Cherry Jam, the Metaphor

That Dan Porter should allow a serial commentator on his site, one with no blogsite of his own, and unable for one reason or another  to provide links to a published model – any model – to make baseless charges time and again against a  senior investigator like myself, albeit long retired,   is quite simply unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

— Colin Berry


Can anyone explain this from Colin’s blogsite?  I think it was posted today but it is hard to figure that out:

… here’s a graphic I made yesterday for which there’s an immediate use on shroudstory (by way of emphasizing the difference between the scientific method, and the pseudo-scientific method that attempts to ape it.

clip_image001

Beware pseudo-science. It’s worse, much worse, than cherry-picking to support a case. It’s more akin to cherry jam manufacture!

And one cherry jam manufacturer has the nerve to accuse this retired scientist (with three published models under his belt, one highly cited and attracting patent applications) of plagiarizing his idea! Why? Because he used words like “alkali”, “fumigation”, “mordant”, “compression”, “paste” etc. As I say, I shall give a brief summary as to how I came to deploy those words in the course of my post Machy-mould modelling, and did so as a series of practical experiments, all reported in real time here or on my sciencebuzz site. That Dan Porter should allow a serial commentator on his site, one with no blogsite of his own, and unable for one reason or another  to provide links to a published model – any model – to make baseless charges time and again against a  senior investigator like myself, albeit long retired,   is quite simply unacceptable, totally unacceptable.

Is the Shroud the Inspiration for the Holy Grail Legends?

Today, Stephen Jones is back to working on his dictionary of the shroud. He posts. He is working on G:

Grail, Holy. The "Holy Grail" is a dish, plate, stone, or cup and is part of the Arthurian (King Arthur and the knights of the round table) legendary literature. But historian Daniel Scavone, professor Emeritus of history at the University of Southern Indiana, has shown that the Shroud of Turin is the real object that inspired the Holy Grail legend….

It is an interesting idea.  I’ve heard Dan talk about the idea a couple of times. A more recent paper on the subject, Edessan sources for the legend of the Holy Grail is from the Frascati conference in 2010. And here is an interview that Russ Breault conducted with Dan Scavone back in 1999.

FYI: Tasteless Art

imageThis is from an authentic press release:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla., July 29, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — A "nude shroud of Tom Cruise" will be unveiled as a tribute to the actor’s 25thanniversary with the Church of Scientology. The silver anniversary celebration reaffirming his commitment will take place at a "Pop-up Church of Scientology" near its Clearwater headquarters as part of a larger exhibit of the actor. Commissioned curator and artist Daniel Edwards assisted Cory Allen Contemporary Art with exhibition arrangements scheduled for August.

Like the famed Shroud of Turin, the "Shroud of Scientology" is rectangular, measuring approximately 14×3 feet. It features a silverish image of a naked Tom Cruise, front and back view …  The two views are aligned along the mid-plane of the body with both views of the head nearly meeting at the middle of the cloth ….

[…]

"Radiocarbon dating will never rule out the Shroud of Scientology’s authenticity. It exists as a document of Tom Cruise’s faith in Scientology – a photo negative of the radiance of his soul. It gives evidence for future generations that Tom Cruise not only belonged to Scientology, but saved it from obscurity," said Edwards.

[…]

"Pop-up Church of Scientology" featuring the "Shroud of Scientology" will open to the public at Cory Allen Contemporary Art’s The Showroom, in the Warehouse Arts District, St. Petersburg, Florida, on August 8, 2015. A media conference is scheduled prior to the exhibit on August 6, from 12-4 p.m. For information, contact Cory Allen: 323-393-3115 or http://www.cacanet.com/.

If you want to get a peek, visit the website for Cory Allen Contemporary Art and watch the homepage slideshow for a minute or so.

Russ Breault Interviewed for Deception Detection Radio

Russ Breault on his Shroud Encounter Facebook page tells us:

image

A New Astonishing Phenomenon?

imageOne click away from the home page of the INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDIES OF SPACE REPRESENTATION SCIENCES: Projective geometry, Descriptive geometry, Survey, Photogrammetry we find:

SHROUD: A NEW ASTONISHING PHENOMENON DISCOVERED IN THIS FIND

Photogrammetric restitution on the Shroud of Turin has revealed a previously unknown phenomenon that opens up new horizons for science.
The strength of this discovery is stressed by the fact that the geometrical data used for restitution can be verified with tools that are accessible to everyone.

