This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've recently read the paper by Giulio Fanti, describing a hypothesis and some experiments with Corona Discharge: www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf My feelings are mixed at best. One one hand, Fanti seems to reject the extreme hypotheses based on pion/muon/jitteron/technobabblon theory. He calmly and openly states there is no possibility a form of energy like that was radiated on The Shroud and not damaged the fibers grossly (deep scorching, etc).
On the other hand, Corona Discharge theory seems more reliable and doesn't neccessarily employ the Supernatural. For example, the static electricity could have been caused by ferro-quartzite piezoelectric effect during an earthquake or by a ligthning (normal lightning bolt or the hypothetical yet scientifically probable ball lightning) eg. during heacy thunderstorm. On the other hand, however, Fanti seems to lean to the supernatural explanations of the source, or at least it's how I understood his efforts.
On one hand he explains an earthquake-induced theory (though extended by mentioning a possibility of spontaneous generation of static electricity), on the other, however, he tells about the internal source of radiation, which, as I read it, implies the "miraculous" or otherwise unknown phenomena. While he mentions the ligthning-based hypotheses, he doesn't elaborate them, and they were created by other scientists.
Some facts in his testing seem to indicate the second hypotheses being more reliable, though Fanti doesn't openly claim it was a miracle and still leaves room for natural sources of energy. Anyway, the work on Corona Discharge-based image formation itself, setting the miracles and even The Shroud aside, seems to be purely scientific and I guess that's why it was allowed to be included in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, the most crucial thing here seems to be finding of any scientific critique of Fanti's work, confirming or disproving his claims.
Some criticism of the pro-authenticity attitude is here: http://devapriyaji.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=134804&p=3&topicID=35048627 However, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, just a forum with some articles posted.
Greetings, Critto ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that the changes made by Thucyd since Rick Norwood's last version were major, and were made without consensus I have restored to Rick Norwood's version per WP:BRD. History2007 ( talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that you were given ample opportunity to document your edits using standard reference format. The number of people following the page is not the issue, the use of standard documentation is the issue. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
One difference between real science and fringe science is the difference between exact specifications and vague suggestions. Energy? All right. What frequency? What intensity? Where is the evidence? Real scientists do the math. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good source. Unfortunately, to read it cost $18. Has anyone read it? Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to the page: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_shroud_turin_significance_1981.htm
We can see what others say, but to me that "personal website" is not WP:RS, sorry. History2007 ( talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality ONCE AGAIN:
In the paragraph "Dust-transfer technique" , The conclusion presented is NOT from those who led the experiment ,Emily Craig and Randall Bresee, but from Fanti and Moroni (always them) Fanti and Moroni do not represent the entire scientific community, especially in a study such as this one, where conclusion very dissimilar are brought forth by various research teams. Thus to prevent ambiguity, the sentence: "However, it does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level." MUST be changed to "However, according to Fanti & Moroni's conclusions, dust-transfer didn't reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level."
Same remark for paragraph "Bas relief" : The so called conclusion is nothing else but once again the pro-authenticity conclusions of Fanti & Moroni, conclusions whch are presented in the wiki article as "conclusions" while they are only the opinion of Fanti and Moroni and it should be precised it is from them. I propose to replace the beginning of the conclusion by this: "On the other hand, G.Fanti and Moroni once again concluded otherwise , after comparing the histograms of 256 different grey levels [...]"
Also, I would add that Fanti and Moroni's "conclusions" are personal and subject to interpretation since they are subjective : In one word, Fanti is countering Costanzo and Nikell with ANOTHER factor: color saturation, a problem that has not been adressed in Costanzo's research. It's like answering to a question with another question toavoid answering and giving an opinion based on similar conclusions. Let's not forget that Fanti admitted that the intervals of grey level were the SAME between the bas relief experiment and the original shroud.
Is it NORMAL that all paragraphs are ended with a "conclusion" by Fanti and Moroni? The last word is given to these two researchers as if they represented the whole scietific community, the ultimate judges concerning this particular matter. Truth is, they are one team amongst others and their NAMES shold be cited when conclusions DIVERGE. Example: "team Y proposes Conclusion-A ,but team Z claims the opposite of Conclusion-A and proposes Conclusion-B".
And not what we see on this wikipedia article which consists mainly in : "Team Y says Conclusion-A, but it is not true."
