Shroud of Turin

[aidanbradypop]

There is a strip of linen that was originally part of the main part of the linen that was cut off the long end and then reattatched later on. This is thought to have been wound around the neck, middle, knees and legs after the body was wrapped in the main cloth. Obviously to secure it. Jews have never wrapped bodies mummy style. So we have, main cloth, securing cloth strip and head napkin = cloths or pieces of cloths. Also they might not have seen the image at first it is very faint and it was a dark cave. Later they would have kept it secret, since it would have certainly been destroyed in the wrong hands. ****

Very possible.

 

[Nelka]

Real.

 

[SalusaSecondus]

I am agnostic on the issue, but I lean towards fraud. I certainly want it to be real though. I would be overjoyed.

 

[GKC]

As I said somewhere here, I own and have read a number (I dunno - 12-15 maybe) books on the Shroud. I am cautiously on the authentic side. I’m firmly on the side that it is an interesting item, not easily dismissed.

GKC

 

[GKC]

Considering St. Joseph has about 38 toes, I’ve never been one to cling much to relics. And that’s probably why I don’t know enough about it. Though for something that Christ actually touched, well…

Who wants to suggest some good reading?

If my collection of books on the Shroud was not (as is so much of my total collection of books) inaccessible, in storage, I’d do so. It can be an engrossing subject.

GKC

 

[steido01]

If my collection of books on the Shroud was not (as is so much of my total collection of books) inaccessible, in storage, I’d do so. It can be an engrossing subject.

GKC

Got an easily-accessible recommendation for a cursory overview? No need to dig too deep, if not.

 

[GKC]

Got an easily-accessible recommendation for a cursory overview? No need to dig too deep, if not.

Sadly, no. I think that 1 or 2 are not, formally, in storage. Which means they are merely in hiding, without even an idea where to look.

The last thing I read, on line, was the reversal of Rogers’ position on the reweaving issue. His interest was piqued by these folk,

ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf

who were basically amateurs. He thought he could easily refute their position. He couldn’t.

The article at the link dates from after Rogers’ death, but I recall reading his account of how he changed his mind, somewhere on line.

Generally, I prefer books. Which get lost, alas.

GKC

 

[Peregrinans]

There is a ton of information at Shroud.com

 

[cjforJesus]

Sadly, no. I think that 1 or 2 are not, formally, in storage. Which means they are merely in hiding, without even an idea where to look.

The last thing I read, on line, was the reversal of Rogers’ position on the reweaving issue. His interest was piqued by these folk,

ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf

who were basically amateurs. He thought he could easily refute their position. He couldn’t.

The article at the link dates from after Rogers’ death, but I recall reading his account of how he changed his mind, somewhere on line.

xcerpt from STRONG WOMAN: Unshrouding the Secrets of the Soul by M. Sue Benford.

On March 5, 2001, I built a pyramid using standard poster quality cardboard. My miniature pyramid measured 10 cm high with sides 15.7 cm. and a four-sided base of 9.5 cm each. I placed a dull Exacto-knife razor blade on top of fresh, unexposed Kodak Ultra-speed dental film. I decided that the dental film, securely encased in protective coverings, might produce the charged particle tracks that DelaWarr had recognized on his glass plates. I positioned the edge of the razor blade so that it was facing West. The pyramid itself was positioned so that the walls faced true North, South, East and West while the corners aligned with NW, SW, etc.

On March 7, 2001, I added a 3 cm high cardboard box platform in the center of the pyramid. I then placed the X-ray film and razor blade on top of this platform, which was positioned in the center of the pyramid.

According to DelaWarr, “. . . an ordinary. . . photograph of a person would act as a ‘link’ for tuning-in to him, though not such a good link as a blood specimen or a sputum slide.” (Day/DelaWarr, 1956; 66). Would it be possible to use a Shroud of Turin photograph to get an actual image of the person on the cloth or maybe something else connected to that person? To test this, on March 8, 2001, I decided to build a second pyramid according to the same specs I used on 3/5/01. This time, however, I included a simple 1 by 1.5 inch real looking Shroud-face photograph (the negative version) and laid it on top of clean, dry linen provided to me by the late Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) chemist, Al Adler. I put the photograph face down on the cloth then put both (linen and Shroud picture) on top of a fresh, unexposed Kodak Ultra-speed dental film (white, smooth side of plastic film packet against the linen). All three objects - film, linen and picture - were laid on top a 3 cm high cardboard box inside the pyramid. The Shroud face was aligned to face West. The pyramid was positioned so that the walls faced true North, South, East and West while the corners aligned with NW, SW, etc. The final “ingredient” was to focus intense “thought” on the apparatus demanding that an image appear.

