The most intelligent thing anyone can say with regards to the shroud is, "I don’t know."

So, a discussion about the Shroud of Turin ended up on CBS Sports message boards yesterday. The question asked was, Did the C-14 tests debunk the Shroud of Turin?

After some banter back and forth, someone wrote: “So I don’t think trying to debunk religious artifacts should be looked at as trying to steal away the piece of mind of religious followers.”

Then someone who calls himself BUCKinFL and uses a football helmet for an avatar wrote:

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a skeptic.  A little often overlooked fact is that most Christians are also skeptics regarding religious artifacts.  In fact the site that was posted, the skeptic site that is skeptical of that Ark site is in fact a Christian site.  I think what a lot of people, Christians mostly, resent is the snarky elitist attitude that many atheist skeptics take.  It shows a lack of tolerance to other people’s rights to believe hat they want to.  Or more importantly, it shows a lack of tolerance for the rights of people to see things differently when the facts are not totally clear.  The toast?  yeah, I don’t think most Christians think this is anything but a hoax, likely done for one reason, to cash in on the idea that at least one sucker would come forward with money to own it.

The shroud however, has not been debunked and thus, how it was made is an unknown.  It has been proven that it was not made by any known means in the past  It is clearly from before the time of Da Vinci since it appears with known identifiable marks, well before Da Vinci and well before the dates of the C14 tests.  In fact, not only is it known to not have been created through any known means available in the past, it wasn’t created by any known means even available today.  In addition, there are many things about it that have been proven through research that suggest authenticity because they fly in the face of what was believed by people during the times it would likely have been created had it been created as a hoax, shortly before its introduction in Europe.

For instance, the fact that it can be proven that the blood stains are scientifically proven to have gotten on the cloth from an open wound, not through manual application.  The ability to know the difference is a recent technology and not one that a hoaxer would have even suspected would be available.  Nor would they know that in the future they could tell the difference between human or animal blood, not would they suspect that we could determine whether or not the blood was somebody who had been tortured.  The fact that the hoaxer would have had to torture somebody and then applied the cloth to that person while they were still bleeding just makes it so unlikely as to make it you really have to stretch rational belief to believe that this was done.

The hoaxer would also have to understand the concept of a negative exposure, which is what the image is.  When was photography created?

The hoaxer seems to have been able to predict the future, had access to advanced science not known for many centuries later, and also not hold to common misconceptions of the time.  Given this, it seems as likely that the hoaxer is alien, or from the future as it is the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ with the image created during his rise from the grave.

The most intelligent thing anyone can say with regards to the shroud is, "I don’t know."

Hat tip: Joe Marino

Shroud Encounter Presentation in South Carolina

Russ Breault will be presenting Shroud Encounter at Spartanburg Methodist College in Spartanburg, South Carolina on Monday January 30, 2012 at 7:00 PM in the Camak auditorium.

Bad Archaeology at Bad Archaeology

From an article, The Turin Shroud in a blog called Bad Archaeology (two guys) we find: 

It was in the documentary’s omissions that the greatest faults lay. The voice-over stated that the image is not painted, giving the impression that nobody could explain the colouring other than that it’s a “degradation of the cellulose” in the linen fibres. That’s not quite correct. What is seen on the shroud is a chemical darkening of a starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the fibres: it’s not the fibres themselves, but something applied to them after manufacture. In other words, pigment. And if that’s not paint, I really don’t know what is. One of the members of the STURP team, Walter McCrone, concluded during the study that the image was painted using red ochre and vermillion pigments. The programme didn’t mention him or his conclusions!

. . .

The scientists at the radiocarbon laboratories noted contamination of the samples with cotton, while McCrone had already drawn attention to the mixture of cotton and linen. This means that they were able to deal with it. They recognised the cotton and removed it, dating the linen fibres, which is what they were asked to do. The preparation of samples for dating involves rigorous cleaning to remove potential contaminants, such as these stray cotton fibres. There is no reason to suspect that the three laboratories undertaking the dating did not do their basic cleaning, especially as they had spotted the contaminants.

