What was surprising and will ultimately be useful to many people is the experimental work done by Arthur C. Lind and Mark Antonacci explained in their St. Louis paper, Hypothesis that Explains the Shroud’s Unique Blood Marks and Several Critical Events in the Gospels.
Our experimental approach was not to duplicate a miracle, but to show that natural methods by an artist or by natural contact of a linen shroud with a bloody body cannot duplicate what has been reported about the blood on the Shroud of Turin. To accomplish this it is necessary to better acquaint the reader with the properties of blood by using photographs because much that has been written about blood on the Shroud lacks the information that can only be fully understood by actual visual observations. Barbet very succinctly described the coagulation process as “Coagulation takes place in a very short time, never longer than a few minutes. Secondly, the clot grows smaller, exudes its liquid content, the serum. It then gradually dries.” This clotting process is described below using both words and photographs.
It is, in essence, two papers in one. The first paper of the paper explains and defends Antonacci’s Historically Consistent Method and the second part is all about blood experiments. This is how the conclusion to part two begins.
A variety of methods were used in an attempt to create blood stains on linen like those found on the Shroud of Turin. Some of the blood stains created in this research matched some of the reported features of blood stains on the Shroud. Other the blood stains created in this research matched different reported features. No one blood stain created in this research matched all the reported features. Reports frequently address the stains in a general manner without describing the exact location of the blood. Some blood stains on the Shroud were probably created from post mortem blood flow and others were not. Clearly any one blood stain created in this research would not be able to match all the blood stains reported on the Shroud. Also, the reported features do not describe both the forward and reverse details of any one blood stain on the Shroud to allow it to be compared with the many stains created in this research. Only Reference 2 has pictures of both sides of the Shroud (Figure 1 above), but they are not detailed enough for this research.
Experiments conducted in this research revealed that accepted explanations previously reported for certain properties of blood on the Shroud are incorrect.
As part of a Secrets of the Bible series, the American Heroes Channel will be featuring “The Turin Shroud” at 10:00pm, Eastern and Pacific times in the U.S.
When you talk to shroudies you discover this topic is never really off topic.
— Happy New Year —
BTW: The last link in this posting is all you need.
It’s that time of year, isn’t it? It’s that time of year for discussions in the press about the existence of God. It’s not that this is a particularly appropriate time to have these discussions, but this seems to be one of the times of year when it happens more often.
Last week, Eric Metaxas wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God; The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?
Steven T. Corneliussen responded strongly in Physics Today. The links in the next paragraph are to where the arguments most recently re-begin. The link in the previous paragraph to the Wall Street Journal points behind a pay wall (thankfully?)
In this venue, a recent media report about the op-ed "The perils of romanticizing physics" began, "The Wall Street Journal‘s opinion editors have a complicated relationship with physics and physicists." The latest such complication: a WSJ op-ed claiming to invoke new astrophysical understanding to justify recycling old intelligent-design arguments.
[ . . . ]
Metaxas joins intelligent-design advocates from the Discovery Institute in promoting quotations from astronomer Fred Hoyle ("a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics") and theoretical physicist Paul Davies ("the appearance of design is overwhelming").
Notice, that Corneliussen really says nothing useful. He simply uses warmed over responses to Metaxas’ warmed over arguments.
Fortunately, Rabbi Geoffrey A. Mitelman, a founding director of Sinai and Synapses has penned a useful reply in the Huffington Post: Sorry, Science Doesn’t Make a Case for God. But That’s OK. (This is the only link you need).
Ed Breen, co-host of “Good Morning Grant County” on the radio, who has been reporting on life in Indiana for 48 years writes in The News Herald:
In your youth, particularly at this time of year, when friends and relatives would gather for dinner at the homestead, you were probably cautioned to discuss neither politics nor religion at the dinner table. Bring up either and you are courting dispute and discontent.
To that list you might now add the Shroud of Turin, a piece of linen cloth three and a half feet wide and a little over 14 feet long. To those of a particular Christian faith, this aged fabric is the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion and from which he emerged at the moment of the resurrection on the third day.
To those of a more skeptical faith, it is an object worthy of pious veneration. Genuine, perhaps, but perhaps not. To those whose skepticism flows to cynicism and those not of the Christian faith, it may well be interpreted as a great and ancient medieval fraud, a hoax of elaborate and artistic proportions.
This simple fact is indisputable: This piece of cloth and its embedded image of a man, whose record can be traced quite clearly to the year 1390 and perhaps earlier, this shroud has been preserved, studied, examined, revered, embraced, denied and enshrined more than any swatch of fabric in human history.
Now a vast archive of science, literature, history, art and documentation dealing with the Shroud of Turin—so named because it has been preserved in the northern Italian city of Turin (or “Torino,” in Italian) for 700 years—has found a permanent home just up the road in Wabash, in a beautiful, 8,000-square-foot, Tudor-style building built by Wabash native and industrialist Mark Honeywell in the 1920s. This library of materials is on the grounds of what was the Honeywell estate, later the Wabash Country Club, north of Wabash on State Road 15.
It is in the custody—indeed, it is the life blood—of a transplanted Boston Italian, a man not only of faith but also of determination. His name is Richard Orareo. . . .
- Keep reading article.
- Visit the museum’s website.