"It is not true" is not acceptable, even if there is a ref, the NAMES of those who conclude are vital. If many names, let's say a very long list of research teams and their scientists, are opposing the initial claim, then they must be regrouped. If the initial claim is what I call an "orphan claim" (a claim made by only one team and only one team), opposed by a majority of other research teams, then and ONLY then can one wikipedia contributor say that the conclusion opposing the initial claim comes from the " quasi totality of the scientific community" .
Fanti and Moroni are far from being the quasi totality of the scientific community and have shown to stick closely to the churche's vieww on the shroud.
Energy Discharge: A curiosity but worth noting : the paper released by Fanti, Baldacchini, DiLazzaro, Murra Nichelatti and Santoni concerning the reaction between UV radiation and linen fibers (title: A Physical Hypothesis on the Origin of the Body Image Embedded into the Turin Shroud , link: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p01.pdf ) , Fanti and his team converge pope John Paul II's personal opinion , citing him literally : "The Turin Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence" , which is a theological argument, despite the comment that follows. Citing a pope is unprecedented in an official (thus "serious") scientific paper and this MUST be noted somewhere in the article.
ps: The pope's quote is a tongue-in-cheek way to say that man will never find out how the shroud has been produced, that we can only measure the results and never find the cause, because it is supposed to be the result of the "resurrection" , this being the reason why Fanti and his team are insisting SOLELY on pulsed laser radiation, corona discharge and any other ultra high energy source yielding similar results still to be discovered according to Fanti (Fanti claims in the link I provided that: "Finally, let us point out that the total UV radiation power required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body, of the order of 16 × 106 W/cm2 × 17.000 cm2 = 2.7 × 1011 W, is impressive, and cannot be delivered by any UV laser built to date." )
Fanti is thus a proponent of the supranatural source of high energy levels. This must be clearly explained in the article, but since he didn't write the word "supranatural" nor "divine", it must be explained properly that Fanti induces people to think, through his concluions, that the sources of such great energy are not discovered yet or may never be discovered.
It should also be noted that Fanti dismisses all other theories different than high energy radiation sources because none of them can reproduce the sum of particularities of the shroud. (Literally:"Reference [1] listed, among others, forty-two chemical and physical features of the Shroud body image, and up to date all attempts to reproduce an image on linens having all these characteristics have been unsuccessful." )
How could isolated experiments which tend to prove only certain particular points be compared to the totality of the characteristics of the shroud? Each initial condition is precise and is calibrated to study several aspects ONLY.
Perhaps Fanti and his team should have a DEDICATED subchapter and not be presented as ultimate "conclusions", sort of laying a biased "last word" , in each theory paragraph. Either a dedicated subchapter, either citing his team in each theory subchapter. !!!!!!!!!!I don't see what else could be proposed to respect neutrality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Corona Discharge: Another point, in "Corona Discharge" paragraph, Fanti and co avoid completely in their paper to explain WHY the back image isn't the same size as the front image, they only compare how FAINT the back is to the front, and this must be inserted in the wiki paragraph: "they also describe an image on the reverse side of the fabric, much fainter than that on the front view of the body, consisting primarily of the face and perhaps hands, but Fanti and his team omitted completely to attempt to explain why the back image is longer than the front image " with link to paragraph: see "Image Analysis" (cf " The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long.[111] " )
Apart from these points, the article is much clearer and neutral than when I complained at first, but still Fanti's "ghost" is present in each and every paragraph and this is not neutral and confuses more than anything else. Info on Fanti must be collected in one place AND he and his team cited each time one feels to conlude with his views.