The programme brought up the old claim that the image on the shroud somehow encodes three-dimensional data and, using the same computer program used to create a three-dimensional image of the face on the shroud, showed that it does not work with photographs. How dishonest! We’re not dealing with a photograph on the shroud but with a painted image. The comparison should have been with a painting. Talk about prejudged conclusions! Besides, if we’re dealing with an image produced by draping a cloth over a corpse, it ought to be far more three-dimensional than we see: where are the sides of the body that the cloth would have touched? The fact that they aren’t there is good evidence that the image is painted.

Extraordinarily bad archaeology being practiced here fellows. Did they really say?

What is seen on the shroud is a chemical darkening of a starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the fibres: it’s not the fibres themselves, but something applied to them after manufacture. In other words, pigment. And if that’s not paint, I really don’t know what is.

It’s not paint. Did you mention that the coating is 200 to 600 nanometers thin? Paint that! Did you mention some real science used to test for paint? Ray Rogers is quoted below:

We tested all pigments and media that were known to have been used before 1532 by heating them on linen up to the temperature of char formation. All of the materials were changed by heat and/or the chemically reducing and reactive pyrolysis products. Some Medieval painting materials become water soluble, and they would have moved with the water that diffused through parts of the cloth as the fire was being extinguished. Observations of the Shroud in 1978 showed that nothing in the image moved with the water.

The Shroud was observed by visible and ultraviolet spectrometry, infrared spectrometry, x-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and thermography. Later observations were made by pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry, laser­microprobe Raman analyses, and microchemical testing. No evidence for pigments or media was found.

Did you say the labs detected cotton and removed it? Did they ask why cotton was there? Cotton isn’t the contaminant here. It suggests the possibility of other contaminants. Did they do a chemical analysis of the samples? Madder root dye, aluminum products, gum were subsequently found. They overlooked that. Cotton was a clue that the sample might have material intrusions from repairs. The repairs might have been made with newer linen with cotton spun in among the linen fibers to hold dye needed to make newer cotton look old. Evidence suggests that is so. Did you mention that the test results fail basic statistical tests for sample homogeneity? Did you mention that what was tested was chemically unlike the whole cloth. Did you mention that the cloth contains measurable vanillin but that the carbon dating samples do not the cloth does not contain measurable vanillin but that the carbon dating samples do? (Corrected)

Good archaeology means considering all the facts, not just those that are convenient. 

You did say, also:

In the event, three laboratories were chosen (Arizona, Oxford and Zürich) and asked to perform several tests on each of four samples taken from different parts of the cloth. . . .

No, they did not take samples from different parts of the cloth. One sample from one corner was cut. Part of it was divided into three roughly equal portions for each of the labs. They then made further divisions. Bad archeology includes bad factual statements, does it not?

Do we need to review this?

The programme brought up the old claim that the image on the shroud somehow encodes three-dimensional data and, using the same computer program used to create a three-dimensional image of the face on the shroud, showed that it does not work with photographs. How dishonest! We’re not dealing with a photograph on the shroud but with a painted image.

Maybe on the television program in question someone compared the shroud image to a photograph. But it has also been compared to numerous painted images. A little basic research would have revealed this. It is irrelevant anyways. It shows a complete lack of understanding about the 3D properties of the shroud image. You might want to check out The so-called 3D Encoding of the Shroud.

New Book from Smashwords: The Turin Shroud by the Temple of Mystery

There is a new book out as of yesterday, January 26th, according to the publisher. It seems to only be available in a number of e-formats like PDF and EPub and only from Smashword. The author is some group or something called Temple of Mysteries. The price is only $3.68 but it is only 10,803 words (think about 40 pages).

For centuries belief that the Shroud of Turin really bears the likeness of the crucified Jesus Christ had to be a matter of faith alone. Then in 1898 it was photographed for the first time, and suddenly the negative image revealed an astonishingly life-like wealth of detail of a tall bearded man horribly tortured with whip, nails and crown of thorns. Virtually overnight, the age-old faith of the pilgrims seemed to be vindicated. Surely this was the very image of Jesus?

Who is the Temple of Mysteries? Here is a quote from the home page:

Learn about the enigmatic Knights Templar and their devotion to Mary Magdalene. Why did Leonardo da Vinci revere her and was he responsible for faking the known Templar artefact, the Turin Shroud?

Discover the secrets of sacred sites such as Rennes-le-Château and why it is of interest to groups such as The Illuminati and The Priory of Sion.

