The Shroud of Turin: What's Your Opinion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheOldColonel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998, pg. 19:
In 1967 the British photographic professional Leo Vala, inventor of several new photographic techniques and a complete agnostic, commented on this same [Enrie’s Shroud] negative:

“I’ve been involved in the invention of many complicated visual processes and I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today with all the technology we have. It’s a perfect negative. It has a photographic quality that is extremely precise.”**
**AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER, 8 March 1967.

And from pages 20-21:
And given that Dr. Walter McCrone contends it [the Shroud’s Image] to be a painting, and ‘cunning painting’ was the term used by the sceptical Bishop d’Arcis as long ago as 1389, one of our first priorities has to be to decide whether it might be just that, or whether we really could be seeing [the image of] a genuine human body.
In order to help us resolve this question there can be few better guides than professional painter and specialist in studies of the naked human figure Isabel Piczek. A child prodigy,. . .Piczek held her first professional painting exhibition at the age of eleven and graduated from Budapest’s Fine Arts at only thirteen.
… .to see her perched atop her fifteen foot studio ladder, Shroud ‘negative’ in hand, carefully checking from this the pose of a totally naked male model laid out Shroud-style directly below her, is to realize she takes it [the question of the Image being a painting] very seriously indeed - particularly when one learns that she has vetted literally dozens of models for this pose, trying to find one with absolutely the right height and physique. . . .
So what, then is her professional opinion on the Shroud? As expressed in highly illustrated talks and articles, it is emphatic in the extreme:
“Although there is an argument that no artist of the Middle Ages could have painted a negative image, the fact is that even today, with or without the aid of a camera, no one could paint a negative image with anything like the perfection exhibited on the Shroud.”

Pg. 25:
. . . .she became obliged to abandon altogether attempts to reconstruct the back of the body image. For these the model would have been required to lie on his front, his hands crossed beneath his pelvis, balancing himself by just his nose, the top of one hand, and one knee…
The only other way that she could have achieved a true back-of-the-body view would have been to have posed the model Shroud-mode on a plate of glass, then suspend him above her. But since plate glass had not been invented in the Middle Ages, this seemed hardly worth attempting.
. . .Piczek’s firm conclusion is…that a genuine male human body lay in the cloth and somehow imprinted its image on it.
 
Last edited:
From THE BLOOD AND THE SHROUD, Wilson, 1998, pg 28:

As just some indication of the unlikelihood of the Shroud having been created by an artist we may cite the fifty or so surviving life-size direct copies of the Shroud that were made by artists during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and are now preserved in churches in Italy, Spain and, in one instance, the United States.** Compared with the Shroud, each and every one of these direct copies is simply not in the same league. . . .They shriek their production by a human hand, even through the painters concerned lived at a time artistically far more competent than that in which the Shroud theoretically first surfaced.
**Luigi Fossati SDB, “Copies of the Shroud Part I” and “Copies of the Shroud Parts II and III” in Shroud Spectrum, issues no. 12 and 13.

Pg. 29
Another odd property is that the image seems not only to register the surface of the theoretical body, but also, at least in part, its subsurface, in the manner of an X-ray. As several medical specialists have pointed out . . .we seem to be seeing the metacarpal bones and the three phalange bones of each finger. Similarly Professor Alan Whanger of Duke University has argued for features of the skull to be visible.
 
Last edited:
Hugh_Farey said:
In an earlier post, Undead_rat said that he thought “Eleventh century Icons of the Mandylion are spitting images of the Shroud’s face.” I challenged this, with seven precise reasons why I did not agree. It would be good to read a response to this, which has not as yet been forthcoming.
Click to expand...
Still unforthcoming. One thing at a time, I say…
 
Last edited:
Artists were not involved in the Shroud. It is real. It is of Jesus Christ. No other exists like it.
 
Science or not, you still cannot say how the image got there! Thus, dumbfounded!
 
The question of the anatomical perfection of the body on the Shroud has become successively more awkward to those who stand by it. To early observers, such as Pierre Barbet, there was no difficulty. The man lay supine on a slab with the Shroud laid out below and draped over the top, and the resulting image, miraculously or otherwise, reflects that configuration. This was also John Jackson’s finding from the early 1970s. In a film made in 2008 (the “Rageh Omaar” BBC programme), he describes how the exact position of the body and Shroud was obtained. He found a volunteer who:

“was CAT-scanned, and then the X-rays from the CAT-scan, in sequential slices, were cut out, after being digitised, and assembled to make this three dimensional model. So this is actually a real person, laying in the attitude implied by the man in the Shroud.”