Seperate issues:
So we need more solid references, less talk, I think. History2007 ( talk) 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Inner West Courier story regarding new data discovery by film scientist Vincenzo Ruello is now on the net google Inner West Courier Shroud Turin Story Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Am closely associated with Vincenzo Ruello, he asks me to talk to you all regarding firstly to thank you for the opportunity maybe be a part of this historical page and also if you feel it important for the exact process to be revealed here or for you to wait for a scientific report to come which may take several weeks. He is concerned that at this stage the exact process has not been revealed and is vitally important and lastly if the process was revealed here many would emulate copy the process, would the members here protect his historical pioneering discovery in how the skin was revealed on the Shroud body. Also please note the face photograph which is quite interesting is causing some problems in the Catholic Church of Australia, they have gone very quiet. Sincerely colleague of Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is very bad news for the world, firstly Cumberland Newspapers who own the Inner West Courier which has a circulation of 1.2 million readers a week is not an obscure paper and they have verified the story released on the 1st March 2011. A conspiracy is unfolding against the images of Vincenzo Ruello as all major media world wide have refused to publish his images. What has caused this to breakdown after the Inner West story is the images of the three toes ripped off the left foot and also the face. Barrie Schwortz the Shroud photographer told Vincenzo Ruello that they had been working on it for 50 years and now he comes along with a new filming system. I was with Vincenzo when he decoded the images and skin started to appear on the face and body. So other than the 1.2 million readers who saw the story and a few hits each day on youtube it has ended with the major media and Catholic Church and Shroud researches with their countless conferences world wide on the mystery winning out. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God maybe this refers to the few youtube viewers who will see the true face of Christ. The media and the catholic Church have killed off Vincenzo Ruello and you here have also fallen into their plans to stop the face of Christ being seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing funny about Shroud discoveries to laugh at only fools laugh at Shroud discoveries. Ruello has declared his discovery to be an event horizon in scientific terms it means the dawning of the new age where truth will draw and alter the minds of mankind. He also told me that his discoveries since being downloaded in early February 2011 regardless of lack of media will have a butterfly effect across the world. Laugh as many in the media are but the face as it appears is authentic. For the first time in history mankind is seeing the true face of the Holy Shroud. Vincenzo is currently writing the book. I consider him the greatest scientific mind since Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless you watch the Ruello clip on the feet xray images please do not waste your time commenting further. Nasa stated that no encoded images were present of the left foot yet Ruello has downloaded xray images of both feet showing toe nails and bone structure of the left foot missing three toes which he then photographed next to the right foot. Like I said unless you see this clip please do not comment. Also your thoughts on the face of the Shroud he has processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems Ruello doesnt need any media as links to his internet clips are spreading everywhere this should have been included on main article in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.150 ( talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Posted 3/25/2010 by Dan Porter - Those of us in the Shroud Science Group who know of him call him Vinny Pop (his id on YouTube). He wrote to me because of my blog and asked me to arrange a meeting with several scientists to review his findings: at the time a single 12-second shaky video purporting to show something in the eyes of the man of the shroud. I could see nothing but the usual visual noise. I asked him to provide more information including a written abstract of his methodology and findings, identification of the specific photograph he was working from (it looked like it might be Giuseppe Enrie’s 1931 photograph on Orthochromatic film with raking light, which, in my opinion, has far too much granular clumping to be useful for identifying small details). I suggested that a CV would be useful and an outline of a tentative peer-reviewed paper. With this information at hand, I would contact members of SSG. As far as a could tell from his emailed reactions, he was not familiar with a CV or the idea of a peer-reviewed paper.
At one point he wrote to me: “You worked on the Shroud and revealed nothing because I am a rock n roll singer who has discovered a new filming technique far advanced than current Shroud scientists you give no credit people have eyes. Ask me build a body of people your colleagues and I will present a scientific written exposure on my techniques. I have destroyed the myth od (sic) the Roman coins they never existed nor made sense my images prove stones accept it MR Expert a lowly musiocian (sic) has solved the eye mystery.”
I agree there are probably no images of coins over the eyes. Most SSG members certainly feel that way. But what eye mystery?
At one point he also wrote: “Dan this is my last message to you. You have treated me with disrespect and judging me before the jury is out . . . How can any respected Shroud researcher scientist argue with my xray images of the 2 large toes side by side proving there is no crossover. Lastly why on God's earth would I reveal my pioneering filming techniques to you or anyone to reproduce my findings and takel my hard work and credit. All true scientists protect their findings until respected scientists start seeing the truth. At this stage I will wait patiently for the Vatican officials or until I find someone I can work with. You know what I take extreme joy in the xray images of the 2 large toenails side by side especially the clearly defined square left foot nail. But as you would say Dan its just video noise. Over and out.”
As best I can understand it, he seems to feel that he has found a way to create an xray image from an ordinary photograph of the shroud. And he thinks he sees something there like detached toes or toenails or something. People (Alan Whanger, in particular) see coins, flowers of all sorts, a sponge, a nail or spike, dice, Hebrew, Greek and Roman lettering, etc. There is absolutely nothing in Vincent’s videos that warrants coverage in Wikipedia.