On March 15, 2001, I developed the film underneath the razor blade in the first pyramid. It had been in the pyramid for 10 days and had been undisturbed for 8 of those days. I followed the standard instructions for manual developing of dental X-rays, which were included on the packaging sent by Kodak. Incredibly, I could see a faint image of the razor blade in the upper right hand portion of the film. But even more incredibly, I also noticed the image of a strange “fetal” image in the bottom left corner of film.

Where did this “fetal” image come from? Did it possess any of the known characteristics of a fetus (either a real one or the etheric DelaWarr fetus)? I sent the image of the “fetus” to optical physicist,

This is supposed to be shroud research by Benford and Marino? It sounds more like occult magick.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

I do not think the Shroud of Turin is genuine nor is it a forgery.I cannot say I am agnostic about it because I believe it to be a fascinating work of art.

 

[GKC]

cjforJesus:
No, the link I posted is the subject and assertions that caused Rogers to change his mind, as to the reweaving issue. One would have to engage with that logic, not the lady’s pyramidology lunacy. Rogers did attempt to refute the amateurs’ assertions (and fully expected to do so) when he was presented with, essentially, the points made at that link. He discovered that, in essence, in his opinion, on that topic, he had been wrong and they correct. A brief account is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers

And somewhere, on line, was Rogers’ own account of his scorn for the amateurs, his confidence in being able to summarily dismiss their points, his inability to do so, the change those points made in his assessment of the carbon dating, and his conclusions.

The discussions continue of course. Pyramids do not enter into them, AFAIK.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

No, the link I posted is the subject and assertions that caused Rogers to change his mind, as to the reweaving issue. One would have to engage with that logic, not the lady’s pyramidology lunacy. Rogers did attempt to refute the amateurs assertions (and fully expected to do so) when he was presented with, essentially, the points made at that link. He discovered that, in essence, in his opinion, on that topic, he had been wrong and they correct. A brief account is here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers

And somewhere, on line, was Rogers’ own account of his scorn for the amateurs, his confidence in being able to summarily dismiss their points, the change those points made in his assessment of the carbon dating, and his conclusions.

The discussions continues of course. Pyramids do not enter into them, AFAIK."

GKC

The claim was that the C14 tests were done on a repaired portion of the shroud and Rogers never proved that or exactly established the chain of custody of what he claimed he tested.There are videos of the actual cutting of the sample,and it is quite obvious it is not some invisible weave.

As far as I am concerned no one has been able to refute the carbon dating done by 3 separate labs. I believe the Shroud to be an icon , a religious work of art

 

[GKC]

The claim was that the C14 tests were done on a repaired portion of the shroud and Rogers never proved that or exactly established the chain of custody of what he claimed he tested.There are videos of the actual cutting of the sample,and it is quite obvious it is not some invisible weave.

As far as I am concerned no one has been able to refute the carbon dating done by 3 separate labs. I believe the Shroud to be an icon , a religious work of art

As I said, the discussions continue. Here’s Rogers’ paper on this point:

shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

If he still possessed fiber samples from the Shroud, which were the basis for his original assessment. as stated at the wiki, and, as I recall, Rogers stated when I first read of this, then one either concludes he published something that was a blatant falsehood, or he for some reason was fooled by the amateurs’ assertions, or he was convinced that he had made an error, in his original conclusions, based on his latter analysis.

I tend to follow the 3rd hypothesis, but certainly opinions differ. Rogers’ opinion seems to have differed before and after he engaged the Marino/Bedford assertions.

GKC

 

[cjforJesus]

As I said, the discussions continue. Here’s Rogers’ paper on this point:

shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

If he still possessed fiber samples from the Shroud, which were the basis for his original assessment. as stated at the wiki, and, as I recall, Rogers stated when I first read of this, then one either concludes he published something that was a blatant falsehood, or he for some reason was fooled by the amateurs’ assertions, or he was convinced that he had made an error, in his original conclusions, based on his latter analysis.

I tend to follow the 3rd hypothesis, but certainly opinions differ. Rogers’ opinion seems to have differed before and after he engaged the Marino/Bedford assertions.

GKC

I still believe the Shroud to be an amazing work of art. It inspires the individual to meditate on the passion of our Lord.