Photogrammetric restitution on the Shroud of Turin has revealed a previously unknown phenomenon that opens up new horizons for science.
The strength of this discovery is stressed by the fact that the geometrical data used for restitution can be verified with tools that are accessible to everyone.

and a 53 minute YouTube:

Barrie Schwortz on Catholic Radio Indy

We learn from Barrie Schwortz on the STERA Facebook page that (click on the image)…

image

And While We Are Talking About Australians

he actually looks so much like that of the Holy Image on the Shroud," the alleged letter
from the retired pontiff reads

A posting from September 2014: Tinfoil Hat Version of Face Matching


clip_image001[4]The Christian Post is even reporting this, so yes, they will print preposterous stories. But the only part of the headline that is new is the second part. I guess Golightly found a convert from California. It reads:

Australian Preacher Claims He’s Jesus Christ, Calls Pope Francis the ‘Anti-Christ’: American Man Abandons Family, Sells Home to Live Down Under With Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall Who Says He Is Second Coming of Christ

The shroud is the proof. The story goes on:

A 71-year-old Australian preacher has recently been making news with claims that he is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ, by comparing his image to the face imprinted in the famous Shroud of Turin. The preacher reportedly convinced an American man to sell his home, abandon his family, and go follow him.

The preacher has also claimed that Pope Benedict XVI backed his case in a letter, but retired before making an official proclamation.

Daily Mail Australia reported on Monday that the preacher, Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall, who lives in Toogoom, Queensland, has for years been making the claim that he is Jesus, and has even shared the supposed letter where Pope Benedict admits of the resemblance between his face and the Shroud of Turin imprint.

"You see, many days ago Mr. Brian Marshall sent me photographs of Him and the Most Holy Shroud of Turin — he actually looks so much like that of the Holy Image on the Shroud," the alleged letter from the retired pontiff reads.

"There is no other explanation. He is simply the Lord Jesus Christ Almighty! I was so penetrated with love and compassion from God that I requested the photo I saw to be put in a place of honor somewhere. He is the Most Royal Man Alive, The King of Kings. … The Messiah, Almighty and Everlasting," it continues.

There is no record of Pope Benedict or the Vatican ever mentioning Marshall in public speeches, however, and there is no way for the alleged letter to be verified.

The preacher has claimed that Benedict planned to make the affirmation in March 2013, but was foiled by Pope Francis, who Marshall called the "anti-Christ."

The Daily Mail also shared the story of a man, who wasn’t named, who said that his American father-in-law left behind his wife, children and grandchildren, to go to Australia and live with Marshall as a follower.

"He believes this guy, Brian Leonard Golightly Marshall, is Jesus Christ. He told his wife that he’s going to go to Australia to be with him. Leaving her and his kids and grand-kids to go be with this guy," said the man, who lives in California.

I mean, really, if you are down under and upside down all day, it is understandable.

The Hacking of the Carbon Dating Over and Over and Over

clip_image001It is hard to figure out if Stephen Jones is starting over or finishing up with his latest The 1260-1390 radiocarbon date of the Turin Shroud was the result of a computer hacking #1:

Introduction. This is the seventh and final installment of part #1 of my concluding summary of the evidence that the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as "mediaeval … AD 1260-1390"[2] was the result of a computer hacking, allegedly by Arizona radiocarbon dating laboratory physicist Timothy W. Linick (1946-89)[3], aided byKarl Koch (1965–89)[4], on behalf of the former Soviet Union, through its agency the KGB. I will list the main headings as bullet-points, linking them back to my previous "My theory …" posts on those topics. In future I will link back to this post whenever I state that "the 1988 radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin as `mediaeval … AD 1260-1390′ was the result of a computer hacking."

He already has 52 postings on the subject. His is the second most read blog out there with 400,000-plus page views.  Is it only a matter of time before some journalists start characterizing shroud enthusiasts as believing the carbon dating was rigged to be medieval by a computer hacker on behalf of the KGB? Or is it so preposterous, so obviously a way-out conspiracy theory, that is gets ignored?

You are free to ignore this posting.

Comment Promoted: Colin Berry on Robert Bucklin

What you are going to want to do after you read this posting is …

  1. Click on Colin’s posting on his site: Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
  2. Then scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “Another hero-worshipped figure is “STURP member” Robert V. Bucklin.”