Find out whether the Templar descendant Prince Henry St Clair (Sinclair) sailed across the Atlantic in 1398 to discover America long before Christopher Columbus and whether there is evidence of his voyage encoded in Rosslyn Chapel.

The real mystery is who are/is these guy(s) ?  It’s not the $3.68. Any takers?

The Christ of the Shroud of Turin and other reminders

From an article about an exhibition of the work by William Kurelek, one of Canada’s greatest 20th-century artists at the Art Gallery of Hamilton, Ontario:

Artists’ self-portraits can tell us both what someone looks like and what makes them tick. He’s placed himself in front of a wall neatly covered with images. A picture of the dead Christ from the Shroud of Turin [far right in picture] might serve as a reminder of his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism. A reproduction of an Eastern European icon of Mary holding the Christ child and a photograph of Ukrainian dancers hint at his roots. He liked to paint from photographs — and memory.

Hat tip to Joe Marino.

Sciencebod reacts

He repostes:

But some here, notably Paulette, might care to take a glance at the paper’s introduction. Note the claimed 7cm difference in length of the front and rear images (see her earlier comment and the scorn she heaps on me for pointing out how obvious it is, even in the images avaliable on the internet). But first she will have to get down off that school ma’am’s high horse of hers ;-)

Ah, the soft rubber tip on the foil: the smiley ;-)  In looking at what Paulette wrote we see that she did not so much heap scorn on Sciencebod for pointing out anything but for not pointing out anything. It isn’t about a claimed difference in length between the front and back images or even if it is obvious. It is about his slapdash approach to analysis, which to my way of thinking is a perfect example of the gee-whiz science he so disdains. Why not say, “I’ve noticed . . . has anyone seen any research on this? . . any thoughts? . . . am I onto something?” Sciencebod seems rather to parry attacks and and declare touché. What does he expect?

Here is what Paulette wrote (I added links and images for clarity):

The author of science buzz tells us that his blog is primarily about his “scepticism re media-hyped gee-whizz science, especially ‘pseudo-science’, as previous postings will demonstrate, NOT religion…”

Well it certainly isn’t about science, either. Consider his 5th item in which he tells us, “Dorsal and ventral imprints may have been obtained from two different templates. Some claim dorsal and ventral images are not consistent. A quick play around with my laptop would suggest as much.”

He is out of his league. Look at the picture of the dorsal and ventral images that he put together in his blog (above). This isn’t scientific thinking. As a science teacher I would have given one of my 9th graders a failing grade if he turned in something like this. He has lined up the rightmost and leftmost edge of the cloth as though the feet were aligned to those edges. The best he can do is write, “some claim.” Who? What documentation? Forget the fact that hundreds of scientists spent thousands of hours studying the images on the shroud. Compare his “quick play around with my laptop” with the fifteen page paper, “Computerized Anthropometric Analysis of the Man of the Turin Shroud” detailing the real scientific work of Giulio Fanti, Emanuela Marinelli and Alessandro Cagnazzo of the Interdepartmental Center for Space Studies and Activities at the University of Padua. They are consistent.

Almost all of his 37 points are like point 5, not researched, not carefully thought out. Joe Nickell move over. You have competition.

In reference to  He’s back and it’s a doozy « Shroud of Turin Blog

Quote for Today

Fr. Alan Neale, an Episcopal priest, writes on his blog, White Collar Views:

Though my faith does not rest upon the authenticity of the Turin Shroud and though the practice of relics has never been part of my spiritual journey yet the story and debate about the Shroud has always fascinated me. It has been no problem for me to accept its authenticity and I rather like the image of resurrection power acting like some power almost unknown to man.

Alan Neale, was born in London, England. He received his first degree from the London School of Economics. A second degree in Theology from Oxford University followed. Ordained in Exeter Cathedral, he served in the city-centre church St. Andrew of Plymouth, Devon, The University of Christ Church, Southampton and St. Andrew, Stanstead Abbots, Hertfordshire. In 1988, with his wife Wendy and three children, he moved to Brookings, South Dakota. After thirteen years as Rector of St. Columba’s Chapel Middletown, Rhode Island, Alan became Rector of Philadelphia’s Holy Trinity in June, 2004.