Jackson goes on to show, in very precise detail, exactly how the Shroud must have covered a flat, supine body in order to receive the blood-stains. He is so convincing that it comes as quite a shock to discover that other scientists, notably, very recently, Giulio Fanti, have produced equally scientific, equally detailed, and equally convincing body shapes which have raised heads and bent legs (which Fanti attributes to rigor mortis). One of them must be wrong.

How the monumental stained glass window maker Isobel Piczek first entered the story is not clear. She has been adopted as an authority on everything from anatomy to quantum physics by some authenticist factions, when in fact she was neither. It attempting to reconstruct the body shape of the man in the Shroud she had to assume that the cloth was suspended horizontally above the body, so that what she saw as the rather short dimensions of the legs bones could be accounted for by foreshortening. Neither of the former two scientists saw anything of the kind.

In this respect she differed quite dramatically from New York Pathologist Fred Zugibe, who was so disturbed by the unnaturally long dimensions of the leg bones that he wondered if Christ hadn’t suffered from Marfan’s syndrome, which is typified by abnormally long and slender limbs.

The fact is, of course, that convinced authenticists begin with the ‘knowledge’ that the Shroud shows a real body, with absolute anatomical accuracy, and all come to very different ideas as to how that image can have come about. Certainly nearly all of them must wrong, as the ideas are mutually contradictory. To go on to say that no artist could have got the dimensions as correct is therefore unjustified.
 
Last edited:
The idea that the Shroud shows some X-ray properties is bizarre indeed. Two (and only two) places on the body are usually exhibited as places where X-rays may have produced images, the teeth and the finger-bones. These are supposed to be visible on the Shroud. No mention of ribs, clavicles, lower limb-bones, and so on, just the teeth and the fingers. However, in order to produce an X-ray photo, the rays must come from somewhere behind the objects to be imaged, and be attenuated by those objects, so that they react better with the receiving plate where there is no impediment. An X-ray image is black (heavily reacted) where there are no bones and white (unreacted) where there are bones. This is exactly the opposite of the Shroud, which is darker where there are ‘obstructions’ and lighter where there are no obstructions. Those who accept the X-ray hypothesis are confusing the negative “white-on-black” image of the Shroud (which is not what is really there), with the positive “white-on-black” appearance of an X-ray (which is what an X-ray photo is).

The case becomes even more bizarre if we attempt to explain the origin of these X-rays. From the teeth and finger bones themselves (but not any other bones)? From the muscles (the neck and the genitals)?

Of course, if the whole shebang can be arbitrarily explained away as ‘miracle’, then no such inquiry is either necessary or possible. In that case one wonders why authenticists feel it necessary to inquire into all the ‘science’ at all. A true miracle is a matter of faith alone.
 
undead_rat said:
Another odd property is that the image seems not only to register the surface of the theoretical body, but also, at least in part, its subsurface, in the manner of an X-ray. As several medical specialists have pointed out . . .we seem to be seeing the metacarpal bones and the three phalange bones of each finger. Similarly Professor Alan Whanger of Duke University has argued for features of the skull to be visible.
Click to expand...
This just made me remember the prayer on the back of a picture of the crucifixion…also, it’s psalm 22… "they have pierced my hands and my feet, they have NUMBERED all my bones… " OMGosh!!!
 
I believe this refers to a video by Giuseppe Maria Catalano, of the entirely spurious International Institute for Advanced Studies of Space Representation Sciences, who has spotted straps for lowering the body from the cross (trimmed from the Shroud and subsequently resewn as the ‘side strip’), a pharaonic shenti skirt and snakeskin belt (with buckle), an elaborate head-dress of the leaves, flowers, fruit and thorns of Sarcopoterium spinosum, a large clasp like a safety-pin, several small chains (some bearing pendants), nails, and more phylacteries. Catalano thinks that he can see all these images reproduced several times, a bit like a multiple exposure of a moving object, showing that either the Shroud, or its occupant, did indeed move during the formation of the images. He also thinks that Christ was lain, in his Shroud configuration, face downwards on the sheet. I don’t believe any of his findings, and neither do any authenticists to my knowledge, This is fringe Sindonology at its weirdest.
 
