A telephone caller (it happens every now and then) suggested bringing a recent comment by Joe Marino to the forefront. “This is important information,” he said. I agree. Joe had commented in Cat Among the Pigeons: Some clarifications about the order and circumstances of the invisible reweave theory. We did not start out with the … Continue reading “Comment Promoted: Clarifying Details on the Reweave Theory Development”
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 … Continue reading “Three Questions About The Reweaving Hypothesis”
Alas, I could not find that Bob Rucker or his work was mentioned anywhere in the Critical Summary. Bob Rucker (pictured) posted what follows as a comment last evening. I have added a link to a previous comment by Bob and some links to more information. It is my opinion that enough evidence has accumulated … Continue reading “Bob Rucker: A Burst of Radiation Did Three Things”
… if one of the points of peer-reviewed literature is to help fine-tune the author’s thinking, it seems a bit questionable that this editorial comes 10+ years after the original article by Rogers and the death of the author. Thibault Heimburger contacted the editors of the journal and has been invited to offer a response … Continue reading “Significant Response to the Preview of the Thermochimica Acta Editorial”
Pam Moon has uploaded another paper she wrote to her Shroud of Turin Exhibition site: Bl Sebastian Valfrè: The Black Thread, Reweave, and Unravelling the Shroud. It begins: It was an enormous privilege to attend the St Lewis Shroud conference and to meet so many of the world’s greatest Shroud experts. Can I give my … Continue reading “New Paper by Pam Moon”
The proportion of the "youngest" threads is 32.23 % – almost a third of the total – on the whole SAMPLE. In the case of the "cleaned", radio dated sample, it increases to 41.65% – approaching the half. It was one of those things I had put in a stack of things to get around … Continue reading “Paper Chase: The Shroud of Turin and its Radiodating”
the key problem is survival Charles Freeman writes in a comment: As 99.9999 per cent or more of ancient textiles ( and these included all clothing) are lost, it is hard to say anything more than that the Shroud, if it is indeed first century, is a unique SURVIVAL. I am more interested in knowing … Continue reading “Comment Promoted: Looking Beyond an Edessa-Constantinople Route”
A reader from New Hampshire writes: I’ll say one thing for Jones, no one has done a better job of debunking the Marino and Benford reweave theory than him. He damned the quad mosaics with Marino’s own words. As you pointed out, Jones did make two mistakes with historical evidence, the fake emperor’s letter and … Continue reading “Dissent of the day: I’ll say one thing for Jones”
Joe Marino has expanded the passage he sent a couple of days ago from The Untold Story of the Holy Shroud by Carlos Evaristo (See Documented Pieces Removed from the Shroud). The additional material precedes the material Joe sent previously, which now begins with the sixth paragraph below that I marked with a yellow swath. … Continue reading “More Tomfoolery: The carbon dating results are worthless”
“Carbon dating alone, whether in its 1988 form or some improvement upon it, isn’t enough.” Jason Engwer has delivered a significant and thought-provoking analysis in Triablogue, Weighing The Shroud’s 1988 Carbon Dating Meacham to Farey upon a whirlwind: [William] Meacham wrote nearly a decade ago. There have been some significant developments since then. In his … Continue reading “Thinking the 1988 Carbon Dating Outweighs the Other Evidence Is Absurd”
In the past couple of days there has been a lot of blame-game, back-and-forth banter about the 1988 radiocarbon dating. I though I would republish a posting from almost three years ago. It follows: Joe Marino, Sue Benford and the Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin January 19, 2011 Joe Marino writes: When Sue … Continue reading “Again: Joe Marino, Sue Benford and the Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”
More papers on mending First: What I find just a little mystifying, is that if it was known that Princess (Duchess) Clothilde of Savoy carried out repairs in the vicinity of the C14 sample site around 1868, why was this not so evident to textile expert Mme Flury-Lemburg who insisted that the cloth was homogenous, … Continue reading “And then, too, we have two comments from Daveb of Wellington”
I’m sorry that I have not been a direct part of the discussion on Dan Porter’s valuable blog. Unfortunately, I have been working for my oldest son in State College, PA and time and resources have not been available to me to conduct extensive research to respond to the many important observations offered by the … Continue reading “An Important and Highly Informative Guest Posting by Paul Maloney”
Because of Colin’s most recent comments about Rogers, bordering on conspiracy theory thinking, I thought it valuable to repost a posting from more than a year ago (January 9, 2012). But before repeating it, let me pull forward one particular paragraph: Kim Johnson of [ the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry affiliated New Mexicans for Science … Continue reading “Dog in this fight or pony in this race?”
Rich Savage, a friend of this blog, has been spending time over at the Randi forums (of the James Randi Educational Foundation – that’s magician The Amazing Randi – pictured here –paranormal investigator and Joe Nickell mentor) on a Shroud of Turin discussion thread that has grown to some 2456 comments as of this morning. … Continue reading “Savage Treatment in Randi Land”
ColinB/sciencebod writes: Hello again Dan I keep asking myself how I could have been so misinformed re the date of reweaving on which you corrected me so comprehensively with you references to Margaret of Austria. Might it be because pretty well everything I have come across in reading states that the repairs, including reweaving were … Continue reading “Sciencebod, Do some homework on the Shroud of Turin”
Russ Breault writes: It has been a long road since October of 1988 when the Shroud was relegated to being just another phony relic, the work of some medieval scam artist. Since that time doubtful historians have dug deep and hit the pay dirt needed to show something was awry with the alleged carbon date … Continue reading “What will 2012 bring in the world of Shroud of Turin studies?”
A reader writes: You are right, Kyle (I guess he prefers KC) has created an excellent website emphasizing skepticism. If I may be permitted to offer a criticism of this young man’s work it is that his website preaches too much to the choir (we Christians know that problem all too well). Science-Based Life is … Continue reading “KC’s Science-Based Life and the Shroud of Turin”
Joe Marino writes: When Sue Benford and I submitted to Radiocarbon in 2001 our paper on the 16th century patch (a.k.a. invisible reweave), we were told who the reviewers were: *Paul Damon, head of the U. of Arizona laboratory *Jacque Evin, French C-14 expert present at the 1988 sample-taking *Gabrial Vial, French textile expert present … Continue reading “Joe Marino, Sue Benford and the Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin”
Fascinating post here: More details are above and on other threads in this discussion group, related to the Talpiot Tomb. At this point, given the unique biological anomalies in fiber traces recovered from Jesus ossuary bio-concretions – (all consistent with the Turin fibers), and other evidence including consistent patina fingerprint, and a tentative date on … Continue reading “Pellegrino on Shroud and Tomb”
