Home > News & Views, Presentation > Jeffrey Skurka on Buffalo Catholic Radio Station

Jeffrey Skurka on Buffalo Catholic Radio Station

January 19, 2015

imageI have received word that Jeffrey Skurka will be on the Catholic Radio Station in Buffalo: 101.7 FM this afternoon at 5:00 to discuss material similar to what he presented in St. Louis this past October. (I have not been able to confirm this from the station’s website, which is not unusual).

Rather than a paper, a PowerPoint presentation was published following the conference. If you want to read his presentation, The Enigma of the apparent age of the Shroud of Turin Given the 1988 Radiocarbon Dating, in PDF format it can be found at shroud.com. 

Here is one chart from the presentation which dealt not only with the radiocarbon dating of the shroud but the image formation process as well:

Hypothesis of Body Image Formation

• Just prior to the resurrection event there was an extremely large magnetic field that was developed in the corpse as the result of a superparamagnetic alignment of unpaired electrons, such as with hydrogen and nitrogen atoms, in the body of Jesus.

• Paired electrons in the body were also affected by the superparamagnetism which also cause them to align 90 degrees to the superparamagnetism also know as (super)diamagnetism.

• A very large potential energy was built up as magnetic field a result of the alignment of the unpaired electrons. This alignment of the unpaired electrons is what gave the image formation mechanism a high degree of up/down directionality.

• At the moment of the resurrection when the soul of Christ came zooming back into his body the magnetic field collapsed causing an instantaneous release of energy.

• The rapid heating and/or dehydration of the carbohydrate later was caused by the excitation of the hydrogen atoms in the carbohydrate layer on the crowns of the linen fibers by the inelastic collision/scattering from a wave of thermal neutrons being emitted from the body of Christ being directed and governed by the inverse squared law of the superparamagnetic field. Hypothesis of Body Image Formation

• The unusual optical properties of the body image are a residual alignment of the unpaired electron spin of the hydrogen and even possibly nitrogen atoms and opposite of the electron spin built up in the body just before the magnetic field collapse from the body of Christ. Also the paired electrons would also have an alignment 90 degrees to superparamagnetism.

• Reflected light culminates at a distance of approximately 12 feet in front of the cloth is why the image seems to disappear at any closer than 12 feet.

• The body image would lose its optical properties a result of the alignment being lost over time possibly just by moving the cloth through earth’s magnetic field such as when the cloth is being transported.

• Also, until confirmed the body image should be protected from any extraneous magnetic fields such as magnets and electrical transformers.

Here is an abstract of Jeffrey’s presentation:

In 1988 the world was stunned by the results of the radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin especially given the findings of the 1978 STURP team. More current research by several different sinologist indicate that a release of energy may be responsible for not only the image formation but the discrepancy in the apparent age of the cloth if it is truly Jesus’ burial shroud. It therefore could be possible that the result of the radiocarbon dating if accurate is evidential proof of a smoking gun testifying to a glorified resurrection of the physical body of Christ. Therefore, the objective of this proposal is to follow the scientific data where ever it may lead as the guiding factor in the pursuit of truth.

The first question that remains unsolved is the mechanism in which the superficial body image was produced on the cloth. When looking at the photo electric effect, being a surface phenomenon in nuclear physics where in certain cases, such as alpha particles carrying a positive charge, collect on a surface causing it to become electrically charged. Particles then begin to move normal to that surface. This in conjunction with a possible nuclear magnetic resonance will be explored as an image forming mechanism in this proposal.

The second question is the age discrepancy between the apparent ages of the Sudarium of Oviedo and Shroud of Turin. Again this discrepancy gives further credibility of a nuclear event when considering neutron activation, also referred to as radiative capture, as it relates to the inverse squared law of propagation of emitted radiation. Given that the Sudarium of Oviedo would have been placed further from the linen shroud covering the body provides additional scientific evidence that the resurrection of Christ could have been a nuclear event.

Another but even more controversial clue, is there any other evidence in history of human bodies such as with the phenomena frequently referred to as Spontaneous Human Combustion (SHC) giving examples of a body releasing thermal neutrons where a physical body collapses back to a singularity? The answer is yes.

