A reader asks:
Is there any confirmation that Raymond Rogers actually analyzed the 1988 Sample when he determined it was interwoven with dyed Cotton? How exactly do we know he received this from Gonella?
Also, did Joe Marino and Sue Benford ever have access to the 1988 sample? How could they have confirmed it was a reweaved sample if they were kept at individual universities?
Has anyone ever responded to this supposed refutation of the reweave theory titled The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality.
HERE are a few postings in this blog dealing with the subject. Just scroll down the page. If you want to see the comments, click on the title or the word comments.
(linking in email edited by me)
Hi Reader!
1) Sort of. (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlheimburgerppt.pdf)
2) Because he said so.
3) No.
4) From examination of photographs.
5) No.
(Five questions…)
A bit of elaboration though. I am not in favour of accusing anybody of fraud without very good reason to do so, and the fact that I disagree with their findings is not a good reason. People do make mistakes, and it is possible that the threads Rogers received from Gonella were misattributed, but again, simply disagreeing with conclusions is not not evidence for such misattribution. If McCrone shows me a slide covered in red dots he calls iron oxide, or Max Frei shows me a slide of a pollen grain he calls Prunus arabica, then I assume that the dots do look like iron oxide, and the grain looks like Prunus arabica, unless somebody can show me that they don’t. I may think that the dots are actually something else similar, or that the pollen grain looks like dozens of similar species, but I do not doubt that the scientists made their identifications in good faith. Naive of me, perhaps, but once you start accusing people of fraud, where can you stop, and why should you have any credibility yourself?
The answers to the first two questions, then, are not, to mind, evidence that Rogers did not, in fact, examine fibres from the Shroud.
The second two, however, raise corollaries. The photo of a fragment of the radiocarbon sample sent to Thomas Ferguson, David Pearson, Louis Harner and was not very clear. I do not know what else Benford and Marino asked these experts, or what other information they were given.
Thomas Ferguson was non-committal – the right hand side may have been ” “touched up to prevent unraveling”.
David Pearson was more positive: “there is no question that there is different material on each side… It is definitely a patch.” This, of course, was in the days when Benford and Marino assumed that each radiocarbon piece was dated as a whole, and that the date of the piece reflected the proportions of the two materials. Actually, this piece was cut into five, and if Pearson was correct, some dates would have been all 1st century, some dates would have been 16th or 17th century, and only where the materials merged would the 14th century, mixed, date have been found. That this did not happen is evidence that Pearson was quite simply completely wrong. He also said that “medieval European weavers would … hand-stitch approximately ½ inch of new material into the old, such that it was invisible to all but the trained eye.” This half inch of blended threads is not visible at all to any eye, which suggests that it isn’t there.
Louis Harmer said “the float is different on either side of the sample.” It is not clear to me if he was making the same mistake as Pearson.
It is interesting that a second set of photos – from the Oxford sample this time – has been sent to Thomas Ferguson, and reported on in detail by Donna Campbell. Her comments are considerably more circumspect. “There are signs in the Shroud sample that direct the notion of mending or reweaving of the actual woven fabric.” Directing a notion is hardly a ringing endorsement. (http://www.shroudofturinexhibition.com/Shroud_of_Turin_exhibition/Home_files/Updated_report_on_the_Consideration_to_the_Uniformity_and_Effects_of_the_Fabric_in_the_Shroud_of_Turin-5-1.pdf)
Finally, nobody has refuted Flury-Lemberg’s insistence that “invisible mending” is not invisible. This has become something of an impasse. Devotees insist that there is a style of mending which is completely invisible even under a microscope. The fact that it cannot be seen just shows how invisible it is. They point to French Reweaving, the Frenway Method or Invisible Mending, all of which are commercially available, as evidence that mending can be invisible, but they’re wrong. No actual invisible mender is so foolish as to claim that his mend is actually invisible, even under a microscope. Indeed, as Flury-Lemberg humourously pointed out, how could you see what you were doing if your work disappeared in front of your eyes! The last resort of the invisible mending faction is to claim that it was carried out in a style since lost to us. So not only is the invisible mending itself invisible, but so is the invisible mending technique!
Quibbling with Donna Campbell cautious statement is not a rebuttal. In fact, she was examining something unique: a photograph of the Oxford sample taken by Oxford before its destruction during the carbon dating process. Fuery-Lemberg never examined that photograph nor did she EVER examine the samples before or after their removal. Her first view of the Shroud itself occurred after the carbon dating.
She also stated at a protocol meeting before the carbon dating that the Shroud was all the same composition.
“The wear and tear of the frequent exhibitions (ostentations) and the removal of pieces for relics required repair of the Shroud. The most well-known of those who repaired the Shroud was Blessed Sebastian Valfrè.
“Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969 and 1973, wrote:
“…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination,
namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records (the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess Clotilde).”
Quantum Christ, p. 33
Id appreciate any citations to the contrary.
The reweaving theory is not proven- John Jackson says it cannot be seen from his 1978 photographs of the bandings. John Klotz presumably accepts Flury_Lemberg on what remains of the cloth so implies that the reweaving must only be within the sample- but exactly within it or is there some original and some the new weave- if so this would not explain the consistency of the dates from different parts of the sample- as shown in Hugh’s helpful chart.
