stacks so high you could use them for footrests.

So I appreciated hearing from Joe Marino:

Barrie’s October 5 update had a paper from the 1993 Rome symposium by the late archaeologist Maria Grazia Siliato titled "The Shroud of Turin and its radiodating".

I think you mentioned Barrie’s update at the time but no special mention was made of this paper.  I just reread it again this morning and although I’m biased, I think it’s an excellent article that didn’t get the notice it deserved at the time and still doesn’t, but in light of all the other evidence that has come out about the reweave theory since then, I think it is a most significant paper.  Give it another read and see if you don’t agree.

I agree. The Shroud of Turin and its radiodating by Maria Grazia Siliato, translated by Dr. Augusto Monacelli, demands the attention of everyone interested in the 1988 carbon dating. Here is a sample (pun intended):

We have come to the core of the problem.

At that time, product analyses carried out by experts Timossi and Raes calculated, with good accuracy, the MEDIUM WEIGHT PER SQUARE CENTIMETER OF THE SHROUD’S CLOTH.

It was also calculated with radiographs by Morris, London and Mottern in 1978, and the result was consistent with the previous ones. The lowest average weight was the one proposed on another occasion by the operator in charge of the sample to be radio dated.

Considering the irregularities of an ancient, handcrafted cloth, and in order to move within safer margins, we have applied a prudential, surplus tolerance to the measures indicated.

Let us therefore assume an average weight of 25.00 MILLIGRAMS PER SQUARE CENTIMETER of the SHROUD’S CLOTH.

Now, the following is what happened upon TAKING THE SAMPLE FOR RADIO DATING:

1) According to the official operator in charge of taking the sample, the sample measures cm 8.1 x 1.6, namely, cm² 12.96

2) In the video showing the taking of the sample, the weight measured on the scales is mg 478.1

3) Dividing the sample’s weight by its surface (mg 478.1: cm² 12.96), we obtain a WEIGHT of approx. mg 36.89 per cm².

Therefore, the sample weighs mg 11.89 per cm² MORE than the original cloth should – at most.

4) However, the operator in charge of taking the sample says that he removed some irregularities and some "free" threads from the sample. (Let us skip the singular procedure of "rethreading" and squaring such a precious, ancient sample, wasting further irreplaceable material). The operator reduced the sample’s measures to cm 7.00 x 1.00, namely cm² 7.00)

.

WEIGHTS OF THE SHROUD AND WEIGHTS OF THE RESTORATION WORKS

SHROUD → AVERAGE WEIGHT → 1 cm² (pict. of scales) mg 25.00 cm² 12%

WEIGHT mg 478.1

SAMPLE TAKEN → AVERAGE WEIGHT → 1 cm² (pict. of scales) mg 36.89 cm² 7.00

WEIGHT mg 300

RADIODATED PART OF SAMPLE → AVERAGE WEIGHT → 1 cm² (pict. of scales) mg 42.85

The sample bears recent restoration works of mg 17.85 per cm² – accounting for 41.65 % of the total

.

5) Then the operator reports the WEIGHT of the sample, "cleaned" and distributed to laboratories: mg 300

6) Dividing the weight of the "cleaned" sample by its surface of mg 300: cm² 7.00, we obtain a WEIGHT of mg 42.85 per cm².

The sample weighs mg 17.85 per cm² MORE than the original cloth should, at most.

This element is even more surprising and irregular than that of the "non cleaned" sample.

A few millimeters away, we find differences of nearly 6 milligrams per square centimeter. (Difference between 36.89 and 42.85 = 5.96).

7) AS A RESULT, WHAT EMERGES IS THE PROOF THAT THE SAMPLE WAS IRREGULARLY LOADED WITH FOREIGN, UNDETERMINED TEXTILE MATERIAL – in other words, MANY THREADS WERE ADDED FOR ITS MENDING with various techniques IN DIFFERENT, MUCH LATER AGES.