In 1998 an experiment, with the assistance of the late M. Sue Benford, was conducted using high speed dental x-ray film and the cremated ash remains of lower limbs of an individual that suffered a reported SHC event. The results of that experiment in conjunction with the results of a paper book jacket, like linen also cellulose, published in 1976 has an apparent radiocarbon date from the year 2400 AD from another SHC event. In addition two human skulls were shrunken proportionately to size as was described as a softball give an insight to what the resurrection event might have been explaining the apparent age discrepancy of the linen cloth when the Shroud of Turin was tested in 1988.


Boiling the ocean? Where does speculation leave off and hypotheses begin?

  1. Hugh Farey
    January 19, 2015 at 8:48 am

    No. Absolutely not. I do not believe a single word of the last paragraph. I do not believe any of the experiments described were carried out; I do not believe any of the results occurred. This kind of nonsense spreads discredit not only over authenticist belief, but also over shroud study in general; and acts as a powerful disincentive for real historians and scientists to have anything to do with it, which is a great pity.

    • aljones909
      January 19, 2015 at 6:01 pm

      This is pure hokum. Benford is a total kook (pyramid energies etc) and Jeffrey Skurka is a “city engineer”. Knowledge of traffic lights systems does not qualify someone to start taking about “paired electrons” and “magnetic field collapse”. It is truly pitiful that this nonsense is treated with any degree of seriousness.

      • jmarino240
        January 19, 2015 at 6:10 pm

        Sue Benford had 10 peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1999 and 2001. She also co-authored 2 in 2008. Scientific kookiness sometimes eventually becomes mainstream.

        • aljones909
          January 19, 2015 at 7:47 pm

          It’s extremely rare for “scientific kookiness”, i.e. hypotheses dreamt up by amateurs, to become mainstream. Revolutionary scientific ideas come from real scientists doing hard work. They don’t come from amateurs misusing scientific terms (like “quantum”, “energy”, “field”)

          Pyramid energies, alternative healing energies, crop circles, and spontaneous human combustion are firmly in the “kooky” camp. Crop circles and SHC have straightforward explanations. If anyone can show the efficacy of “pyramid energies” or “alternative healing energies” then James Randi has a million dollars waiting. It would also overturn QFT (Quantum Field Theory). Our best model of how the universe works.

          Here’s a real scientist, Sean Carroll, talking about ideas of unknown “energies”.
          “The questions are these: what form does that spirit energy take, and how does it interact with our ordinary atoms? Not only is new physics required, but dramatically new physics. Within QFT, there can’t be a new collection of “spirit particles” and “spirit forces” that interact with our regular atoms, because we would have detected them in existing experiments.”

        • jmarino240
          January 19, 2015 at 8:41 pm

          Sue was a co-author with Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell on a paper
          pertaining to Quantum Mechanics at the Fifth International Conference on
          Computing Anticipatory Systems(CASYS’01), Liège, Belgium, August 13-18, 2001. I
          wouldn’t classify Mitchell as an amateur scientist and I don’t think he
          lightly chooses his co-authors.

          Regarding Spontaneous Human Combustion, Sue believed it was basically a
          rare medical condition (she was a nurse). She was actually filmed for a
          documentary saying that but she ended up on the cutting room floor because that
          was too dull of an explanation for a TV program that likes to push mystery.

          You obviously have your mind made up about Sue so I will end here.

  2. January 19, 2015 at 9:25 am

    The image formation explained by Marvel Comics.

  3. Joe Marino
    January 19, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Hugh wrote, “I do not believe a single word of the last paragraph. I do not believe any of the experiments described were carried out; I do not believe any of the results occurred.”

    It’s one thing to believe a certain experiment is silly or brings discredit to sindonology, but it’s another to just dismiss the claim that the experiment was done. I was not involved in the experiment that Jeffrey refers to, but he did visit Sue and me in 1998 and I do remember them working on this. I’m not sure I have any documentation in files of Sue that I still have but I recently sent Jeffrey various materials related to some of her experiments, so there might be something in those materials and/or Jeffrey may have some of his own material related to the experiment in question.

    • Hugh Farey
      January 19, 2015 at 5:45 pm

      Sorry Joe, and no disrespect to you or to Sue, but I don’t believe any such experiment was carried out. I do not believe any SHC remains were experimented with at all, I do not believe that a book jacket associated with an SHC event was dated to 2400AD, I do not believe that any skulls shrunk to the size of softballs. If ever extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence this is such a circumstance, and I don’t believe any such evidence will be forthcoming.