It is about time for those supporting the theory to respond to Flury-Lemberg and state exactly where they think the reweaving is and whether it is a total reweave or a mixture of old or new. The tiny amount of cotton fibre identified within the sample certainly rules that out as part of the reweave-you cannot,of course, have an invisible reweave using a different material.
I do like the idea of the invisible weavers creating a weave that they and presumably no one else can see as they sewed. Some feat!
The onus is on the reweavers to firm up if they want to be taken at all seriously.
Charles,
There is no evidence that John Jackson ever examined the Oxford photo at anytime. The sample was destroyed by the carbon dating. The photo was obtained by Pam Moon through the British equivalent of what we call FOIA “Freedom of Information Act”
Have you read or examined the Pam moon article and the report that was delivered at the St. Louis Conference or is it just too much of a bother?
No I have read it and am unconvinced that any reweaving took place. I was referring to the photo from 1978 that Jackson used to say that there had been no disturbance of that corner. It was then that he put forward his carbon monoxide theory which Oxford tested out without success.
Please firm up where you think the reweaving took place, and how far it extended and whether it was in linen or cotton. As the Flury- Lemberg article says there is no one who has actually examined the weave close up who has seen any, reweaving at all. You must produce evidence, not speculation by people who have no expertise in ancient textiles and may never have seen the Shroud close-up.
Jackson did not ever say there was no disturbance to the corner of the Shroud in question used for the radiocarbon “dating” of the Shroud. He simply said that the 1978 photos showed no disturbance. Those are two different things and should be properly distinguished.
So what are you suggesting Robert? That there was a reweave but it did not show up in the bandings and Jackson was therefore wrong to say firmly – in his paper on Shroud .com ‘A new radio-carbon hypothesis’- that the reweaving hypothesis was discounted?
i am simply asking for some firming up of the argument that there has been some reweaving. It goes no further than speculation in anything I have read so far.
Choose. 1) there was a reweave which is totally invisible however close you look at this corner of the Shroud or at photographs taken before 1988. But surely if it is invisible, you are unable to say whether it exists or not.
2) there was a reweaving within this corner of the Shroud which extended beyond the radio carbon sample but cannot be seen by textile experts who have examined the Shroud close up before or after 1988.
3) there was a reweave which by sheer coincidence was within the sample area which is why it could not be seen on the Shroud by experts after 1988. It was reasonably consistent in the mix ( or there was a total reweave of new material within the sample area but not outside it around 1325) so that each of the three sub- samples came out with dates close to each other as high has shown.
Please say which you favour or provide an alternative.
Sorry! Hugh not high!
I believe that Enzo Delorenzi’s remarks referred entirely to the patches over the burn holes, and not at all to any supposed mending of a corner. Anybody with access to Shroud 2.0 can examine the entire Shroud in better detail than anybody looking at the real thing without a microscope, and although there inconsistencies in abundance, and signs of extracted threads, I can find no evidence of repairs anywhere except in the patch areas. I challenge anybody to find any and point them out. I find no evidence of any reweaving in any photographs that I have seen; the only expert to declare that there was definitely a patch is demonstrably wrong, and two close examiners of the whole cloth have also seen no reweaving. The Oxford sample shows no evidence of reweaving (in spite of any directed notions), the remaining Arizona sample shows no evidence of reweaving, the photo of the radiocarbon area before it was cut out (as at http://shroudstory.com/2013/06/29/a-bit-of-interweaving-in-the-arizona-sample) shows no evidence of reweaving.
I don’t believe the Shroud was rewoven anywhere. I don’t believe there is any observable evidence to suggest that it might have been. There is some chemical and microscopic evidence, as described by Ray Rogers, that the radiocarbon corner has some anomalous characteristics, but I find it insufficient to demonstrate that the Shroud has been mended.
In his last interview Professor Giulio Fanti said he would be working on a thirteenth-century reweaving hypothesis, for which he had some evidence. It is only not clear which of the two sets of samples Ray Rogers examined, one of which was official and Professor Fanti expresses some doubts:
https://www.academia.edu/8841978/Professor_Giulio_Fanti_discusses_the_controversies_in_the_realm_of_Shroud_studies
I have faithfully reported what was told to me and the Italian scientist will work on the reweaving hypothesis in the future since he is working on some other things we know about the Shroud right now.
I do not know what Ray Rogers’ beliefs were; he did seem to be agnostic, if not atheist. In one paper he co-authored he mentioned evolution in passing but failed to say anything about where the rationality came from.
Last month my interview with another scientist, a biblical archaeologist, demonstrated to me what objectivity should be and why clashes bewteen text (Bible) and spade (archaeology) does not mean the end of faith: https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
Isn’t it enough to look at the ‘quad mosaic’ pictures of the Shroud, see the huge difference of color between the sample area and the image area, and determine that the C14 samples are not representative of the Shroud?
Hugh,
The hands of the Clarissas of Chambrey referred to those patches. The reference to Valfre and to Princess had nothing to do with the patches. They dealt years later and in regard to the Princess I belive centuries later.