Colin’s posting on his blog is so long and cumbersome it is slowing down my browser and making my mouse jerky. So first, read the comment, below, the that Colin wrote in this blog and I mined from my own site. (BTW: When I gather information from Colin’s site he complains that I am mining his site for content. When I don’t, he mines it for us.) I had said it was a slow news day. He said:

Slow news day? Not on my site… Were you aware that STURP’s Robert Bucklin MD, consultant pathologist, was in fact doing his virtual biopsy a year before STURP’s trip to Turin (which Bucklin may or may not have joined, depending on whose account one believes), so was NOT done on the “Shroud” itself but on PHOTOGRAPHS. What’s more, the photographs used were long-in-the-tooth 1931 Enrie negatives, as this video still from David Rolfe’s “Silent Witness” shows, made in 1977 (released in 78) a year before STURP.



How many people reading Bucklin’s autopsy would realize it was NOT based on the “Shroud” itself, seen in natural colour with his own eyes, but a B/W negative on which he claims to see “wounds” etc and much else besides? One suspects that Bucklin’s “autopsy report for STURP was written well before the STURP descent on Turin, so could not have benefited from the new photography done by Barrie Schwortz, Mark Evans and other documenting photographers, far less the far superior imagery we now have from Durante (2002) on Shroud Scope.

Given the autopsy relied entirely on ancient photographs, why was ‘true-believer’ Bucklin(his own admission) selected as officlal STURP pathologist? Why weren’t the same photographs sent to other pathologists for their opinion? The more I learn about STURP and its largely self-selected personnel, the less I like.

Is Colin’s criticism justified? 

Posting For a Slow News Day

Psychosis set in when the radiocarbon dating results for the Shroud of Turin were
announced, or when the due date of the Mayan apocalypse came and went.

imageIt is about apophenia and pareidolia: the short essay, Beware of the Man in the Ashtray by Neels Blom appearing in Business Day (BDlive of South Africa). Well, no, not really. It is about politics. Well, no, not really. Well maybe if you lived in South Africa you might think so.

Oh, did I mention the Shroud of Turin is mentioned. But it is not about that.  Fly fishing? Pluto?

It is entertaining. And if is very well written. And it is not an essay. It’s and Op Ed. That’s enough.

By-the-way, we’ve discussed apophenia and pareidolia many times in the blog (those are links to pages in this blog). We discussed fishing once.  Well, no, not really.

And We Are All Mathematician Even if We Don’t Know It

imageJohn Klotz has a new posting on his Quantum Christ blog. The title sort of says it all but you need to read The God of Probability: The Shroud and Divine Providence to know why.

To the extent that I depend on intuition – and I do, probably more than I want to admit – I have a gut sense that the shroud is probably (probability-wise) authentic. So right after reading John’s posting I went awandering through the internet for something on intuition. (By-the-way, I intuitively know that awandering is a word even though Google doesn’t support the idea.  In retribution, I have created a new word: agoogling.)

I found this wonderful, a-thousandfold quotation by Einstein:

The rational mind is a faithful servant and the intuitive mind is a sacred gift. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.

Intuition kicked in; I just knew in my gut that Einstein never said that. You can spend a whole day lost in Wikiquotes but it just takes minutes to discover that Einstein never said any such thing. That is okay. I like the message. Henceforth you should attribute the quotation to me.

If you want to have some early morning fun before the coffee is ready go to the Wikiquotes entry for intuition. Two-step (or go awandering) on down to Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man. I like this:

Knowledge is necessary, too. An intuitive child couldn’t accomplish anything without some knowledge. There will come a point in everyone’s life, however, where only intuition can make the leap ahead, without ever knowing precisely how. One can never know why, but one must accept intuition as fact.

Here is what John Klotz said:

Intuition is a process which is pure thought and there is no need to access the conscious brain. Information is considered and utilized at blinding speed and appears to be instantaneous. Two recent works that discuss this phenomenon are Blink. The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell and Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious   by Gerd Gigerenzer

There is one item that all of us factor into our intuition: the law of probability. That doesn’t mean we are always right because our sense of the probabilities may be askew. Yet, it is possible to analyze the probabilities of a particular situation and arrive at a mathematical solution. Our subconscious does that intuitively.