      • jmarino240
        January 19, 2015 at 6:02 pm

        I’ll inquire to Jeffrey regarding any documentation he might have.

  4. Hugh Farey
    January 20, 2015 at 3:20 am

    I think any piece of scientific research has to be taken on it own merits, and not necessarily be automatically discredited because its author has some unconventional ideas as well. No one disparages Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica on the grounds that its author spent more time on alchemy than he did on maths, and Arthur Conan Doyle’s literary successes with Sherlock Holmes and in journalism are not diminished by his belief in fairies. Sue Benford’s Shroud patch hypothesis was serious and sensible, and in a modified form still has considerable mainstream support (even though I believe it to be almost completely wrong). I have also seen

    Nevertheless, scientists, particularly physicists, do seem prone to drift away from the generally accepted foundations of their discipline into realms of arcana which are wholly beyond any formal credibility, and the astronaut Edgar Mitchell (among several other astronauts) was one such. To be associated with his Institute of Noetic Science, or to co-author a paper entitled “QuantaGraphy®: Images from the Quantum Hologram”, or to publish papers in journals of New Energy, Theoretics or Psychical Research suggest a serious intent to investigate unconventional areas of science, but as the field stands, nothing derived from any such research has achieved mainstream respectability.

    Joe is perfectly correct that “Scientific kookiness sometimes eventually becomes mainstream” but in this case – Biological Nuclear Reactions, Spontaneous Human Combustion, Shrunken Heads and the Resurrection – it has a very long way to go.

    I still don’t believe a word of it.

  5. daveb of wellington nz
    January 20, 2015 at 5:05 am

    I’d be sceptical of Skurka’s claims, I smell overuse of technical jargon intended to mystify, as David G says, Image formation as explained by Marvel Comics.

    However …. : Current NZ Listener has review of work “Life on the Edge” by Johnjoe McFadden & Jim Al_Khalili, both highly reputable scientists, McFadden is Professor of Genetics at University of Surrey and appears regularly on British Television as science commentator (see wiki for bio on McFadden).

    Weird Quantum things are being discovered as important in molecular biology: “shocking and unexpected that delicate and quantum behaviour persists inside the warm, wet and complex world of living organisms”; “electrons exhibit wave-like diffraction behaviour inside photosynthetic cells, signature diffraction patterns observed”; “entanglement of electron pairs sensitive to earth’s weak magnetic field, such that orientation of robin within this field influences its flight behaviour”; “quantum activity is normally decohered when subatomic particle surrounded by several other atoms, therefore surprising to see quantum behaviour within living cells “; “mitochondria respiration involves transport of electrons along enzyme chains, had thought that electrons hopped from one enzyme to next, but now know that electrons quantum-tunnel dematerialising from one point in space and instantly materialising in another”; “strangest aspect of quantum biology is means by which living cells manage to maintain delicate quantum states for long enough to have biological effects”.

    Obviously there’s a lot more in the box yet to be discovered. Don’t ask me to explain it, I’m only the messenger here!

    • John Green
      January 20, 2015 at 8:14 am

      Thank you for posting that. I found the book, “Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology” on Amazon and I am ordering it.

      I’m sceptical of Skurka’s claims also. Well to be honest I just don’t believe them.

  6. January 20, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Here’s a link to the BBC from two years ago (Jan 2013) showing that quantum mechanics has important applications in modern biology.

    Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

    By Jason Palmer and Alex Mansfield BBC News and BBC Radio Science Unit

    The following passage focuses on photosynthesis, where the strongest case can be made, but the article later mentions Dave’s robins too.

    “There are definitely three areas that have turned out to be manifestly quantum,” Dr Turin told the BBC. “These three things… have dispelled the idea that quantum mechanics had nothing to say about biology.”
    Deep within plants’ energy-harvesting machinery lie distinctly quantum tricks
    The most established of the three is photosynthesis – the staggeringly efficient process by which plants and some bacteria build the molecules they need, using energy from sunlight. It seems to use what is called “superposition” – being seemingly in more than one place at one time.
    Watch the process closely enough and it appears there are little packets of energy simultaneously “trying” all of the possible paths to get where they need to go, and then settling on the most efficient.
    “Biology seems to have been able to use these subtle effects in a warm, wet environment and still maintain the [superposition]. How it does that we don’t understand,” Richard Cogdell of the University of Glasgow told the BBC.