8) The proportion of the "youngest" threads is 32.23 % – almost a third of the total – on the whole SAMPLE. In the case of the "cleaned", radio dated sample, it increases to 41.65% – approaching the half.

Many online sites are eliminating online comments

clip_image001Doug Gross, writing for CNN, tells us that Online comments are being phased out.

Not on this blog.

Gross writes:

Online "trolls" and the emergence of social media are mentioned as reasons sites are abandoning comments.

[ . . . ]

[An announcement by Re/code] was just the latest in a recent wave of prominent websites removing or significantly scaling back their comment sections. Reuters, Popular Science and the Chicago Sun-Times have recently nixed comments.

Fairly or not, comment forums have gained a reputation as a haven for Internet trolls. Several of the sites that have banned comments noted the lack of civility in their decisions.

"As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide," read a Popular Science post from last September. "The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter."

[ . . . ]

Other websites have opted to moderate comments more strictly rather than disable them altogether.

[ . . . ]

At CNN, comments on most stories were disabled in August. They are selectively activated on stories that editors feel have the potential for high-quality debate — and when writers and editors can actively participate in and moderate those conversations.

[ . . . ]

Despite our best efforts to contain them, trolls are a persistent group and keep managing to slip through the gates.

It takes some effort and a lot of cooperation by everyone. Online comments are working well. Most comments appear instantly with no requirement for logging or typing in patterns of letters seen in an image in order to prove we are not spambots.

Without online comments this blog would be pointless. 

Second Annual Bertrand Russell Award in Sindonology

One year ago today, somewhat in jest, I nominated Colin Berry for the First Annual Bertrand Russell Award in Sindonology (see below). There were a lot of good comments including some by Colin. I wonder who it should be this year? 


First Annual Bertrand Russell Award in Sindonology

November 22, 2013

this strange hybrid method, through which a literary genre convinces itself it is a science

imageBenjamin Wallace-Wells, in the latest issue of New York magazine, writes about 50 years of conspiracy theory. He is focused on American politics but he could have just as well been considering the shroud – think of Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince for starters.

The seduction of conspiracy is the way it orders chaos. In the summer of 1964, the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell—past 90 years old then and possibly the most famously rational person on the planet—read the early accounts of the Warren Commission Report [=The President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy] with mounting alarm. None of the important questions, he thought, were being answered. There was the matter of the parade route being changed without explanation at the last minute, so that the motorcade passed Lee Harvey Oswald’s workplace; the geometrically confounding arrangement of entry and exit wounds; the curious fact that an alibi witness who helped get an alternate suspect released from custody turned out to be a stripper at Jack Ruby’s club.

The logician went to work. Meticulously, Russell documented the discrepancies between each first-person account and the divergences between each report in the media. He gave his document a modest, scientific-sounding title (“16 Questions on the Assassination”) and a just-the-facts tone. This strange hybrid method, through which a literary genre convinces itself it is a science, has become not just a template for ornate conspiracies but a defining way in which American stories are told.

. . . or shroud scenarios are imagined. And thus I am inspired to nominate Colin Berry for the First Annual Bertrand Russell Award in Sindonology; remember that for awhile Colin was championing something to do with Jacques de Molay, the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar. Now it is a remodeled crucifix:

. . . How many folks here are aware of the presence of the so-called sedillis marks on each of the buttocks (symmetrical sets of 3 marks each forming a triangle)?

http://www.sindonology.org/papers/bloodMarksButts.shtml

Mario Latendresse interprets them as an additional torture device of Roman crucifixion, and Yannick Clement, mentioned at the end of the above link, thinks they may be burns marks, not blood.

I think they are where mounting bolts(sawn off to flush stubs) or maybe open bolt holes for a lifesize crucifix existed and which imaged onto the dorsal view as a scorch. They were subsequently disguised as blood marks.