You need to read The God of Probability: The Shroud and Divine Providence

John, I agree. Nice posting.

1999 Interview with Isabel Piczek

A few hours ago on Facebook, Russ Breault announced the availability of …

Another episode of The Shroud Report, here is renowned artist Isabel Piczek who discusses whether the Shroud could be the work of an artist. Filmed in 1999 but still very current.

The video runs just over 30 minutes. It is definitely worth watching.

Colin Berry on Rogers, Groupies, Me and Trolls

That experiment of Rogers was frankly fudged to give the desired result.  This researcher despises fudged demonstrations. What we see above is pseudo-science. This is the kind of “science” that assorted trolls and fanatics are so keen to promote on Porter’s site, and the site’s owner let’s them do it, year after year after year.

The idea that starch ‘falls apart’ with time to make what Rogers called “crude starch”, conveniently a source of reducing sugar for his Maillard reaction, is a complete fiction. Rogers may be some people’s chemical guru. He is not mine. His Shroud reseacrh(sic) is rifddled(sic) with serious errors and/or blind spots and a serious deficiency of strict scientific objectivity.

— Colin Berry


imageThose are pretty serious accusations Colin has made during the past three days in his blog. Can he possibly be right?

Colin gets upset if you don’t read his full postings as he writes  them on his own site. But he makes it hard by posting his thoughts in chunks that are halfway between a blog posting, diary entry and a scrambled egg. Here is a Texas Two-Step process for finding what he wants you to read:

  1. Click on his posting, Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
  2. Scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas.”  It’s about 80% of the way down an overly long page.

After reading for a minute or less you’ll get to this:

It’s an experiment that Dan Porter describes as a “success”. Did he bother consulting a chemist before making that judgement?

It was NOT a success at all, if intended to show that a Maillard reaction can occur between starch and ammonia at room temperature as a model for the Turin Shroud. Note first that it did not use starch, which we are told was an impurity coating on the linen. It used “dextrins” which are  highly degraded starch,  more sugar than starch. That substitution, easily overlooked because Rogers makes no attempt to justify it, gets around the small difficulty that Maillard reactions require reducing SUGARS. Starch is not a reducing sugar. Nor does it easily “fall apart” to make reducing sugar. Google “lintnerization”. It gets worse. Saponins have been added as well. Why? Because the linen is now said to be impregnated not only with starch (pity about the absence of analytical data) but with saponins too (they were used as a kind of soap see in the 1st century AD). Saponins (again, no analytical data) that just happen to have lots of pentose (5-carbon) sugars in their carbohydrate polymers. Pentose sugars are chemically more reactive than 6-carbon sugars like glucose or highly degraded starch. Pentose sugars react more readily than hexose sugars to give Maillard reaction products.  But it doesn’t end there. Note Rogers’ choice of “putrefaction amine”, the simplest amine of all – ammonia- a highly volatile gas, half as light as air. Note that his mixture of degraded starch and saponins was exposed to ammonia gas for 24 hours. We are supposed to be impressed that he demonstrated a Maillard reaction at room temperature. What’s easily overlooked is that excess ammonia raises pH, and that Maillard reactions that are normally sluggish at room temperature are greatly assisted by an alkaline pH. So on three counts – degraded strarch, saponins and alkaline pH – we see Rogers’ so-called Maillard reaction being assisted by dubious means, of no proven relevance to a 1st century tomb.  To cap it all, we are given no evidence that the yellow colour was in fact a Maillard product. It may have been, it may not – some supporting data was needed before ASSUMING it was a Maillard product and not (say) a product from exposing saponin or sugars to alkali and oxygen. Why were there no controls?

[…]

There is this on groupies

Note too by the way the absurdity of claiming that Rogers found starch on the STURP samples (he didn’t) while his model requires reducing sugars that would require highly degraded starch that would no longer give a positive test for starch (e.g. a blue-black colour with iodine).  Good, isn’t it?  Day after day we see one Rogers ‘groupie’ banging on endlessly that Rogers DID find starch (no he didn’t) and another Rogers’ groupie insistent that Rogers’ Maillard model is the correct one, despite unfavourable thermodynamics at low temperature/ordinary pH,  requiring reducing sugar, not starch.  Why does Dan Porter allow this self-contradictory, self-defeating nonsense to continue, month after month, year after year. Why does he allow his site to be ruled – and ruined – by this kind of fanaticism that is blind or indifferent to the facts?