CONDESCENSION

Has anyone else noticed an overwhelming level of condescension on this thread? First were are told that our opinions are not valid because (oh my!) we don’t take the trouble to access “primary data.”
Then we hear that we don’t understand how radiocarbon fourteen dating works because we don’t know about "statistical analysis (never mind that the Shroud’s C-14 data doesn’t indicate a date at all.)
Then we find that we don’t know our Scripture because Jesus’ walking on water was an illusion that He was able to perform because His disciples were fishing close to the shore.

If one notices a contradiction and points it out, one becomes a “blatant liar.”
And if one makes a postulation as to the source the obvious agenda being promoted on this thread, one is just spouting “incoherent gibberish.”

Now we see that medical specialists who notice X-ray features on the Shroud are guilty of having “bizarre” ideas and don’t understand how x-ray technology works at all.
And,if different scientists have different opinions about how Jesus’ corpse lay or was wrapped, that’s evidence that they all must be wrong.

It’s just too much; it really is.
 
Last edited:
I can remember thinking how neat it would be if someone found Noah’s Ark - we would have proof that it existed. On the other hand, God could have left physical proof of everything mentioned in Scripture, but would that diminish our acceptance by faith? Does He want us to have physical proof (in the scientific sense)??? Just a thought.
 
Dlee said:
I can remember thinking how neat it would be if someone found Noah’s Ark - we would have proof that it existed. On the other hand, God could have left physical proof of everything mentioned in Scripture, but would that diminish our acceptance by faith? Does He want us to have physical proof (in the scientific sense)??? Just a thought.
Click to expand...
The Jewish leaders asked Jesus for a “sign,” meaning for Him to work a miracle for them to witness. They were not satisfied with second hand accounts. Jesus took this opportunity to make a promise of a sign (or miracle) that would be available for an entire “generation” to witness. That, of course was the “Sign of Jonah” which, as He explained, would be a testament to His death, burial, and resurrection. That miraculous record is the holy Shroud of Turin whose blood and Image prove that Jesus lived, was crucified, died, was buried, and that His corpse vanished into another dimension.

Thus the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and is the seal of the Gospels, proving the authenticity of those writings in this age of skepticism and “rationality.” The reason that the Church never incorporated this theology into its teachings is that the understanding of the Sign of Jonah as the Shroud of Turin is quite new. The Shroud was originally known as the Image of Edessa, and it was not presented to the public as a bloody burial cloth. The sacred cloth was folded several times, and only its facial image was visible. Various legends arose to explain the Image’s creation, none of which involved Jesus execution and burial. Therefore the Church fathers had no basis for understanding the theology of the Image of Edessa as the Sign of Jonah.

In 2018 we now know that the Image of Edessa was really Jesus’ burial cloth containing the miraculous Image of His whole crucified body. That fact enables us to make the connection between it and our Lord’s ancient prediction of the Sign of Jonah. It has been preserved for this present age of unbelief.
 
Last edited:
undead_rat said:
It’s just too much; it really is.
Click to expand...
It must seem like that, for which I’m sorry. The best thing for true authenticists to do is to have faith in their belief, without pretending that there is any Science to support it. If the Shroud is a miracle, as many believe, then any apparent contradiction is irrelevant. God can do what he likes with his creation. As you have read, those who have expressed a simple belief have my sincerest good wishes. For all I know they may be correct.

Once you plunge into Science, however, then you must not be upset if you find yourself out of your depth. You may report what secondary sources conclude, but you are not in a position to defend those sources against attack unless you understand the observations upon which those conclusions are based. Nor is it wise to attempt a battle of “my scientist is better than your scientist” simply on authority alone. After all, the radiocarbon dating results were authored by a group of people some of whom are not only still alive and working, but are giants in their field.

Now, to specifics.

The assumptions behind the statistics in the Nature paper were clearly set out, and justified the conclusions published. I have explained them in considerable detail, and I thought you understood them, but I will be happy to explain them again if you would like.

It is perfectly true that I confused two biblical events on the sea of Galilee, and thought that the walking-on-water occurred during a fishing trip, when in fact it was a simple crossing. I acknowledged this mistake and apologised for it in post #247. I said: “They weren’t fishing! I’m so sorry I confused the walking on water incident with the 153 fish incident.” If you missed it I am happy to apologise again. I was wrong and I’m sorry.