Promoted Comment on Correcting Joe Nickell

Daveb of Wellington NZ by way of a comment writes:

I’m not sure why we should bother. Joe NIckel, Sciencebod and other skeptics like them have already made up their mind and just keep recycling tired old arguments. They enter the debate with closed minds that it’s a fake and then muster outworn arguments, coupled with mockery and derision, to try to make their case. This is not the way to do good science, and is a complete contrast to the objective, fair-minded and analytical approach taken by those working closely with the artifact. Most of Nickel’s other arguments are answered by reference to Ian Wilson’s most recent book “The Shroud”, Random House, 2010.

Despite Bishop D’Arcis’ most carefully worded letter of 1389 to Avignon Pope Clement VII, he was unable to provide a single documented reference supporting his charge that Bishop Henry of Troyes had looked into the matter “some 34 years ago or thereabouts” and found that it “had been cunningly painted”, Note that he is even unspecific about the date, even though any supporting documentation would still have been available to him. The truth of the matter is that very likely all the churchmen, Bishops Henry, D’Arcis and the Canons of Lirey, were all moved by avarice to meet their debts, as apart from the Shroud, they had missed out on the largesse of other relics seized from the sack of Constantinople. Pope Clement VII may have known more about it than he let on. He had a close connection with the de Charny family, and he enjoined D’Arcis to perpetual silence on the matter under pain of excommunication.

We do not know the history of the Shroud, as its original owner in the West, the gallant and most honourable knight Geoffrey de Charny was killed at the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 defending his king, before he was able to reveal how he came by it. However Ian Wilson attempts a credible reconstruction of its history as the Mandylion of Edessa, and musters several sound arguments to support it. This may not suit the pedants who insist only on facts, but it is the unavoidable vagueness of the history of those turbulent times. That so much can be reconstructed is a credit to Wilson’s perseverance and energy.

Wilson also itemises several criticisms of the C14 tests, and describes the jostling for control between John Paul II’s chief scientific advisor Dr Carols Chagas and Turin’s Professor Luigi Gonella. Chagas’ well thought-out protocol was scrapped, and Gonella and the AMS laboratories had their way. Without even touching on the likelihood that the C14 sample was a patch, and not the original material at all, Wilson lists the following criticisms:-

1. Choosing only of labs using the AMS method, all three being clones of one another;
2. No involvement of a professional textile conservator in choosing the sample;
3, Taking just one single sample, from one single area;
4. Choice of site for the sample being well-documented as subject to prolonged repeated handling during the centuries;
5. No provision for any chemical analysis of the sample;
6. Unofficial purloining by Gonella and Riggi of unused portions of the sample for their own personal research purposes;
7. Denial of any other synchronous scientific approaches to the Shroud.

Nevertheless, no amount of logical argument will change the minds of the skeptics. They have made up their closed minds on the issue. And still retain the gall to call themselves scientists. Maybe they’d make good lab technicians, and not attempt to be more ambitious.

See: Correcting Joe Nickell « Shroud of Turin Blog

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious describes improvements to shroud.com

A reader writes:

The word supercalifragilisticexpialidocious came to mind when I saw the wonderful improvements to Barrie’s shroud.com.  As you will recall Mary Poppins uttered that famous word rather than admit to being speechless. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful.

Correcting Joe Nickell

Phyzics over at A Rather Silly Blog writes, “Joe Nickel – c’mon guy,” then:

So I’m sure that everyone who keeps up to date on the Shroud has heard about the recent experiments by ENEA which were able to reproduce the superficiality of the Shroud image using bursts of light. My point in writing this though is to show the blatant fallacious writings of skeptic Joe Nickell, who is repeating the same false facts that I heard far too many Shroud skeptics tout:

“Given the tremendous evidence against the ‘shroud’ — its incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical record, bishop’s report of the forger’s confession, the still-bright-red ‘blood’ which failed forensic serological tests, the presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three laboratories’ radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence — it would seem that Di Lazzaro is straining at a gnat and attempting to swallow a camel. Let him produce a shroudlike image according to whatever theory he can muster, and we’ll talk again.”

Let’s break this down line by line.

He’s back and it’s a doozy

Here is one example:

30. .So-called 3D-encoded information is an artefact of the computerised imaging – which explain why the 1532 burn marks appear as a hologram-like 3D as well as the image itself.

So much for science. There is too much to take in with one posting. Maybe we’ll have to go through all 38 points one at a time.