[…]

On Rogers’ experiment:

That experiment of Rogers was frankly fudged to give the desired result.  This researcher despises fudged demonstrations. What we see above is pseudo-science. This is the kind of “science” that assorted trolls and fanatics are so keen to promote on Porter’s site, and the site’s owner let’s them do it, year after year after year.

And how was Rogers’ able to substitute dextrins, i.e. highly degraded starch, made commercially by heating starch with strong acid, or digesting with amylase enzymes, for intact starch? Simple. He refers to his dextrins as “crude starch”.That is taking one enormous liberty with words. When one extracts starch from a planr source, one may use the term “crude starch” to imply there are non-starch contaminants, e.g protein or cell wall material. To describe  the starch as crude to imply that it is partially degraded to low molecular weight dextrins, simple sugars  with reducing properties, as needed for Maillard reactions. etc  is quite simply appalling. If Rogers were here today, I would tell him to his face that he was at least deceiving himself if he imagined that linen initially impregnated with “crude starch” would supply the “reducing sugar” needed for his Maillard reaction, with or without prior ageing of the manufactured fabric. Starch does not, as I said earlier, easily fall apart. The glycosidic linkages in starch are strong and not easily broken.

[…]

On cowardly people with pseudonyms and trolls

Message to Dan Porter: this blogger is a retired professional biochemist. If anyone doubts my professionalism, then they must come to this site under their real name and be prepared to argue the science in detail. What I am not prepared to tolerate is having my science cut-and-paste to your site site for a cowardly individual, operating under a pseudonym, to attack my professionalism, usually with no attempt to address the detail. That is trolling. You have no business using my content, while allowing a troll to operate freely and unhindered on your site.  If you wish to use my material, then eject the troll from your site, or ban her from commenting on my material. If you wish to allow the troll to carry on as usual, attacking my professional credentials, then kindly stop using my material. In short, observe comm0nsense netiquette.

[…]

And on serious errors and/or blind spots:

The idea that starch ‘falls apart’ with time to make what Rogers called “crude starch”, conveniently a source of reducing sugar for his Maillard reaction, is a complete fiction. Rogers may be some people’s chemical guru. He is not mine. His Shroud reseacrh is rifddled with serious errors and/or blind spots and a serious deficiency of strict scientific objectivity.

[…]

 

Ouch!

Again, here is a Texas Two-Step process for finding what Colin wants you to read because you may want to read it:

  1. Click on his posting, Here’s an updated version of my ‘iconoplastic’ modelling of that Turin so-called “Shroud” (probably a misnomer).
  2. Scroll down until you see a paragraph that starts with, “This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas.”  It’s about 80% of the way down an overly long page.

Manipulated Miracles

imageIn trying to explain how the image could have been a hologram created as a byproduct of the Resurrection, Dave Hines explained:

… during the process of making a hologram there can be no sound vibration. Object must be 100% static. Cloth must also be 100% static. Interference pattern is easily disrupted resulting in no image at all.

Those are things I cannot explain other than to say the person/intelligent force in charge image making process has the ability to place a electromagnetic field around a cloth and body and hold it in place and or create a zero gravity environment during image process. and make sure there are no sound interruptions during the image process.

A tall order, only a “Higher Power Intelligence/God would be capable of filling.

Or – drum roll – God said, let there be an image on the cloth. And there was.

You don’t like that? Too much of a directed miracle? Too far from God-acts-through-nature? Well then you can consider Rucker’s radiation, Jackson’s dematerialization, Tipler’s sphaleron quantum tunneling, Fanti’s corona discharge, Di Lazzaro’s ultraviolet, Rogers’ Maillard reactions (quite natural if it could work but requiring every bit as much of a miraculous manipulation as Hine’s hologram), Freeman’s painting (if STURP and Berry are wrong) and Berry’s fraud-by-Maillard if Berry is right. 

I was reminded of a posting from two years ago on inexplicable explanation and particularly about an exchange between Matthias and Hugh Farey. CLICK HERE (or on the snapshot below to read it).