    However, before rushing to invoke quantum weirdness to explain anything and everything (junking established scientific laws re the natural world) it’s as well to remember that quantum effects only make themselves apparent on the sub-macroscopic level of existence. Individual living cells are microscopic, but still macroscopic where quantum physics are concerned. The same applies to the subcellular organelles like chloroplasts and mitochondria which have electron transport chains for ATP synthesis that operate “better” than might be expected. But once you take on board the amazing degree of organization of proteins and electron carriers at the molecular level of membrane phospholipid bilayers and their embedded proteins, then you have in all probability a smooth seamless continuum that leads from the macroscopic world of conventional physics to the microscopic, indeed sub-atomic world of conventional physics. That’s where our mental concepts of space and time begin to break down, or at any rate become hopelessly compromised.

    Personally speaking,I think there’s a lot of conventional science still waiting and needing to be applied to the Shroud image, and meanwhile too much mantra-intoning based on mere impressions. I mentioned a prime example here the other day – the idea that the TS image and associated chemical changes are confined to a superficial layer on linen fibres, 200-600nm thick. Where’s the evidence (hard analytical and quantitative evidence that is)? There’s none, absolutely none that I can see.

    • Dan
      January 20, 2015 at 8:06 am

      Thanks. Enjoyed this article.

  7. piero
    January 20, 2015 at 9:19 am

    Sorry, I tried (using “Google translation”) to translate a message that I wrote yesterday…
    — — — — —
    Here’s what I could define as:
    “The theological proof of a simple error in prediction about the Shroud of Turin” …

    What can you tell us the Science of God, theology?
    We know that with the Incarnation the Son of God became man, with Death and subsequent Resurrection Life of the Son of God
    passed by the Incarnation on this Earth to the Mystery of Life Eternal.
    I do not think you can get to say that the Resurrection is arising from a disembodiment of God (perhaps the only infinitesimal moment of the passing of His Body from this World [perishable] to Eternal Life can be seen as a disembodiment, that what may seem the “true Death of God” … a real “disappearance infinitesimal” …). Also I think that a “disembodiment of God” is a strange theological concept and I do not think anyone has ever deepened. Anyway I’ll try to read up about another time …
    — — —
    Now I can not immediately put to argue that, in this step, can not be originated trace extremely significant (ie: the effects of nuclear radiation … and many other gadgets you want to bring up …), but my mind can understand very well that if there is a test observable (ascertainable by anyone with the will to investigate, of course …) of something that is not belonging to the ordinary “natural course of events”, then varies the normal condition of man’s freedom before the Mystery of God …
    In short, free will it can be “crippled” in the sense that in front of “incontrovertible material evidence” of the Resurrection of Jesus (… And this, in a nutshell, what this means? The likely elimination of a Mystery of Faith! That is a fact not permitted by the normal Christian doctrine …) we would not be free (in our belief) but conditioned by a test material … and therefore the merit of our faith would be much diminished, or perhaps (even) voided (… and, among other things, about what I keep doubts) …
    So that account (consequential) can be drawn?
    I take it you do not find what they say Antonacci and Linder (= evidence of nuclear radiation, isotopic significant changes, etc.) …and others (Siefker) …

    “Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?” = 1 Corinthians 15:12

    You may get to deduct that existed the Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ (from the testimony of the disciples, the Eucharistic miracles, etc., Etc.), but give the proof of this on the basis of material effects even currently observable (= altered by nuclear radiation, etc.).
    I think both act contrary to common sense …
    The Resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ was and is only made in the hearts of the disciples, in the conversion … What Hope to save us we could have if we did not have more merits resulting from the Faith?