If you can’t wait, you can go here and read all 38 points. science buzz: The Shroud of Turin – think of it, if you will, as a medieval EuroDisney, designed to attract thrill-seeking tourists, oops, sorry, devout religious pilgrims…

L.A. Marzulli is on Coast To Coast AM

Start
Coast To Coast AM
on YouTube and move the slider up to 10:19

 

(Corrected)

Has Playful Leonardo Left Us a Clue in the Salvator Mundi?

Australian artist Dorothy Gauvin asks Has Playful Leonardo Left Us a Clue?

It’s happening for me again, an ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ moment. This time it’s an idea that fits within my own field of Painting. Yet this time, I’m completely at a loss as to how to test it. You see, it’s about a mysterious work recently identified as by that towering genius and trickster, Leonardo Da Vinci.

Since it’s no longer physically possible for me to travel, so as to go to see the original, I can only muse on printed reproductions of the painting titled ‘Salvator Mundi.’

So, in hopes of getting a reply from someone who can enlighten me, I’m throwing my possibly ridiculous thought out into the ether of Cyberspace. Here goes:

In every report I’ve read, experts refer to an object held in the left hand of the Jesus figure as a ‘globe’ or as a ‘sphere’ of crystal, representing the world. To my eye, this is clearly a round lens, such as that which is a component of the camera obscura, which Leonardo described in his notebooks and is now thought to have utilized in making the Shroud of Turin.

Can this crystal object be the playful clue he left – out in plain sight – to another of his cryptic jokes on us all?

Shhh! Don’t tell Picknett and Prince. They’ll need to revise their book once again.

Satan and his clever Shroud of Turin trickery

Jon J. Cardwell writes one of the more comprehensive biblical-literalism arguments against the shroud on the Justification by Grace blog. It’s long hair again and it’s the napkin that was about his head again, and a lot more. And then there is this clever hypothesis:

How then does one explain some of the inexplicable anomalies that the shroud seems to posses: the 3-dimensional quality of the image; the laser-like transmission of the image that is beyond our present technology, etc? Frankly, I can’t explain them. Neither do I care to. Satan has been very good at getting our attention off of God and getting us to waste our time on trivialities. If Satan, as the father of lies, can disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), then he’s probably clever enough to provide some trickery in this world. . . .

Is one tempted to wonder who is tricked by whom?

From Atheism to Catholicism

Sally Read in The Tablet – Outfoxed by God:

For almost all of her 40 years, a Suffolk-born psychiatric nurse-turned published poet and passionate atheist felt little but contempt for Catholicism. But then, in less than a year, after a springtime epiphany she was received into the Church. This is her journey

And near the end of the article:

Coming out as a Catholic hasn’t been easy. I understand best those that pick fights with me – how to explain such profound experiences, such a deep love? What surprises me more is envy, a wistfulness that faith has eluded many of my generation. They sense what I can confirm – faith means more love. Becoming Catholic is, of course, a reversion. My great-grandfather was an Orangeman in Northern Ireland. I come from generations of hard-line protestants-turned-atheists. These days, when I pray the Rosary, I find myself wondering which woman was the last in my line to do so, and how easily she gave it up.

Unrelated to the above, it’s interesting to search through The Tablet for articles about the Shroud of Turin.

Joe Nickell, Children’s Author

In her blog, [a] homeschooling, freethinking mom dreaming of learning to live off the land, during short breaks from teaching times tables and cleaning up poop,” who tells us, “I’m trying to figure this whole secular parenting thing out while raising my kids in the heart of Jesus Land, and it’s not always pretty,” writes in a posting:

Teaching my kids to think skeptically as they are bombarded with information and various worldviews is of great importance to me. I’ve said it before, but as a homeschooling mom, my goal is to teach my children how to think and not what to think. Of course we learn math facts, grammar rules, and history, but more important than filling their heads with particular knowledge now, is teaching them to love learning and to continue schooling themselves for their entire lives. To this end, here are three great books for teaching kids to approach life skeptically!

1. Bonnie loved reading The Magic Detectives [Joe Nickell, Prometheus 1989]. The book features thirty short real-life mysteries, from Bigfoot to the Shroud of Turin to UFO sightings. After studying each case, the reader can think it over before flipping the page to read the solution to the mystery. Bonnie flew through it, then we adapted one of the suggested assignments in the back of the book. She wrote a small essay on the ethical difference between tricks used by phony "psychics" and stage magicians.