You are grasping at straws so that you can refuse to deal with the reality of the historical facts.
I repeat the quotation:
Enzo Delorenzi, a member of the Turin Commission that studied the Shroud in 1969 and 1973, wrote:
“…I should like to mention the impression I received during the course of my examination,
namely, that more pairs of hands have carried out the darning than is suggested in the historical records (the four Clarissas of Chambery, the Blessed Valfre and the Princess Clotilde).”20
DeLorenzi, unlike you and I saw and examined the Shroud in person.
Your argument is uninformed and disingenuous at the least.
Jim, there are four quad mosaic photos to be found in the STERA image library at Shroud.com, together with a couple of enlargements. If you believe that the different colours on the quad photos represent different materials, then you must believe that the wide blue bands across three of the photos represent a different material from the orangy-yellow field, and that the dark green corners on all four photos represent another, and that the deep pinky-red area of the dorsal legs represents yet another. This is absurd. The similarity between the colour distortions on all four photos suggests that they are due to the similar way each photo was lit, and nothing to do with the composition of the cloth.
John, I read the quotation entirely accurately the first time, thank you, and believe that the ‘darning’ referred to by Delorenzi was that of the repairs to the burn holes, and not to anywhere else. It is apparent from the clumsiness of the patching, and the fact that extra patches of a different material were added to the original ones, and the black stitching that used to be easy to see which was always used by Sebastian Valfré, that several hands, at several different times, contributed to these repairs. As I explained above, anybody today can examine the Shroud more closely than Delorenzi could, simply by looking at Shroud 2.0, and I challenge anybody to find any evidence of any mending anywhere other than in the areas of the burn holes, where the stitch holes from the patches are still evident.
In what sense is my argument uninformed? Would you care to inform it?
In what sense is my argument disingenuous? (Wiki: ‘not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.’)
What is absurd is to think that the discontinuity in colouration is due to the lighting. Just focus on the area of the sample, see how the dark green follows the edges of the holes at the bottom and the edges where a relic and the earlier, pre-1978 sample was cut out. That dark green is a sign of contamination. The fact that the dark green runs parallel with the weave near left edge and has a sharp end, instead of gradually fading as near the holes, indicates or at least implies a systemic or intentionally man-made contamination, such as possibly a re-weave, though could also be the applying of dyes or colourant to hide a patch, say if at one time the big rectangular hole may have been patched and coloured to hide the ugly hole. I doubt they would have put it up for display with that big eyesore.
I find it strange that so many people focus on the colour anomaly which occurs in the bottom left hand corner of all four photos, but completely ignore – and I do mean ignore; to my knowledge no one has commented on it in spite of my continuously pointing it out – the much larger colour differences which cross the entire photos. If colour means content, then the shroud is divided into broad strips of different material.
As usual, Daveb says it all.
Charles,
TSC’s Critical Summary states the following: “This (reweave) hypothesis suggests that the corner of the Shroud from which the radiocarbon sample was cut was repaired with younger materials sometime during the Shroud’s history in Europe. While some evidence has been offered in support of the reweave hypothesis there are important counter arguments. Among the latter is the fact that the textile experts who were involved in the 2002 Shroud conservation project examined the sample area and reported they could not identify or find explicit evidence of any reweaving. Also, TSC has carefully studied the X-ray and transmitted light photographs taken by STURP of the sample area and has seen no evidence of reweaving in this type of imagery. TSC thinks the negative evidence for reweaving is difficult to overcome and that the ultimate answer to the anomalous radiocarbon testing result lies elsewhere.”
The conclusion that the Shroud was in Constantinople in 1204 is strongly supported, both historically and empirically. Such a conclusion means the radiocarbon dating of the sample cut from the Shroud failed to date the Shroud correctly. However, why the radiocarbon dating of the 1988 single sample cut from the Shroud did not properly date the Shroud’s true age remains a valid unresolved question that merits continued research. TSC is most interested in exploring “enhanced contamination” other than that associated with a reweave. Others are encouraged to continue to investigate the reweave hypothesis.
I would add the picture of the Shroud in the Hungarian Prayer Codex of ~AD1195, with the signature L and F shaped patterns of holes, also sheds a lot of doubt on the validity of the C14 tests.
Until proper representative sampling is carried out in accordance with a valid sampling protocol, the validity of the results from the single grab sample in 1988 must remain ambiguous and debated, whatever the cause might be of the mismatch from an earlier date, in view of other indications that the Shroud is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. These indications may include: 1) Fanti’s mechanical testing suggesting the possibility of a 1st century date; 2) Historic arguments that the Shroud was in Constantinople in 1204; 3) Indications from the Hungarian Pray manuscript that distinctive features of the Shroud were known in 1195, prior to the alleged C14 dating; 4) Forensic arguments that the image is that of a real crucified person who suffered the punishments reported in the gospels including a crown of thorns and percussio wound to the chest; 5) the otherwise inexplicable cause of the image; 6) the unsmeared blood stains; 5) Presence of Jerusalem limestone; Etc, etc!
