Shall We Revisit a Posting From 2015?

The title is “Dan Spicer: We have a simple explanation.” It was posted on October 26, 2015.

It begins:

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

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:

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.

6 thoughts on “Shall We Revisit a Posting From 2015?”

  1. OK, so I said farewell to this site (and indeed, the internet) a while ago.

    But given the brief aside here by Dan of my contact-imprinting thesis – based I might say on some 7 years of research, and WHY I consider it to be contact imprint, namely an idealized mid-14th century reconstruction of the body/blood imprint left on Joseph of Arimathea’s linen sheet used purely for preliminary transport of the crucified Jesus, cross-to tomb ( no, not final burial shroud) , then here’s a link to the final posting on my own site:

    Yes, final. Nothing more needs to be said. Feel free to take it or leave it…

    Comments are nevertheless still invited there my having chosen back in 2011 the internet as the medium of communication ( 100% open -access, no hiding behind ”peer-reviewed’ journal paywalls!).

    1. Thanks PHPL.

      Farewell sindonology,

      Farewell internet.

      Time now to return to the real world – with its more immediate pressing problems (man-made global warming, extremist hate-filled religious doctrines, oh, and that woefully debased, corrupted Google so-called search engine, ha ha ;-)

      Time now to breathe the fresh air of life outside the 2019 internet…


  2. Dear researchers,
    I think there are two great biblical Mysteries to deepen in a careful manner …
    – Exodus (and then see also the strange claims about Moses, Akhenaton [for example : try to see what wrote Sigmund Frreud [in 1938 ! …] and the problem/claim about the vanished papirus (in to the Tutankhamon tomb – Carter Lord Carnavon, etc. …)] and the exact location about the Red Sea …)
    – the Resurrection

    … And then we can try to guess something about the possibilities of modern science investigations …
    In the case of the Holy Shroud, Oviedo’s Cloth and Cahors repert/relic [ = “lignocellulosic relics”] see also : the SPMs (Scanning Probe Microscopies) and Raman spectroscopy.


    Piero Iacazio

  3. Errata corrige : “Sigmund Freud” instead of “Sigmund Frreud” … in Wikipedia = Moses and Monotheism (German: Der Mann Moses und die monotheistische Religion) is a 1939 book about monotheism by Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis. It shocked many of its readers because of Freud’s suggestion that Moses was actually born an Egyptian, rather than merely raised as an Egyptian. …
    The mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote that Freud’s suggestion that Moses was an Egyptian “delivered a shock to many of his admirers”. …

  4. This theory is interesting although it may be a bit speculative concerning the alleged gases and ions emanating from the body.
    What gases? methane and other decomposition volatile products emanate from a corpse in a time interval that does not match the time Jesus’ body had been wrapped in the Shroud.
    Accordingly to this theory the Image imprinted on the Shroud is not the image of the Resurrection and I may indeed agree with this, nevertheless the FACT that Jesus’ body disappeared without the cloth being meccanically removed and left its image on the Shroud is a SIGN that something very weird happened in that tomb and was not repeated anymore with anyone else.
    The image imprinted on the Shroud may not be the so called by-product of the Resurrection of Jesus but I’m deeply convinced that it is the Sign GOD granted Humankind of the reality and physical Resurrection of His Son.

Comments are closed.