In the snapshot, I agreed with BT. Still do. I don’t buy into any explanation so far offered and I don’t consider the fact that we can’t explain the image as significant.

image

So Long As There Are Questions

imageYesterday from Fr. Paul’s Blog, The Shroud of Turin and Why Physicality Matters:

Recently a member of our congregation went to visit the Shroud of Turin at its ‘ten year showing’. Everyone knows now that it is a production of mediaeval times, but still, lots of people have gone to see it. There are of course many views about the shroud. Those who want to support its religious significance will talk about the questions that are still unanswered, like ‘How was it done?’ and ‘How old is it really? Can we trust the carbon dating?’ So long as there are questions to be raised, the mystery of the shroud can be kept alive. Then of course others of a more pragmatic mindset say ‘Well, it’s just a piece of cloth, so what? Even if it is Jesus’ shroud. So what?’

Pope Francis says that the image on the shroud ‘speaks to the heart’. And of course this is one legitimate way to approach the image. It is like the Grünewald Isenheim Altarpiece, where a very disfigured Jesus on the Cross reflects the suffering of those looking at the image.’ It says to them ‘God shares in what is most shameful and painful for you, and can transform it.’  Both images say something to our condition.

[…]

The age of the shroud of Turin and the image on it does not prove the resurrection, neither does an empty tomb. What proves the resurrection is the continual physical presence of Christ in the Church. This happens, as St. Paul tells us ‘according to the Spirit’, but it happens in our bodies. It happens as the sovereignly free God promises to localise himself ‘for-us’ and to be present ‘for-us’ that we might have union with God. That’s why I can rejoice in icons, rejoice in the shroud rejoice in relics and rejoice in the sacraments. Let Charles Wesley have the last word.

Unsearchable the love
That hath the Saviour brought;
The grace is far above
Or man or angels thought;
Suffice for us that God, we know,
Our God, is manifest below.

Barrie Schwortz to Speak at 49th Annual Jalsa Salana UK Convention in Hampshire, England

imageYou may recall that in May, on the 28th, I posted Did Jesus Survive the Crucifixion?  The posting was mostly about an article that appeared in May issue of The Review of Religions by Arif Khan, The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin. The Review of Religions is a significant international magazine published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim community.

As it turns out, I didn’t do the issue justice. What alerted me to that fact is a Facebook entry, last night, by Barrie Schwortz:

In their May 2015 issue (http://reviewofreligions.org/date/2015/05/), the London based publication, The Review of Religions, reprinted several of my Shroud articles and published a new article about the Sudarium by staff writer Arif Khan. The 113 year old magazine is published by the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community in the U.K. and their May issue also included a large selection of my 1978 photographs. The issue was received very favorably and the publishers have graciously invited me to attend and speak at their 49th annual Jalsa Salana UK Convention in Hampshire, England this August. I immediately contacted Pam Moon in West Midlands, England, who created the beautiful Shroud of Turin Exhibition (http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_…/Home.html) which she tours around the U.K. and she has happily agreed to bring her exhibit to the Hampshire event as well.

This marks the first time either Pam or I have ever spoken to an Islamic group and we are very grateful to Review Editor Amer Safir, his staff and the Ahmadiyya community for this wonderful invitation. I will provide more details in our Summer Website Update in August. Last year’s Jalsa event had more than 30,000 attendees. Here is a link to some excellent BBC coverage of their 2013 event: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23903377

Here is a partial table of contents of the May issue:



The Sudarium of Oviedo and the Shroud of Turin
There exists another cloth, closely related to the Shroud of Turin, that is far less famous but has an equally controversial claim–the Sudarium of Oviedo. (Arif Khan – UK)


A Brief Review of the Recent CNN Documentary & Further Comments on the Medieval Photograph Theory
Renowned Shroud expert Barrie Schwortz gives his opinion on CNN’s recent documentary on the Shroud of Turin. (Barrie Schwortz – USA)


The Oviedo Cloth by Mark Guscin
Mark Guscin is one of the few scholars to have written about the Sudarium of Oviedo in English. Here we review his important book. (Arif Khan – UK)

 


Jesus In India
An incredible hypothesis – Jesusas survives the crucifixion and travels East to India. Is this a deluded theory– or does history give support to this? (Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad – The Promised Messiah & Mahdi (as))

If They Had Only Waited Until 2020 Or So

Shucks. Why did they have to do it in 1988.  If they had only waited a few more years then we wouldn’t be having all these problem trying to prove the shroud is real.

imageFirst things first. What is the story here?  The Shroud of Turin?