The assertion of homogeneity of the cloth remains unproven, in light of reputable assertions of occasional mending, and in that case a single grab sample is insufficient, even though it might be a routine practice for testing of other cloths (e.g. mummy wrappings) for which there would be no cause to presume mending. Rogers, whatever shortcomings there might be in his chemistry knowledge, and also reputed to be an agnostic, was the chemist with the greatest familiarity with Shroud chemistry. His investigations persuaded him that there were anomalies indicative of highly skilled mending.
Should perchance representative sampling demonstrate that the single grab sample was in fact adequately representative of the whole, then some other explanation for this peculiar result might then have to be considered. The forensic arguments, together with the enigmatic cause of the image, seem to me to be particularly persuasive of authenticity.
100% agree with Daveb. I don’t know why expert scientists are still accepting C14 results. Why can’t they understand sampling procedure was wrong. We never take grab samples to decide to get the clear picture of any event.
I also agree with Daveb. He summarises the evidence that counters a medieval date for the shroud admirably, and uses, entirely reasonably, words like “ambiguous” and “unproven”, and explains that he is persuaded of authenticity. I, on the other hand, am not persuaded of authenticity. I think that’s fine. The Shroud will not become authentic, or medieval, on the basis of what Daveb or I am persuaded, and it is good that together we can work towards removing some of the ambiguity of the evidence, whichever way it leads.
I am inclined to agree with Robert who has written about “‘enhanced contamination’ other than that associated with a reweave.” It is the hypothesis that Ian Wilson has favoured and it is worthwhile reading what he has to say about it in his book “The Shroud; the 2000-year-old mystery solved. We will have to wait and see what Professor Giulio Fanti can say about thirteenth-century reweaving in the future.
Carbon dating has been used to date archaeological sites in Israel and it continues to be convincing to archaeologists even when micro-archaeology is used. We must remember that both the Masada cloths and the wrappings used on the Dead Sea Scrolls were dated correctly: https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
Hugh
You are not persuaded of authenticity.
What is your favored explanation of the image?
Thanks
Currently I favour Garlaschelli’s idea about an acid-tainted paint, with the paint almost entirely, either by age or design, washed or rubbed off, leaving nothing but degraded cellulose. Whether this was applied with a paint brush, or by placing the cloth over a smeared bas relief, or some other method I can’t really say. Of course there are objections to this hypothesis, which many people, including myself, give some weight to, but at the moment I do not find them sufficiently cogent to persuade me of the Shroud’s authenticity. Thibault Heimburger’s paper, https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf, examines what Garlaschelli actually produced and makes good observations about their failings even while admitting that they are the best artificial versions so far. I think there is certainly more to be done, but if Garlaschelli could be bothered to take Thibault’s objections to heart and make appropriate modifications, I think a more acceptable fac simile is far from improbable.
I do not reject an ‘unscientific miracle’ out of hand – just there’s nothing to be investigated if that’s how it was done – but I do not find any of the ‘scientific miracles’ at all convincing, be they of mysterious emanations of cadaverine, ammonia, neutrons, electrons, electromagnetic radiation or whatever. I think Daveb currently pins some hope on earthquake effects, which would at least be more explicable, if any evidence could be found for them apart from Giovanna de Liso’s snakes and keys.
There is a mass of new material on painted linens as scholars turn their attention to them. So few are left as the surfaces disintegrated with folding and with the wear of time, probably about twelve good ones from the thousands that are recorded in church inventories. The Shroud seems to be a typical linen that was once painted with the linen surface being discoloured by centuries of gesso and paint being placed over it in the way that the medieval manuals laid down. Sadly Charlotte Villiers, an expert on painted linens, who saw the Shroud as just this, died tragically young- I would have loved to ask her why she came to this conclusion about the Shroud.
My own view is that Garlaschelli is being unnecessarily complicated as if the Shroud was somehow unique and not typical of its time when painted originally.
I am in no rush to have my hypothesis proved as new research is continuing apace and I think that within the next five to ten years the Shroud will fit into the once painted linens category with experts agreeing on this. We will see. For the time being I am happy to leave it up to the experts, in this case those who deal in a daily basis with ancient weaves and the conservation of the few painted linens that survive. The weavers tell me that the Shroud is a typical product of a medieval treadle loom as if there was no argument about it- the 113cms width is the give away as this was a common width in medieval cloth – the six linen strips of the Zittau Veil of 1472 sewn alongside each other come to a total of 6.80 meters!
As so often, time , developing technology and expertise will come up with fresh approaches- I think they will end up with a fourteenth century origin but what’s the rush when there is so much new work on ancient linens under way which will probably provide a definitive answer.
Charles, “The Shroud seems to be a typical linen that was once painted with the linen surface being discoloured by centuries of gesso and paint being placed over it in the way that the medieval manuals laid down.”
Nonsense. Have you ever laid gesso on a piece of linen and try to remove it mechanically without damaging the fibers?
Mario- you would end to ask the experts in the conservation of painted linens but it would seem to be a gradual process o f disintegration depending on the original quality of the gesso and paint. The sealing surfaces of the centre of the Zittau Veil dissolved as a result of being steamed leaving images very similar to the Shroud images underneath.(This is why we need to make a comparative study of the two cloths as this would seem to hold the solution to the images on the Shroud.)