No one to date has been able to refute the carbon dating,and the artifact has undergone extensive renovation and a new backing cloth added. The vatican is in possession of the remnants that were removed in order to add new patches. Benford asserted before she passed away that testing these samples would give accurate results yet more than 10 years later nothing has been proposed.

 

[GKC]

I still believe the Shroud to be an amazing work of art. It inspires the individual to meditate on the passion of our Lord.

Opinions may differ on this, as I said. Certainly it is in no sense* de fide* for a RC to hold any particular opinion on the subject.

Me, I’m cautiously on the side of authenticity. But it is relatively awkward for me to discuss the points that led me to that conclusion, since, as I said, all my books on the subject are unavailable, and the topic was never one that greatly engaged me, as have other subjects over the years. In that case I’d own vastly more books on the subject and they’d be at hand. The Shroud was one of my minor areas of interest.

GKC

 

[Peregrinans]

The claim was that the C14 tests were done on a repaired portion of the shroud and Rogers never proved that or exactly established the chain of custody of what he claimed he tested.There are videos of the actual cutting of the sample,and it is quite obvious it is not some invisible weave.

As far as I am concerned no one has been able to refute the carbon dating done by 3 separate labs. I believe the Shroud to be an icon , a religious work of art

A work of art that is not a rubbing, not a painting, not a scorch, not a photograph. There is no pigment of any kind on the Shroud that could have caused the image. An image that has no edges, is very faint and is anatomically so perfect forensic pathologist have been able to reconstruct how the man died. An image that only sits on the uppermost fibrils of the linen and could be scrapped off with a razor blade. It has real human blood that contains bilirubin which excreted into the blood from the liver when a person is tortured. It has, invisible to the naked eye, serum stains that have seeped into the linen, it has forensically and historically, accurate wounds of scourging and crucifixion. And it shows a man who was crucified with added puncture marks throughout his scalp. Yep that is some work of art.

 

[cjforJesus]

A work of art that is not a rubbing, not a painting, not a scorch, not a photograph. There is no pigment of any kind on the Shroud that could have caused the image. An image that has no edges, is very faint and is anatomically so perfect forensic pathologist have been able to reconstruct how the man died. An image that only sits on the uppermost fibrils of the linen and could be scrapped off with a razor blade. It has real human blood that contains bilirubin which excreted into the blood from the liver when a person is tortured. It has, invisible to the naked eye, serum stains that have seeped into the linen, it has forensically and historically, accurate wounds of scourging and crucifixion. And it shows a man who was crucified with added puncture marks throughout his scalp. Yep that is some work of art.

I believe it to be an amazing work of art to inspire meditation on the passion of Jesus.

If you review very early videos, a member of STURP claims they concluded the image is a type of scorch. He uses technical terms but then says the word “scorch” This prompted many to speculate on the energy produced by the resurrection and if it could have caused such an image.

Just because we do not know the exact technique the artist used does not make it something supernatural.

 

[marymary1975]

I believe it to be an amazing work of art to inspire meditation on the passion of Jesus.

If you review very early videos, a member of STURP claims they concluded the image is a type of scorch. He uses technical terms but then says the word “scorch” This prompted many to speculate on the energy produced by the resurrection and if it could have caused such an image.

Just because we do not know the exact technique the artist used does not make it something supernatural.

If you take into account that the “artist” murdered someone to come up with this work of art and painted with human blood before and after death, no it is not an amazing work of art. In that case it is a very creepy work and the supposed artist had to be wacked in the head.

 

[cjforJesus]

If you take into account that the “artist” murdered someone to come up with this work of art and painted with human blood before and after death, no it is not an amazing work of art. In that case it is a very creepy work and the supposed artist had to be wacked in the head.

So if Jesus blood was on the cloth why would the vatican have it vacuumed restored cleaned and a new backing cloth added?

I don’t think it was ever proven conclusively that human blood is on the cloth.

 

[Peregrinans]

I have read papers and watched presentations by many of the STURP team, Shroud.com is run by one of them. In fact the reason he created the website was out of frustration that so much misinformation was being put out in the media. Things like it being a scorch. The team said it had the appearance of being a scorch, but then concluded that it wasn’t. Since then many test have been done to confirm that For instance there are actual scorch marks on the Shroud which were caused by various fires over the years. There is a certain light test that can be done only to show any scorch marks on the Shroud. When this test was performed all of the known fire scortches showed up…the image could not be seen at all. It is not a scorch.