The question of the possibility of neutron radiation, together with other radiation, was examined in depth by one of STuRP’s most qualified and experienced scientists, Ray Rogers, and rejected in a profusely illustrated paper using photomicrographs of Shroud fibres. Nevertheless, as I say above, if the Shroud is a miracle, then God could rearrange the evidence in whichever way he wanted. A radiocarbon test of the kind suggested by Mark Antonacci would support this miracle. At no point have I suggested that anything has been “proved” about the Shroud (quite the reverse, as I frequently point out that Science is not in the business of “proof”), and at no point have I said that I think Antonacci’s hypothesis is at all probable.
 
undead_rat said:
Now we see that medical specialists who notice X-ray features on the Shroud are guilty of having “bizarre” ideas and don’t understand how x-ray technology works at all.
Click to expand...
Have you read what I wrote? Which bit do you disagree with? If there is a bit, say what it is; if there isn’t, stop whinging.
And,if different scientists have different opinions about how Jesus’ corpse lay or was wrapped, that’s evidence that they all must be wrong.
Click to expand...
Now I know how tetchy you get about being called a blatant liar, but is that what I actually wrote?
Hugh_Farey said:
Certainly nearly all of them must wrong, as the ideas are mutually contradictory.
Click to expand...
 
undead_rat said:
In 2018 we now know that the Image of Edessa was really Jesus’ burial cloth containing the miraculous Image of His whole crucified body.
Click to expand...
In an earlier post, Undead_rat said that he thought “Eleventh century Icons of the Mandylion are spitting images of the Shroud’s face.” I challenged this, with seven precise reasons why I did not agree. It would be good to read a response to this, which has not as yet been forthcoming.
 
The idea that the prestigious British Museum was not capable of ever making a mistake is not correct. As is detailed by Mark Antonacci in collaboration with nuclear physicist Robert Rucker, a better way of interpreting the raw C-14 data is available. The Museum failed to consider that possibility because it allowed the analysis of the C-14 data to be controlled by an atheist who was all too happy to declare the Shroud a “load of rubbish.”
undead_rat said:
Quoted from “TEST THE SHROUD,” Antonacci, 2010, pg 304, 309, 316, 317, 320

"Eliminating STURP was the Primary Focus"
“. … apparent was his jealous and egotistical desire to eliminate the most knowledgeable group of scientists [STURP] from any involvement in future testing of the Shroud.”

" … . They even eliminated the most knowledgeable group of scientists in the world regarding the Shroud … . It’s as if their primary goal was to occupy center stage and have all the focus be upon themselves.
“Having acquired center stage at last, . . .its [the Shroud’s] date was smugly provided by Edward Hall, the director of Oxfords’s radiocarbon dating laboratory, and Michael Tite with an exclamation point [1260-1390!]. . .
On the same date Edward Hall dismissed the Shroud as ‘a load of rubbish.’”

HUMANITY’S RIGHT
“What raw data the radiocarbon scientists did acquire was not shared with other analyzing institutions, as had been agreed. Instead, they masked its significant underlying differences by combining and eliminating the youngest two ages from the reported data. Then they ignored the remaining data indicating that each contigious sample had noticeably different amounts of C-14 content, which correlated with their distances from the edge of the cloth. Worse yet, they attributed a date to the cloth based on very limited information that was not only erroneous, but was misleading. This inadvertently caused people all over the world to disregard, or never even be aware of, the unprecedented and incomparable evidence on this cloth.”

From “THE SHROUD”, Wilson, 2010, pg 89
“Not long after this, Hall’s Oxford AMS laboratory received funding of a million pounds, bringing into being a permanent professorship post that was immediately filled by the British Museum’s Dr. Michael Tite. . .”
Click to expand...
 
If the British Museum had not allowed the STURP scientists to be shut out of the C-14 dating process, the interpretation of that data might have been different.
undead_rat said:
From THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010

The big problem with the Shroud dating, and one that virtually never happens with any other [C-14] datings, was that there was no one equivalent to an archaeologist to act as interpreter of the results. … The British Museum’s Dr. Michael Tite declined to see himself in this role, quite rightly, because he was simply another radiocarbon dating scientist, not an archaeologist.
This left that role to be filled by the three radiocarbon dating laboratories–primarily, because with characteristic forcefulness he made himself their chief spokesman, by Oxford’s Professor Edward Hall.
Unabashedly atheist, …Hall positively relished the opportunity to be judge, jury, and executioner of the Shroud. He lectured on the subject to the British Museum Society. His laboratory’s role in “proving” it to be a “fake” was proudly displayed at his offices as among his finest achievements. There was no way he was going to modify the conclusiveness of the laboratories’ findings with any cautionary proviso of the kind his Zurich counterpart Professor Wolfi had volunteered.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top