STURP ,of course, found ‘large’ quantities of calcium carbonate which is an ingredient of gesso still on the Shroud and this would suggest that it simply disintegrated over the centuries.
But I leave all this to those who deal with such linens. Flury-Lemberg was a textile specialist, we need conservationist experts who deal in painted cloth surfaces to become involved.
Charles, did you ever put gesso on a piece of linen and tried to remove it after it dried?
According to one of my Shroud contacts, Michael Tite is still lecturing and includes the Shroud. I am told that he says in his lecture that it was he who insisted on textile experts being present at the sampling to rule out any possibility of any reweaving in the sample.
He is indeed. His most recent lecture was on Monday (yesterday), at the University of Durham Institute of Advanced Studies, in their ‘Evidence on Trial’ series, entitled ‘ Fakes, Forgeries and the Turin Shroud: the scientific evidence.’ It can be heard (audio only although it was clearly an illustrated lecture) at https://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ias/audio/Tite.mp3.
It tells us little about the dating of the Shroud that we didn’t know before, but contains this little snippet which may be of interest:
“I put that exclamation mark because the date had been leaked in the press certainly as medieval for some time, so it was really saying ‘there you are; you’ve known it all along.’ Various other interpretations were put on it – rather more sinister ones – so it wasn’t a very helpful thing for me to do, but that was the reason. That was my response.”
Later Tite suggests that the image may have been associated with a real crucifixion, perhaps of a crusader. He is particularly taken with the wrist rather than hand bloodstains.
No Mario, I have not but that is irrelevant because removing modern gesso just put on is something different from medieval gesso folded and unfolded as the Shroud was over centuries. The calcium carbonate found by STURP needs a better explanation than the ‘ accumulations of dust’ that STURP postulated.
I think that within five or ten years time this whole debate may have become irrelevant as it may well be that advances in the study of formerly painted linens will explain the images as discoloured linen from centuries being under gesso and paint.
The iconography of the images, especially the all over front and back scourge marks, fits so neatly with the fourteenth century that that is another vital clue. Then the radiocarbon date will make sense and not be seen as an aberration.
But it will be the conservationists who make the breakthrough and there is nobody here , including myself, who has the right qualifications to pronounce on this. It is just that it is a growing area of speciality so soon someone will come into the debate and sort us all out with a definitive explanation of why the linen is discoloured the way it is.
At least Dr.Tite does not say that the image is a painting or was produced with the use of acid or some scorching technique.
Are there examples of acid-tainted paint being used in other artifacts? Though acid-paint may provide better results than Colin’s flour based experiments, his model (to my knowledge) has the advantage of being ‘within the grasp’ of a medieval artisan than Garlaschelli’s.
thanks Hugh, nice response
It is obvious that earthquakes do not produce images and even Professor Giulio Fanti has sort of given up the corona discharge hypothesis and will be working on both thirteenth-century patch and contamination in the future.
I prefer the contamination hypothesis on account of the convincing examples that Ian Wilson provides in his book and also because it is one of TSCs preferred hypotheses. Now, the question that arises is: what sort of contamination? As I wrote in the previous comment, radiocarbon dating is used in biblical archaeology in Israel, and the results are published even if they clash with what is in the Old Testament, be it the Exodus, the “empire” of David and Solomon and the rest: https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
We must find out what kind of contamination may have skewed the results of the 1988 carbon dating. The wrappings used on the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masada cloths were dated correctly. It is important to note that Willard Libby himself dated the Masada cloths,
around the year 1950.
In an interview conducted some years ago, Professor Giulio Fanti pointed out that Professor Luigi Gralaschelli failed when it comes to the microscopic level:
https://www.academia.edu/18636589/Science_and_religion_meet_in_Shroud_research
“It is obvious that earthquakes do not produce images …”
A scientific conclusion of one skilled in: Parapsychology (a collection of uncorroborated anecdotes); Psychology (an empirical science lacking a consensus in theoretical and experimental foundations); Archaeology (one of many “sciences” that Ernest Rutherford might have categorised as “stamp collecting”) .
daveb, alias Mr. David Belz, who is not a scientist, continues with his provocations, protected by two people whom I have identified. One wonders why CB was silenced and daveb can continue provoking.
He knows next to nothing about Parapsychology and I doubt that he has read any journals devoted to psychical research. He lives in a country that has earthquakes now and then. Apparently he has not heard of a single case where some image was produced on cloth and yet he dares toy with the idea that the Shroud image may have been produced as a result of an earthquake.
Louis had Max Patrick Hamon kicked out of Dan’s blog. Now he’d like to have daveb out too so that he could unchallengingly promote his Academia articles and untruths about the Shroud.
That is not correct. Max was not kicked out. Max is welcome to submit comments that I will look at first before they appear. Louis had nothing to do with this. This applies to three other individuals, as well. And contrary to comments elsewhere, CB has not been kicked out. He has gone silent. He has not commented here or posted to either of his own blogs since August. And just for the record, I object to the unsubstantiated accusation that Louis is promoting untruths about the shroud.