I’m presently revisiting some older ideas I expressed many moons ago that the Shroud was made from a crucifixion bronze from which the arms were removed and re-positioned. There was probably a loin cloth to be disposed of too, but that could help resolve some oddities re the figure on the Lirey badge, especially that curious coiled belt, which Wilson interpreted as blood from the lance wound, gathered on the underside of the back, and which I previously thought could be a chain used to secure a victim.

and

I’m now returning to the idea that the image was imprinted from a life-size crucifixion bronze, and yes, it would have had a loin cloth, but the artistically-rumpled up parts that identify it immediately as a tied-off cloth could easily have been filed off. What;s interesting me at the moment, especially thinking about the Shroud’s peculiar hands and fingers is the possibility that arms may have been sawn off and re-positioned to create the horizontal entombment posture with crossed hands, My little brass crucifix, bought a year ago in France, is providing lots of clues as to what needed to be done to re-model a crucifixion statue as a post-crucifixion template for the tomb scene.

Congratulations. And may we also welcome our friend from across the pond to the ranks of American thinkers.

Image of the Resurrection?

imageYannick Clément writes:

I’ve seen the news concerning Freeman’s hypothesis about the Shroud that is now in Wikipedia.

My question is simple:  Why everyone interested by the Shroud, whether it is religious people, fans of the supernatural or skeptics like him always sees an image of the Resurrection on a cloth that ONLY shows the image of a DEAD CHRIST?

This simple observation is completely astonishing for someone Cartesian like me…  Should I refresh the memory of all those people by simply saying that, before the incapacity of STURP to find a complete explanation for the image formation and the curious C14 dating result of 89, the catholic tradition was always referring to the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Jesus-Christ showing an image of him after his Passion and death?  And most researchers prior to the post-STURP days (even catholic believer researchers) were convinced that the image was the result of some sort of interaction between the cloth and the DEAD BODY OF JESUS?

But does everyone see an image of the Resurrection (or of a resurrected Christ or a resurrecting Christ)?  I’ve never thought about what everyone sees much less thought about what I see in this context.  Is it (representative of) Jesus an instant before resurrection, Jesus during resurrection or the Christ an instant after resurrection but before opening his eyes, for instance?

A Wonderful Personal Story and an Interesting Proposal

Marcin Balcerzyk writes:

imageI have recently viewed the BBC/History film “The real face of Jesus?” where you appeared, and wherefrom I took the shroudstory.com link and your email. Abut April 2014 our friend has given us the photo copied from the screen from the film, form the part where the face of Jesus is presented at about 1 h 19 min of the film. Our son Jan Pawel who suffered leukemia and died on 30th of September of 2014 at the age of 7 years was seeing Jesus imagefrom the age of 4 daily (which is a story by itself). Jan Pawel told us “it is easier for me to believe in Jesus, because I see him”. When my wife showed this image to him, Jan Pawel told us that Jesus is the same, just that he has shorter hair and lots of light around him, not dark. On some other occasion Jan Pawel told us that Jesus has green eyes with a little blue. Jan Pawel reacted as a boy from a film and a book “The Heaven is Real” when he has seen the image “Prince of Peace” https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/image49.png .

imagePersonally I work on molecular imaging and process daily PET and CT images of the people and animals which we acquire in our human and small animal PET/CT scanners. All of these are 3D images, for processing of which we use PMOD, a program for biomedical image quantification. One of the useful contributions I thought of making is a CT scan of a volunteer wrapped in a cloth, possibly with a set of fiducial markers (lead small balls) on the cloth for reference. It would be a continuation of the work of G.Fanti et al. published in:  Fanti, G., et al. (2010). "Turin Shroud: Compatibility Between a Digitized Body Image and a Computerized Anthropomorphous Manikin." Journal of Imaging Science and Technology 54(5): 50503-50501-50503-50508.

Marcin Balcerzyk, Ph.D.
Unidad Ciclotron,
Centro Nacional de Aceleradores,
Universidad de Sevilla-CSIC-Junta de Andalucia,
41092 Sevilla (Spain),
mbalcerzyk@us.es