The title is “Dan Spicer: We have a simple explanation.” It was posted on October 26, 2015.
In response to A Critical Summary 3.0 Discussion: One Very Smart Bartender, Dan Spicer writes:
“Look at p. 14 in our paper from St. Louis. We have a simple explanation.“
That would be Electric Charge Separation as the Mechanism for Image Formation on the Shroud of Turin: A Natural Mechanism by D.S. Spicer and E .T. Toton (Revised 23 May 2015) as found at shroud.com.
Before turning to page 14, it might help to look at an extract of the abstract that amplifies the meaning of the title and nicely explains the mechanism:
Do read the linked references above in this order:
- A Critical Summary 3.0 Discussion: One Very Smart Bartender,
- Abract & Page 14 of Electric Charge Separation … A Natural Mechanism
- Dan Spicer: We have a simple explanation.
Then read all the comments including those by Hugh Farey, Robert Siefker, OK and John Klotz (RIP).
Here are a couple of things I say (blogger’s privilege) :
When in the full light of the day, a paper is examined under a magnifying glass, that light, focused on one spot, may ignite the whole paper. That maybe will happen with Critical Summary 3.0.* The spot is the chart on page 73, Image Characteristics vs. Image Formation Hypotheses, that attempts to claim that only John Jackson’s Fall Through hypothesis “is judged capable of satisfying image characteristics” – that is, seventeen image characteristics selected by the paper’s authors.
Dan Spicer offers an alternative, one that to me seems more realistic than a cloth falling through a body as a function or accident of resurrection. Moreover, Colin Berry’s explanation in support of contact imprinting must also be considered. And we must consider O.K.’s argument that the appearance of metacarpals in the image is possibly perfectly natural. As O.K. writes in a comment:
The authors of Critical Summary carefully use the word judgment. That’s appropriate. But we must realize that this is the judgment of a small team in Colorado, albeit a distinguished scientific team that understands the shroud. It is not the judgment of the wider community that studies, ponders and debates how the images on shroud were formed. I think that much, if not most, of the larger community disagrees with or is ambivalent towards the falling cloth hypothesis. The page 73 chart does little or nothing to change anything in this regard.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
BTW: It is now Critical Summary 4.0.