    In conclusion:
    Science can not explain a mystery of faith.
    Science is the result of a human construction (and it is coming from the origins sometimes obscure or even mysterious connections = see f.e. the life of Newton […and what seems to us to be able to classify as his biblical and alchemical rantings. B.T.W. : Isaac Newton wrote fellow alchemist Robert Boyle a letter urging him to keep “high silence” in publicly discussing the principles of alchemy…]) during centuries … and sometimes fallible … really it is not infallible …
    If science comes to really explain a mystery of Faith, then it seems to me possible to infer that the Mystery, in a certain sense, is no longer a mystery, it has become something demonstrated that one can not subtract, and, consequentially, the degree of freedom of man facing a Mystery revealed it is involved …
    — * — * —
    I’d be really curious (and at the same time, almost very intimidated …) if the predictions of Lindner (= radiocarbon dates move into the future!) come true (established after the appropriate controls) …
    In fact: what sense could have that “radiocarbon date in the future,” seen as “proof of the Resurrection”?
    In that case we would have still kept our freedom?
    No doubt it would be a major stumbling block … and perhaps the only logical explanation that would be immediately indicated would be the objection that these radiocarbon results in the future would result from netron irradiation of the Cloth, presumably in modern times …
    Strange stories …
    Perhaps it is better to work in our field more restricted. So the strange matter about emanations of neutrons arising from piezonuclear reaction would not be even a story to be discarded altogether. But apparently this is weak thinking.
    In any case turns up the question: … at what epoch would receive the Cloth a neutron irradiation?

    Obviously, you can not go beyond these speculations without running the risk of entering into delusions … or make rapturous applause without rationality…

    • piero
      January 20, 2015 at 12:45 pm

      I apologize for the bad translation of what I wrote yesterday (in Italian language),
      the result (despite the attempt done with a correction of text) was not much precise …
      See also other mistakes : netron instead of neutron, etc. …
      and … Linder instead of Dr. Arthur Lind.
      Because (perhaps) “Linder” was a sort of mix of Lind and Lindner…

      In the past Eberhard Lindner presented his hypothesis
      (before the works by Antonacci and Lind):
      the high C14 content found by the laboratories is explainable
      if the Shroud was irradiated with neutrons 2000 years ago.
      [link: https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi3233part4.pdf … B.T.W.: during the same meeting (held in Paris) an old student of the Shroud (since 1942), Dr. Sebastiano Rodante indicated that the Image was formed by natural means: bloody sweat, aloes and myrrh … and several repeated experiments (sometimes on a corpse) in the catacombs of Siracusa have given imprints that are superficial, 3-dimensional and without deformation… ]

      If neutrons radiated the shroud, the effects can be detectable.
      Why many people believe that neutrons were emanated during
      the Resurrection? We have to see a clear proof instead of fairy tales.

      How the radiocarbon date would be altered and changed to a younger date ?
      Barbesino, Moroni and Bettinelli have shown us something (in the past).
      Where are (truly) new proofs?

      Reactions with Nitrogen (“indigenous to the flax”…) into the flax???
      See under:

      Mark Antonacci is an attorney, instead Dr. Arthur Lind is a senior scientist and
      a past manager and research director.
      But …
      Where is their true expertise in the field of textile studies?
      Lind has spoken in this manner:
      “I like solving problems, so this is a problem that I’m trying to solve.”
      But, until now, they have not at hand the required proofs.
      And then, see also the past strange stories about the Sudarium of Oviedo and
      the lack of new analyses…

      I would prefer to focus on the old problem of dating, but see my
      old proposal (= a failed attempt sent to Dallas Conference, 2005)
      attempting to use the sensors SSNTD (= Solid state nuclear track detectors)
      in appropriate experiments (in any case treated linen samples
      have to be observed under adequate AFM controls) …
      Now I have just found a curious information:
      A novel nanometric DNA thin film as a sensor for alpha radiation,
      a paper by
      Atul Kulkarni,
      Byeonghoon Kim,
      Sreekantha Reddy Dugasani,
      Pranav Joshirao,
      Jang Ah Kim,
      Chirag Vyas,
      Vijay Manchanda,
      Taesung Kim
      & Sung Ha Park