This is how Sarah Kaplan writing in the prestigious Washington Post retold the story Fossil fuel emissions are making carbon dating more difficult. These are the very first four paragraphs accompanied by a photograph of the shroud:

Nearly three decades ago scientists were granted access to one of the world’s most mystifying and sacred objects: the Shroud of Turin. The ancient rectangle of linen, with its strange stains in the shape of a tortured body, had long been venerated as the burial garment of Christ. But the shroud’s origins were murky, and researchers had spent decades poring over the piece of fabric debating whether the story of its background could be true.

In 1988, thanks to a technique called radiocarbon dating, they had an answer: The shroud dated back to sometime between 1260 and 1390 — old, but not old enough to have been buried with Jesus.

“The Carbon-14 Bombshell,” National Geographic called the news, referring to the radioactive isotope that’s used for the dating process.

Carbon dating had never been, and likely never again will be, quite so glamorous — or so controversial. And, thanks to atmospheric changes caused by the burning of fossil fuels, it could become even more complicated.

Down some:

Graven expects that the change will start impacting the carbon dating process by 2020.

[…]

This shift won’t render carbon dating obsolete — it’s long been known that atmospheric carbon can fluctuate, and scientists are able to re-calibrate their estimates based on modern levels. But it does make the process more complex and less reliable for dating relatively young objects. If emissions continue at their current rates, Graven believes that carbon dating won’t be able to provide a definitive age for anything less than 2,000 years old

Shucks. Why did they have to do it in 1988.  If they had only waited a few more years then we wouldn’t be having all these problem trying to prove the shroud is real.

Interview with Paul Maloney

Russ Breault, on his Shroud Encounter Facebook page, recommends the  following interview he conducted with Paul Maloney in 1999. Paul, a research archaeologist, discusses the pollen and other microorganisms found on the Shroud.

The Morphing of Rogers and Berry?

The most superficial part of the linen fibre is the PCW, and that comprises hemicellulose as a major constituent. Hemicellulose has a lot of pentose sugars, which are chemically reactive,  more so than the hexose sugars of starch and cellulose, and known to enter freely into Maillard reactions. Maybe the linen provided the sugar for the Maillard reaction.

image… on the shroud (or misnoma-shroud). Colin Berry teases it out a bit for us:

This blogger has already been accused of plagiarizing Rogers’ ideas (in seeing a role for Maillard reaction products, albeit between reducing sugars and proteins of white flour, and needing an exceedingly hot iron to get the colour). Well, I’m about to make things even worse for myself – by narrowing the gap between my medieval model and the pro-authenticity 1st century tomb scenario of Rogers. It involves volatile amines, those fishy smelling things with the general formula R-NH2 (primary amine)  where R is an alkyl group, e.g. CH3, C2H5, or, if a secondary amine, R-NH-R’, or a tertiary amine,  R-N(R’)-R”. What you may ask!  We know where the amines are implicated in the Rogers’ model (putrefaction of a corpse).  How can amines be implicated in a white-flour model?

Well, it’s a long shot, but here we go.  The yellow-brown image has been described here as a Maillard reaction product, formed between reducing sugars and proteins. But there’s a problem. The “Shroud” image was tested by Adler et al for protein – none were found.  But my image appears to have two components – an outer one that looks and feels thick, and can be reduced by washing, brushing etc, and a more resistant one that survives those treatments, and seems more like an intrinsic part of the linen fibres. What might have happened to produce the latter.  Well, there’s a little protein in linen fibres, and one might propose that had reacted with reducing sugar, and that the Maillard product formed had failed to react as protein. But one instinctively dislikes qualiofying assumptions. Might there be an alternative explanation? Yes, there is. The most superficial part of the linen fibre is the PCW, and that comprises hemicellulose as a major constituent. Hemicellulose has a lot of pentose sugars, which are chemically reactive,  more so than the hexose sugars of starch and cellulose, and known to enter freely into Maillard reactions. Maybe the linen provided the sugar for the Maillard reaction. But where did the amine come from? It might have been the protein of the flour or linen, especially the epsilon amino group of lysine (not involved in peptide bond formation). But there’s an intriguing alternative. Enter volatile amines. When one adds cold  limewater to white flour there’s an immediate strong fishly odour. So there’s an amine precursor there that is easily released by alkali. Maybe it’s released by heat also, even at lower pH closer to neutrality. Maybe it’s that amine that reacts with the pentose sugars of the linen PCW to produce the ‘resistant’ image that survives washing etc, and that does NOT test positive for protein.