In the book, Nickell argues from the d’Arcis memorandum, the wrap around distortion problems, the discovery of paint particles, on how easy it is to make a negative (it is not, of course) and the use of carbon dating.

It makes you think about homeschooling. I doubt that even the most secular, freethinking school districts, far away from “Jesus Land,” would use a book like this even “for teaching kids to approach life skeptically.” Being skeptical is fine. Freethinking, fine. But, mom, check out the factual content of this book as it pertains to the shroud. That was 1989. One of the things I wanted my kids to learn was the value of fact checking. Much has happened since 1989.

The mom concludes:

Have you found any other good books for little skeptics? Especially for younger readers?

Mom, go to Amazon.com. Click on Children’s Books. In the search box enter the word Skeptic for 6 books, Atheist for 16 books, etc.

Quote for today by Paolo Di Lazzaro

Paolo Di Lazzaro in an email to Barrie Schwortz, taken from “The Shroud in the News for Christmas 2011: An Editorial Response by Barrie Schwortz,” which by-the-way is a MUST READ:

Our results are more evidence that it is not easy to replicate the body image and skeptics will have to believe in a miracle to sustain it was done by a forger in the middle ages!

Correcting an article about the Shroud of Turin

Last week and article by Mike L Anderson appeared in Articlesbase, Shroud of Turin: shroud of Christ? It begins:

"In the darkness of the Jerusalem tomb the dead body of Jesus lay, unwashed, covered in blood, on a stone slab. Suddenly there is a burst of mysterious power from it. In that instant the blood dematerializes, dissolved perhaps by the flash, while its image and that of the body becomes indelibly fused onto the cloth, preserving for posterity a literal ‘snapshot’ of the Resurrection" (1).

In such soul-stirring tones, Ian Wilson provides a popular explanation for the haunting image on the most famous cloth in history – the Shroud of Turin. The alleged burial cloth of Christ captivates. Theologian, Robert Perry says the "Shroud is intentionally produced by Jesus as his own record for posterity, as his own gospel"(emphasis his) (2). Artist and theoretical physicist Isobel (sic) Piczek calls it the "… only window on the future in the cosmos, on the cosmos" (3).

It concludes:

Perhaps one day the Father will exact an answer from many to this question: "How is it that you tried to shroud the glorified One in a medieval cloth? (26). (emphasis mine)

Annette Cloutier, a reader of this blog corrects Anderson’s article:

These very misleading/mal-assertions by Anderson need to be carefully addressed one by one:

To quote McCrone is to be on the side of conning the public for self aggrandizement. (I didn’t think McCrone was actually a member of STURP. He certainly didn’t go to Italy to study the Shroud in Turin in 1978. But he managed to con away the tapes containing particles of blood, pollen and other Shroud surface material from Ray Rogers a valid member of Turin. He kept those tapes for over a year, long enough to deprive others, such as Dr. John Heller (another valid member of STURP) from making a timelier, honest, and carefully scientifically scrutinized evaluation. McCrone got to the press first. Heller’s book didn’t get the press it deserved because of McCrone’s cronyism to anyone who was anti-STURP. (Boy, does the Divider ever have a legion.)

It is most imperative to note that John’s Gospel is not writing fact… the tons of spices to anoint the Body of Christ is comparable to the tons of water converted to wine at the wedding feast of Cana. It has to do with competing with the Hellenistic gods of wine/this life (Dionysus) and embalming spices/afterlife (Persephone)… a great exaggeration to get the reader convinced that Jesus the Christ is greater than Dionysus the god of wine (Wedding Feast of Cana), and Persephone the goddess of the eternal spring/resurrection (the entombment/the spices).

The two cloths John mentions seems to be the Sudarium and the Shroud which Anderson will not even mention (the Sudarium) as being so similar to the Shroud in material and in blood-stain formation.

Bishop D’Arcie’s accusation of calling the Shroud a painting has been already addressed by Antonacci and others that the so-called painting was a quick-lived substitute commissioned perhaps by the de Vergy family to be displayed at Besançon, France (1349) after the 1347 fire at the Cathedral of St. Etienne. But it didn’t stay in circulation long. The display of the genuine Shroud at St. Mary’s Lirey France took place after the death of Geoffoy de Charny on 19 September 1356, which gave Jeanne de Vergy the necessary funds to continue on after her husband’s death defending King John the Good (Hundred Years’ War).