Actually, I have attempted to comment here, Dan, including one recently to your Paris posting, more to test whether your block/tripwire announced on the BarrieS/Indianapolis posting was still operating. But when I hit the Send button, there’s nothing on screen, not even “your comment is awaiting moderation”. So maybe it’s your settings that are at fault?
I rarely feel the need to comment in any substantive way these days, having arrived at what I consider a working model for the TS body image that deserves consideration. Is Thibault still checking it out as he said he would?
Yesterday’s comment from Hugh, backing the idea of acid action in a medieval scenario that degrades cellulose, was one I checked out with sulphuric acid and found wanting, if only that acid appears to preferentially attack the hemicelluloses of linen, causing the fabric to disintegrate before it becomes appreciably coloured, at least at ordinary temperatures.
http://colinb-sciencebuzz.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/what-happens-if-you-spill-battery-acid.html
As a close friend of Max Patrick Hamon, I confirm Dan did kick out Max Patrick Hamon from the blog… unless Dan’s settings are at fault.
Actually Max cannot/is not allowed to comment (each time he has hit the Send button (I was myself a direct witness of this), there is nothing on his screen, not even “your comment is awaiting moderation”. Indeed Dan had already threatened to kick out Max once or twice in the past). Still the fact remains, most curiously Max has been silenced from August the 10th 2015 onward i.e. just after Louis (a freelance journalist) asked Dan to do sthg about Max as the latter challenged Louis to prove his exegesis of Jn (the empty tomb episode) was wrong (Louis with his mouth full of the name of “his giant” in Biblical exegesis disdainfully told Max he “would be laughed out of court”. However Louis has NEVER substantiated his claim and demostrate Max’s exegesis was wrong and did ask Dan to Silence Max, which Dan did.
Until proven otherwise, Max WAS kicked out of Dan’s blog and Louis did have SOMEthing to do with this.
Max showed me several emails he sent Dan and the latter had not even the courtesy to reply (Max last email dates back to December the 4th, 2015. Here it is:
Dan,
(In reply to Dr Chantal Boisselier, a friend of mine who thought you kicked me out of your blog), you wrote (on November 24, 2015 at 8:05 am): “Max was not kicked out. Max is welcome to submit comments that I will look at first before they appear”. Actually (in reply to Charles Freeman misleading prose in the thread on The Sudarium: A Better Provenance and History?) I have attempted twice to post the following comment (and thus check “in deeds” your above assertion):
“Since the relic’s coating/image coloration can be scraped off or removed only with adhesive or diimide, actually just thinking alike Charles Freeman “anything old would have been degraded by the passage of time and the original form of the object might not be recoverable”, is definitely NOT “the best position from which to start understanding the original make-up of the Shroud images”.”
Each time I have hit the Send button, there was nothing on screen, not even “your comment is awaiting moderation”, which leads me to think indeed you did kick me out of your blog (as you once or twice had already threatened me to in the past) and silence me unless your settings are at fault (see Colin Berry’s case).
All the best,
Max
If Max is really “welcome to comment”, how come he cannot? How come Dan doesn’t even reply to Max’s emails? Doesn’t Dan left hand know what his right hand does?
Try now.
Thank you, Dan.
I do not know who Chantal Boisselier is or what she does in life, but I got the impression that she made the comment on behalf of someone in France, putting out a feeler to see how it will be received.
I have to tell this lady that I do not have to promote any of my articles and if a link is provided to one of them it is only because it is relevant to the discussion taking place. Not only have some of my articles been preserved in the libraries of a renowned university and institution, some of them have even been posted online at the request of the webmasters.
I am sometimes even consulted by scholars with PhDs, authors of important books, who also teach at universities when they are preparing their own papers and what is discussed is kept confidential, in the same way that documents and reports prepared after examinations, research by individuals or institutions and so on that are sent to me are.
I have never attacked anyone on this blog. What I have done is to defend scholars and scientists who have been the object of nasty insinuations and character assassination. I have also defended myself when some commenters have hurled insults at me, trying to get me out of the blog either by poking fun at me or by making little of what I write, even using foul language in the process. As far as I know, none of them have published anything in a magazine or a daily.
I am not here to flatter anyone in order to gain support from other commenters or to resort to tactics like pitting one commenter against another. On the contrary, I try to help by posting a link to a bit of news or some article that commenters will find useful.
“Apparently he has not heard of a single case where some image was produced on cloth…”
Apparently, he has. See the photographs at http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/DeLisoWeb.pdf.
This is just what I meant re one of Louis’ promoting untruths… This comment of his is not reliable at all. Indeed it is (deliberately?) misleading.
One wonders whether this paper was peer reviewed. The author is not a scientist. If it could have been taken seriously Professor Giulio Fanti would have been delighted and gone ahead with his corona discharge hypothesis, however he seems to have given it up.
Based on Gospel account I cannot agree on Bodily Resurrection. Looking at the properties of the Image on Shroud and image formation most probaly due to dematerilization of the body. As such I suuport Spiritual resurrection.
That is why those who support bodily resurrection like to promote earth quake theory. It is not possible earth quake to form both frontal and dorsal image on the wrapped burial cloth.