      >The unexpected nuclear accidents have provided a challenge for scientists and engineers to develop sensitive detectors, especially for alpha radiation. Due to the high linear energy transfer value, sensors designed to detect such radiation require placement in close proximity to the radiation source. Here we report the morphological changes and optical responses of artificially designed DNA thin films in response to exposure to alpha radiation as observed by an atomic force microscope, a Raman and a reflectance spectroscopes. In addition, we discuss the feasibility of a DNA thin film as a radiation sensing material. The effect of alpha radiation exposure on the DNA thin film was evaluated as a function of distance from an 241Am source and exposure time. Significant reflected intensity changes of the exposed DNA thin film suggest that a thin film made of biomolecules can be one of promising candidates for the development of online radiation sensors.
      — —
      The unexpected nuclear accidents = See also: The Fukushima nuclear accident on March 2011, etc. …
      The radiation effect on thin films was also studied using Raman
      spectroscopic analysis to determine the influence of exposure time
      and the distance of the film from the radiation source.
      Then, please, observe the comparative Raman spectra
      without and with radiation exposure…

      The radiation source (in that work) 241Am, emits alpha particles.
      And alpha particles, consisting of helium nuclei, are emitted
      by various isotopes of actinides including Th, U, Np, Pu, Am and Cm. …

      So it remains to see the composition of the stones of the walls
      where the Holy Shroud was guarded.
      For example: I would start examining some site of Turin ….
      What do you think of this “obvious idea”?


  8. January 20, 2015 at 10:08 am

    aljones 909 wrote: “Benford is a total kook…..” I had the privilege of meeting Sue Benford and getting to know her a bit. It angers me that there are those out there who would use such a disrespectful term (total kook) to describe one with whom they might disagree. Whatever you may think of her Shroud-related work, she WAS NOT a “total kook”. Joe Marino (her husband), is too much of a gentleman to tell you what he might feel regarding such a disparaging description and characterization of his wife. Sue, who was a lady cannot, because she is not here to defend herself. Therefore I will. You owe the man an apology!

    • January 20, 2015 at 11:52 am

      He won’t apologize. The internet makes bullies of us all.

      • January 22, 2015 at 2:48 pm

        Happy to say he proved me wrong.

    • aljones909
      January 20, 2015 at 5:07 pm

      I’m happy to apologise for any hurt that may have been caused. I did not realise the lady was deceased and her partner was an active contributor.
      What can not be beyond criticism is pseudo-science.
      This stuff is certainly “kooky”:
      pyramid energies
      alternative healing energies
      crop circles
      spontaneous human combustion

      • jmarino240
        January 20, 2015 at 6:58 pm

        Apology accepted. In discussions like these, I like to bring up the quote by the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860): “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” Pseudo-science is a matter of perspective. Some Shroud skeptics label the STURP scientists, many of whom worked in the U.S.’ space and nuclear programs, as pseudo-scientists ostensibly because they wouldn’t declare the Shroud to be a fake and/or entertained the idea that it might have wrapped the historical Jesus. Here are a few more of my favorite quotes regarding thought and reality in science: “Old ideas are not right simply because they are old and new ideas are not wrong simply because the are new.” -Astrophysicist Tommy Gold “My own suspicion is that the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.” -J.B.S. Haldane. “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.” C.G. Jung “Nature never deceives us; It is always us who deceive ourselves. -Jean Jacque Rousseau “All progress resulted from people who took unpopular positions.” -Adlai Stevenson “All great truths begin as blasphemies.” -George Bernard Shaw “…after a few more flashes in the pan, we shall hear very little more of Edison or his electric lamp. Every claim he makes has been tested and proved impracticable. -New York Times, January 16, 1880 “X-rays will prove to be a hoax” -Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), English physicist and mathematician, who performed mathematical analysis of electricity and magnetism and invented the absolute-temperature scale. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” -Lord Kelvin, President, Royal Society, 1895 “Anyone who looks for a source of power in the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine.” -Lord Rutherford (1871-1937), physicist who developed the theory of atomic structure “There is no likelihood that man can ever tap the power of the atom” -Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize physicist, 1923 “It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware.” -Albert Einstein When asked in a Discover Channel documentary about the possibility of the validity of the phenomenon called “remote viewing,” a scientist responded, “I wouldn’t believe it even if it was true.” (Now there’s an open-minded scientist!)

  9. piero
    January 22, 2015 at 12:08 pm

    Here I want to consider another time the following questionable statement
    (taken from the words by Siefker) :
    >The body image would lose its optical properties, a result of alignment being lost
    over time possibly just by moving the cloth through earth’s magnetic field
    such as when the cloth is being transported.
    (“The Enigma of the Apparent Age of the Shroud of Turin … etc. …”, slide 67 of 112)

    because, in my opinion, this is a too vague hypothesis …
    Where is the true proof on linen fibrils ?
    Where are inherent experiments or useful references ?