No prior history of the Shroud before the 14th century???? Look at the detailed drawing of the Shroud in the 1192 Hungarian Pray Manuscript… Then there was the peaceful transfer the the Shroud to the kingdom of Constantinople from the city of Edessa in 944. All the kingdom of Constantinople wanted from Edessa, in lieu of war, was the Shroud. How it was so well venerated in Constantinople thereafter: even Robert de Clari wrote in his journal (1203) of how the Shroud was displayed at St. Mary’s Blachernae (or some say he meant to say at the Pharos Palace Cathedral) every Friday. Pro-Shroud theory says that there was a solemn parade that took place every Friday in moving the Shroud from the Pharos Palace Cathedral to St. Mary’s Blachernae. Anti-Shroud theorists say that deClari was confused.

Anderson’s so-called art historian(s), who claim the Shroud is of 13th or 14th century iconography, need a lesson in art history. They should begin with the artwork of the Hungarian Pray Manuscript, 1192, which graphically depicts the Shroud and its formation.

As far as those rascally labs are concerned anyone familiar with the testing of the Shroud will know that none of these "scientists" behaved in a scientific way: they did not research the work prior done a decade or more prior to their tests. They did not even read Dr. Gilbert Raes’ (Ghent Institute) work done in 1969 to 1973 specifically on this corrupted corner. Dr. Raes said that under the microscope fibers of cotton could be seen mixed with the old waxed linen fibers, and there was dye and glue to boot. No, these "scientists" from the three faulty Carbon 14 labs did not even do research on the onsite scientific examination of the Shroud done by STURP. These lab scientists, as you say, Joe, were paid to confound the real science done by STURP John Heller and Alan Adler in 1979-1980. But ignorance loves ignorance just as money loves money.

Dissent of the day with a bit of a response

Stephen J. Waddock, an artist, computer artists and graphic artist writes:

Typical of most apologetics, you have have misrepresented both the view of Richard Dawkins and Science regarding Carbon-14 dating. Dawkins does not “admit it is controversial”. His comment/position regarding the Shroud and Carbon-14 dating is:

The dating of the shroud remains controversial, but not for reasons that cast doubt on the carbon-dating technique itself. For example, the carbon in the shroud might have been contaminated by a fire, which is known to have occurred in 1532. I won’t pursue the matter further, because the shroud is of historical, not evolutionary, interest.

I have not misrepresented Richard Dawkins (pictured). Moreover, I fully agree that the controversy is “not for reasons that cast doubt on the carbon-dating technique itself.” However, the example Dawkins gives of fire contamination from the 1532 fire is outmoded and was never really taken too seriously by many people. I assume it is because of inadequate fact checking by the publisher that it appears in print. After all, why would Dawkins research this topic thoroughly given that the book – you are, of course, referring to The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, a wonderful book, which I thoroughly enjoyed and with which I have no scientific issues on the topic of evolution – is not about the shroud. I am a little surprised, though, that a book published in late 2009 doesn’t have a better handle on the scientific developments pertaining to the carbon dating of the shroud that took place over a period of two decades after the test. It is an unfortunate tarnish.

I’m sure you agree that in all matters of science, no conclusion, even carbon dating, should ever be thought of as final and unchallengeable. Why even Einstein was wrong. You should read the posting, here in this blog, called Mixing Up Faith and Science on the Carbon Dating of the Shroud of Turin.

and, you wrote:

and…

Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (1986, p. 226 emp. added).

…but hey, what’s a more-than-little misrepresentation of someone’s position when your arguing for god.

Now, you are citing a different book: The Blind Watchmaker. That was published in 1986 as you say. That was before the carbon dating of the shroud. Nonetheless, what does it have to do with the shroud? And, by-the-way, I have no issue with that text. Nor do I imply that I do.

Is it the pot that calls the kettle . . . or is it the other way around? Oh, and how do you know I’m arguing for God? It wouldn’t do me any good, I suppose, to tell you that my theological perspective is that I should argue for truth no matter where it might lead.