Sampath, a few days ago you defended the “earthquake theory”, remember? You are an environmental engineer and in the right place to find out what can happen during an earthquake.
My view is this: the Resurrection of Jesus was an unique event and we should not expect to rise like he did.
Louis, Where did I support earth quake theory? I never supported an earth quake theory as it never gives a dorsal and a frontal images. My hypothesis is dematerialization and emission of radiation from inside to outside. That is the only way you get both frontal and dorsal images.
Here you are, Sampath:
November 13, 2015 at 3:56 pm Reply
“… Yes there is a possibility to get images during seismic events with Radon. I don’t know whether De Liso managed to get both frontal and dorsal images from the experiments.”
You must also think about why it happened only to the body of Jesus if he was just one among many wrapped in a shroud in Jerusalem during the period.
Professor Giulio Fanti has sort of given up the idea of corona discharge, which was linked to the “earthquake theory” and that is what he has also done by abandoning the possibility of light having something to do with image information.
A few days ago you also wrote that the story of Moses and the events surrounding him are nothing but plagiarism. That is a sweeping statement for which there is no justification. If you read this recent interview conducted last month with a prominent Israeli archaelogist you will notice that Near Eastern texts did indeed have an influence on the Old Testament narratives but there seems to be an independent strand that took centuries to form. This is still the object of studies:
https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
Yes there is a possibility of anything. But this does not mean that I support that theory. From earth quakes you never get frontal and dorsal images.
Do you have any image that was produced as the result of an earthquake?
Yes I saw De Liso images. But it is only oneside image. So that is why it is a possibility. If he providing wrong information then he is cheating.
No, I wasn’t talking about the de Liso images because she is not a scientist and her paper was probably not peer reviewed. I was just asking if you knew about any image that was produced as a result of an earthquake. I have not seen any.
It is obvious that in the case of the Shroud both frontal and dorsal images were created at the same time, so what de Liso produced is irrelevant.
No frontal and dorsal images can be formed by Earth Quake on a wrapped burial cloth. And that is why I did not support the earth quake hypothesis. I support only Dematerilization hypothesis.
If our exchange is read right from the beginning it becomes obvious that you changed your mind. I have relied on Professor Giulio Fanti’s research and he has abandoned the corona discharge/earthquake hypothesis and also stated that light was not involved in image formation.
Why would only Jesus’ body, wrapped in a burial cloth, have been affected by an earthquake? The same can be said about the Maillard reaction. Read question 11 in the following interview, where there is also something about first-century Jewish burials:
https://www.academia.edu/11355553/Dr._Paolo_Di_Lazzaro_explains_his_research_on_image_formation_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin
I never changed my mind. You can decide what you want. I am not worried. According to your statements only Prof Fanti change his mind about Corona discharge.
Something interesting to read: empirical science and the soul:
http://www.ilsussidiario.net/News/English-Spoken-Here/Science-Technology/2015/5/19/EMPIRICAL-SCIENCE-William-Carrol-Souls-Matter/610056/
Carrol in part writes about the book , “The Soul Fallacy”. Just reading the reviews on Amazon he appears to uses science to argue that humans are just part of natural world and subject to the same laws.
Here’s just part of one of the reviews,
“Julien Musolino does for souls what earlier scientists did to witches: he explains why souls don’t exist, then shows that science offers a better explanation for the workings of the mind and other beliefs that souls supposedly explained, and finally offers a deeper, richer, and more fulfilling worldview grounded in science instead of superstition.”
Since I have so many open the hard questions that science can’t answer right now I’ll keep an open mind on the idea of a soul.
Quite correct. The link was provided just to let intererested readers know what is being said. Swinburne has not been convincing with his emphasis on natural theology, which obliges him to ignore the Gospel according to John.
You might also like to read the review of a book by a scientist who was also an Anglican priest:
https://www.academia.edu/16566394/An_introduction_to_chaos_theology
as well as:
https://www.academia.edu/8424286/Book_Review_The_Future_of_Atheism_Alister_McGrath_and_Daniel_Dennett_in_Dialogue
You must have read that Daniel Dennett is also cited in the article to which a link was provided in the previous comment. An uncaused universe is a metaphysical impossibilty, as Paul Copan states in this book review.
Were you able to read something about Dom Bede Griffiths?
Louis
As you know there are scientist on both sides of the issue of God. One of great scientist Francis S. Collins wrote a book, “The Language of God-A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” Oh, and Mr. Collins believes in the God of the Bible. Another great book is, “Quantum Questions-Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists.” It has writings from people like Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Jeans, Pauli and others. I reread this book at least once a year.
We had a program on PBS TV called “Closer to Truth” where they looked at questions about the universe, God, consciousness and meaning by interviews with our leading scientists, philosophers, scholars and theologians. They have a website with all the videos they did and they cover both sides of the issues.
http://www.closertotruth.com
The debate of an uncaused event goes back to at least Aristotle and Plato. One side says the Universe is uncaused event, the other sides says no it’s not, God caused it. The other side comes back and ask, “What caused god?” Some accept the idea of a metaphysical necessity the other side rejects it. William Lane Craig defends the kalam cosmological argument the other side claims his reasoning is unsound. It goes on and on.