    Yesterday I didn’t consider the questions:
    What were the exact conditions during the transport of the relic to/from Montevergine (Avellino)?
    Who was the responsible about the (possible) photographic controls?

    But I believe that I answered to the following question:
    Where are the exact comparisons on inherent images?

    because I indicated as irrelevant the possible comparison
    and this was due to the inherent (probable) small magnitude
    for the presumed effects…
    — — —
    Here the last phrase (of the same slide):
    >Also, until confirmed the body image should be protected from any extraneous
    magnetic fields such as magnets and electrical transformers.

    So …
    Which kind of magnetic fields were present during controls of 1978
    (and subsequent “manipulations”)?

    Another strange thing = slide 65 of 112 :
    “The Resurrection Event” = “The electric current is running along
    the threads of the linen cloth and normal to the surface
    as is the magnetic field …”
    In normal conditions electric current doesn’t run along
    threads of linen because linen is an insulating material.
    So, Siefker had not specified in a clear manner what
    were these particular conditions.
    In short, there is not this useful explanation…
    Here the last curious thing.
    Observing the document that appears on the slide 83 of 112
    we can read:
    Measured C14 age = 106.8 (and then this is not 2400 !)
    Then : near 100 years old = “modern”… as you can easily read in that paper.
    Perhaps that result was a “good approximation” for radiocarbon dating a modern book…
    On the other side (see at right side of this slide) there was only a simple explanation about the Dendro-Calibration
    ( = Calibration of Radiocarbon Age to Calendar Years…) with an example…
    Am I wrong in my conclusion?
    I hope in your attention…

    • piero
      January 22, 2015 at 12:20 pm

      The ultimate horrible dream that I made last night was that of two dogs … one of them had broken the head of the other poor dog, with bites… and then, after that scene, the living dog complained in a heartbreaking way… I beg your pardon… Sorry!

  10. January 22, 2015 at 2:32 pm

    Piero, you appear to be absolutely correct. I cannot be sure what the “measured age” of 106.8+/- 0.6% refers to, but the comment “reported result indicates an age of post 0 BP” means that the book was found to have been made after 1950, which is, by convention 0 BP.
    The page on the left of slide 83 of Sturka’s presentation is a general Explanation Sheet, which shows how a normal test is calibrated. it takes, for example, a date of 2400 +/- 60 BP, and shows how it correlates, on the chart below, to a calendar date of 530 BC to 390 BC. Presumably the same sheet accompanied every report the Dating Company made. In a feat of quite staggering incompetence, Jeffrey Skurka has

    1) assumed that the illustration on the Explanation Sheet actually refers to the radiocarbon test report itself,

    2) assumed that a calculated radiocarbon date of 2400 BP in fact means a calendar date of 2400 AD.

    At the 2014 conference where he presented this, there were a number of very distinguished, and very experienced physicists, who might have been looking out for evidence of a 2400 AD radiocarbon dating result having read about it in the abstract beforehand.

    Please, somebody who was there, tell me you noticed!

  11. Hugh Farey
    January 22, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    And it is, of course, the page on the right, not the left. The left hand page is the report on the book cover, the right hand page is the general Explanation Sheet.

  12. piero
    January 23, 2015 at 8:59 am

    But now we have to work a lot for the other open questions…
    — —
    Perhaps my words about “The ultimate horrible dream” were a strange reaction, but really I really had this nightmare, after all (ultimately) our brain is working 24 h / 24 hours …
    Now (perhaps) it is an exaggeration to say that we have foiled the beginning of an attempt to validate the SHC myth / enigma discovering that banal error…
    Here I want to respect the memory of Sue Benford and I am friend of Joe Marino.
    I don’t want to discourage the experiments of who believe in SHC, but (now) I am more inclined to believe what underlined Hugh (at the beginning of this discussion) about a certain strange world…

    Now I pose my question:
    Is it possible that none of the researchers present at the meeting (= during Saint Louis Conference 2014) detected that simple mistake?

    That story seems to be too strange.
    But, always, it can happen a simple fall of attention…

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