(By-the-way, I share the view of theologian Alistair McGrath that The Blind Watchmaker in an excellent refutation of William Paley’s outmoded views on intelligent design.)

If the carbon 14 tests fail to meet basic and robust statistical standards for sample homogeneity, as they do; if there is credible evidence that what was tested was chemically unlike the whole cloth; and if the cloth contains measurable vanillin, as it does; then we cannot trust the carbon dating no matter how fine the science of radiocarbon dating is. Sadly, Richard Dawkins is apparently unaware of this.

Then changing to the matter of the image you remind me that I wrote, “We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion.” To which you add:

Uh….yes, we do.

The image on the shroud could not have been made from laying the cloth over the face of a individual. It is impossible to accurately render a 2-dimensional image from a 3-dimensional image (of this depth) WITHOUT distortion. Absolutely,physically not possible.

This can be tested by applying a transferable solution to the face of a person and then laying to cloth on the face and applying pressure around the features of the face to transfer the solution to the cloth. When removed and flattened, there would be noticeable spacial distortions between the features of the face.

A more simple way to show this is not possible would be to take a simple character face mask and attempt to flatten it out. You would notice that the different depths of the mask would cause spacing distortion between features such as the eyes, nose and mouth.

Simply not possible.

Uh…. I’m confused. I agree with you. In fact, just about everyone who has ever thought that the shroud was real during past one hundred years agrees with you. It’s a red herring, a favorite argument used by Joe Nickell who doesn’t want to deal with facts.  The point is that we have no idea of how the image was formed. Really, we don’t. And skeptics don’t either.

Bravo! Wonderful Facelift of shroud.com

We owe so much to Barrie Schwortz for all his great work over the years. Barrie, thank you!

From the Late Breaking Website News page of the wonderfully redesigned site, today, on this this sixteenth anniversary of shroud.com:

If you have managed to get to this page and are reading this article, you will have already noticed a dramatic change in the look of this website. After sixteen years online, we have given the website a long overdue "facelift" to make it more modern in appearance and much easier to navigate. I have had many criticisms about the look of the site over the past few years, but some months ago a reader pointed out that the site was difficult to view and navigate, particularly on the smaller screens of smart phones or tablets. Although we have always put more emphasis on content than design, it is hard (or downright stupid) to ignore the fact that over 100 million Americans alone now view the internet on such devices. It was certainly time to make some changes.

The first thing I hope you noticed is the dramatic redesign of the front page. We have replaced the original variegated, multi-colored background site-wide with a solid light gray background that is easier to read and loads much faster. We eliminated all the link buttons that littered our Main Menu and other pages and replaced them all with simple text links. Most importantly, we combined the Main Menu into the front page, where it belongs. The menu is broken into two sections, one for General Contents and the other for In-Depth Contents, the latter of which is now listed on the page in alphabetical order. Instead of having to click a link to view a separate Main Menu page, just scroll down a bit and the menu content is right there. (You can still click on the Shroud photo if you like, which simply jumps you down the page directly to the menu items). You will also find that the Search Engine box has been moved to the front page. Of course, as always, a second search box is still available from the Website Library page. You will also find a Navigator bar at the bottom of every main page that gives you quick links to other important pages of the site. Navigator bars have also been added to the top and bottom of the Scientific Papers & Articles page and the Links To More Information page that allow you to find papers and links alphabetically instead of scrolling through scores of listings. There are many other changes and refinements you will find as you navigate the site, all designed to make it more user-friendly. I hope you find the new look of the site a good step in the right direction. And it only took sixteen years!

Speaking of sixteen years, one friend and viewer of our site recently asked me how the website got started and what prompted me to build it. In fact, he strongly urged me to write an article telling the story and include it in this update. It seemed like a good idea, so you will find links to the new article titled The History of Shroud.com from all the appropriate pages of the site. Of course, as I’ve already stated, content is still our primary focus, and this update is no exception. Although it is not as large as some previous anniversary updates because of the time necessary for the redesign, it still contains some very important new materials. I have included the usual Update Table of Contents below to make finding the new content easy.

Finally, no update would be complete until I thanked each and every author, scholar, researcher, student and viewer who, by their continued participation and support, make this site possible. You truly make this all worthwhile. Thank you for being there.

Barrie Schwortz, Editor & Founder

Late Breaking Website News!  and the Home Page