What might be the source of the free amine? Am not sure. It might be glutamine, with terminal -CONH2. It might be polar secondary or tertiary amine groups of phospholipids (lecithin, phosphatidylethanolamine etc).  Much food for thought (maybe a few experiments can help reduce the search options).

Because If It Looks Unbelievable

21st century version appears to be images of Christ in food or other household objects.

imageMartin Saunders, writing in Christian Today wants to see if you can spot the Christian hoax you’re most prone to being tricked by, of which the Shroud of Turin is one. The others are:

  • Noah’s Ark in Eastern Turkey
  • John Wayne’s deathbed conversion from Catholicism to evangelical Christianity
  • a petition to stop a film portraying a gay Jesus
  • how Einstein defeated his atheist professor in front of a roomful of fellow students

Of the Shroud, Saunders writes:

Although for years many believed it was genuinely the burial cloth used on Jesus, the Turin Shroud is now widely accepted to date from medieval times. Not only that; in turns out to be one of an estimated 40 similar cloths alleged to bear the facial imprint of the Son of God. While Internet speculation continues to circulate occasionally about ‘exciting new evidence’ that the shroud is genuine after all, the 21st century version appears to be images of Christ in food or other household objects. Jesus has been discovered in a Naan bread, a pizza, an orange, a grilled cheese sandwich, and even a Polish Pierogi dumpling, which the owner sold on eBay for $1775. And that one’s not even a hoax.

and concludes his thinking:

All of which tells us that a side-effect of faith is an occasional disposition to gullibility. That certainly doesn’t prove we’re all entirely misguided, but it is a note of caution. The proliferation of Christian Internet hoaxes mean that we should always think for at least a moment before sharing that amazing story. Because if it looks unbelievable, there might just be a good reason for that…

Interesting Article on Radiocarbon Dating

imageChemEurope just this morning posted an interesting article,  Fossil fuel emissions will complicate radiocarbon dating, warns scientist:

Fossil fuel emissions could soon make it impossible for radiocarbon dating to distinguish new materials from artefacts that are hundreds of years old. Carbon released by burning fossil fuels is diluting radioactive carbon-14 and artificially raising the radiocarbon ‘age’ of the atmosphere, according to a paper published in the PNAS.

Radiocarbon measurements have a range of uses, from analysing archaeological finds, to detecting fraudulent works of art, to identifying illegal ivory trading, to assessing the regeneration of brain cells in neurological patients. The new study suggests that some of these current uses will be affected over this century, depending on how much fossil fuel emissions increase or decrease.

The online Daily Times Gazette picked up the story and added this:

One of famous radiocarbon dating investigation is the Shroud of Turin, which allegedly has the image of Jesus Christ.

However, Scientists found that it was originated from 13th century, 1,200 years after the Death of Christ.

Of course.

The Shroud is a Holograph?

imageIn a comment to another posting, Dave Hines tips us off to a new video he has produced. He writes:

… Here is a video of my latest research project. Holography experiments. I am very close to being able record a interference pattern on linen that would match many of the Shroud image characteristics.

Shroud Image and Hologram Image Match Points

1. Both images are extremely superficial, thin depth image (1/50th thickness of human hair)
2. Both have good resolution
3. Both have 3D Qualities to Image
4. Both images cannot be seen from the back side
5. Both have light coming from only 1 direction to form image
6. Both images fade and or vanish when tilted to the far right or far left
7. Both are a single color image
8. Both images involve subject close to film plate to capture image (past 5cm there is no image formation on a reflection hologram) (I know because I tried it)

Over at YouTube he writes:

"I can affirm without fear of being proven wrong The Shroud of Turin image was created by a interference pattern of laser like light that emitted from the body of Jesus" Shroud of Turin is a linen holographic film plate. As highly improbable as that may sound that is what the forensic evidence says happened. There is no other logical alternative image theory explanation that matches the gospel account or the forensic evidence. What is presented in this video not only matches the Gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus it also matches the forensic evidence on the Shroud of Turin.

I’m not persuaded. I don’t see how any of this matches the Gospel accounts of the
resurrection and I think some of these “match points”  with the shroud are little more than some so-whats. But that is just my opinion.  I’m willing to hear more from Dave and anyone else.