Plato’s, “Allegory of the Cave” rings true. I think we are still in the stages where reality is just shadows on the wall. I feel Jesus, Buddha, Lao-tzu and others have tried to bring us out of the shadows.
PS
Daniel Dennett also believes the universe had a cause, but it caused itself. Anyway the Dennett McGrath debate can be viewed on Youtube
Hello John
This is a topic that will take a very long time to discuss, so I will have to direct you to some links to articles, reviews and interviews, which you can read whenever you have the time. It is a sequence, which will enable you to grasp the approach that is taken. Needless to say, it will be modified as time goes by, because we learn about developments in science and religion almost every,single day.
I can say something about a few points you have mentioned in your comment. We are indeed in the “shadows”, however there is a clash between Buddha because Buddhism is a negative soteriology and Jesus, linked to the Judaeo-Christian tradition, which does not say the same thing. Actually, in Buddhism some concepts are very vague and, in the end, there is “nothing”. Science tells us that nothing comes from nothing and nothing goes to nothing. Viewed from that angle, the Judaeo-Christian tradition is more convincing.
So if there is “something”, What is it? Read the introduction:
https://www.academia.edu/4700001/What_do_we_know_about_the_Bible_An_interview_with_Joseph_A._Fitzmyer_SJ
Note that Stephen Hawking keeps on changing his mind. He is a very good scientist, but I have the feeling he is also influenced by biology and this is a kind of guide to the direction he is taking.
If we get back to the “shadows” you mentioned, Who created them? It was a problem that C.G. Jung discussed with his closest friend, the American Dominican monk Father Victor White. Their friendship almost came to an end and, yet, the deep spiritual bond was not broken. Evil, in the Swiss psychiatrist’s view, was God’s “shadow”. Really? And why? He based himself on Genesis:
. https://www.academia.edu/7344691/C._G._Jung_Father_Victor_White_and_privatio_boni
It is not that the topic they were discussing was not the object of dispute before them. It was present even in Old Testament times, possibly causing the split between Enochic Judaism and the Essenes:
https://www.academia.edu/12734802/Book_Review_Beyond_the_Essene_Hypothesis_The_Parting_of_the_Ways_between_Qumran_and_Enochic_Judaism
In our own days, we are confronted with what happened during the Nazi holocaust, which leads us to the Bible again and to questions that remain unanswered: https://www.academia.edu/12823419/Book_Review_Jesus_and_Yahveh_the_names_divine
If you read what is in the first link you will notice that some things are not compatible with what we learn from biblical archaeology today. William F. Albright is a thing of the past:
https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
I was able to meet, talk to and interview the prominent archaeologist, part of a project that will later include more studies in science and religion. So, if you have read what is in the link above you are bound to ask, If archaeology cannot give the final verdict and the Bible narratives include some Near Eastern myths where does that get us? Do we (that is, those of us who are Christians) have to become like Heidegger, or, better, like Wittgenstein, and think about becoming monks?: https://www.academia.edu/6085481/Why_was_Wittgensteins_burial_attended_by_a_religious_ceremony
Or do we have to toss what we learn from archaeology and Bible aside as unconvincing, leading to blind alleys, and become atheists like Freud?:
https://www.academia.edu/15308857/Freuds_incomplete_speculation_on_monotheism
In my view, none of this needed, we have to wait for more developments in science and religion and both have to be put together:
https://www.academia.edu/14727603/Why_Stephen_Jay_Gould_proposed_the_principle_of_Non-overlapping_Magisteria
Just too many links had to be posted here, but it was necessary in order to drive my point home. You can always contact me by email if you wish to do so. I will be concentrating on book reviews in the next few days, but I can always make some time for you.
Hello John
This is a topic that takes a very long time to discuss. You can contact me by email if you wish as there are many links to post. I am concentrating on a book review now, but can always make some time for you. Here are a few links:
Read the introduction:
https://www.academia.edu/4700001/What_do_we_know_about_the_Bible_An_interview_with_Joseph_A._Fitzmyer_SJ
keeping in mind that Stephen Hawking always changes his mind. He is a very good scientist. One gets the feeling that he has been influenced by biology (evolution as Dobzhansky understood it, minus the religion).
Francis Collins is also mentioned in this introduction and you say he “believes in the God of the Bible”. Yes, he does. The problem is that the God of the Bible took a long time to emerge, if we are to understand the narratives correctly. Biblical archaeology tell a different story:
https://www.academia.edu/18473226/The_key_role_of_Biblical_Archaeology_in_Exegesis_An_interview_with_Professor_Israel_Finkelstein
the result of a meeting with the prominent archaeologist last month, part of my project involving both science aand religion.
You will read that archaeology cannot give the final verdict and will ask,What do we do then if the narratives in the Bible also absorbed Near Eastern myths? That is no problem, studies are being conducted, and science and religion should not necessarily clash:
https://www.academia.edu/14727603/Why_Stephen_Jay_Gould_proposed_the_principle_of_Non-overlapping_Magisteria
We are not in a position to ask, What caused God? We are finite. More on that later.