Dan Porter (Shroudstory.com and shroudofturin.wordpress.com, member SSG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoval ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dr Dan Porter though you are a respected researcher but not a scientist I indeed do see many images in Ruello's new discoveries. His 3D code diagram is very interesting. You also must be blind as on looking at the left foot feet clip Ruello appaeras truthful three toes are missing and filmed next to the right foot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.195.102 ( talk) 01:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
C Fred so why did you guys publish in main article Garaschelis fake Shroud when he didnt let other scientists verify his work all Garascheli had was some might I say minor media. Ruello has at least shown all his work. Garascheli hasnt even shown the positive Shroud just a negative fake Shroud image which anyone can make so you print articles in main without scientific evaluation C Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.164 ( talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruello has finally revealed the filming process at the site Above Top Secret titled Decoding Shroud Process Revealed For ATS Members Scientists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.179.1 ( talk) 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It is well documented in several articles on the internet that Marco Polo saw and handled asbestos cloth. It is also reasonably well documented that he brought back some samples, at least one of which he gave to the Pope (du jour). It is less well documented that the reason he gave this/these sample(s) to the Pope was that so that he (the Pope) could use the asbestos cloth in which to wrap the Shroud to protect it from further fires. Unfortunately I can no longer remember the books in which I read this, but given the number of internet references it would "seem" to be credible, and would be one "concrete" item of history pre 1390. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a major addition by Telpardec which has interesting material, but it is without any secondary references, and on the other hand is so long and detailed as to deserve its own article if it can be supported beyond WP:primary sources. As is, it is a case of WP:OR - without doubt. I built a temporary page for it here to get started as a new article if it can go beyond OR. However, with apologies, I have to revert it by WP:BRD, given that it is WP:OR at the moment. My suggestio would be to fix the temporary page, discuss it and see if makes it as a page without a WP:PROD or Afd, then add it here. History2007 ( talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
THE problem with the shroud of Turin is the Book of John; 19:40 KJV which says Jesus body was wrapped with many strips of cloth (check the Greek!!) glued together with 100 pounds of Myrrh and Aloes like an Egyptian mummy. John 20:7 says the head was wrapped with a separate handkercheif......... This concluseively points out that there was NO Shroud............ Very often only one gospel tells the Whole story........ Lewis Brackett, San Diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisharry ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
JimfromGTA (
talk)
17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The John 19:40 reference already is covered in the Main Article section on John Calvin's opinion of the Shroud. Jakob3 ( talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What a curious argument. John Calvin's works were placed on the Pope's Banned Book list (not sure whether this one was included, though). So where to now? Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. This is not a property that occurs in photography, and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.[102]" that's actually not true. Take any photo, color or grayscale and in an image editor adjust the contrast. You will clearly see that contrast contours in a 3D manner to the depth of the picture, creating a 3D depth to the image. While I am a believer that the shroud is legitimate, this claim is false. I can reproduce this in GIMP image editor. 50.47.132.10 ( talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Shroud can be linked to the historical documents by using microbiology. According to historical documents, the Shroud appeared in Jerusalem (Bible), in Turkey (Eddessa painting, Bishop of Constantinople sermon, etc), and was transferred to France, then Italy. Pollen samples taken by Dr. Frei (using sticky tape) identified 58 different pollen grains. He identified unique regional species of pollen grains that tied the Shroud to Jerusalem, Judea, Constantinople, Edessa, France, Italy. The vast majority of the pollen were tied to the Jerusalem area. (M.Frei, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum Journal, June 1982). His work on the pollen was confirmed by professors at Hebrew University ( http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf) who inspected the strips of pollen.
The chemical composition of limestone samples taken from the Shroud matched the chemistry of the limestone from the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb (two sites identified by tradition as the site of Jesus' burial). The tombs are located on a common limestone shelf. Work was done by Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago.
Conclusion: Microbiology confirms the history of Shroud before 1300's and confirms that is consistent with known existing documents and paintings of the pre 1300 timeframe. The Shroud was in Jerusalem (most pollen, limestone), Judea, Eddessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. JimfromGTA ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
I’ve gone through scripture and re-read the descriptions of the appearance of some angels, the transfiguration, and the appearance of Moses after his meeting with God. In these accounts, the beings radiated with a divine light. That Moses’ face shone and had to be covered with a veil when speaking to the Israelites afterward is very interesting. It seems to suggest that his body absorbed enough of the divine light from God appearing to him so that his face began to re-radiate this light on its own for a short while. Similarly, Matt 17:2 says this about Jesus and his clothes during the transfiguration: "his face [was] shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light." So the clothes gradually picked up a charge from Jesus' body and began glowing on their own.
If you have read Fanti and Maggiolo's April 2004 article in Journal of Optics called The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Shroud of Turin, you know that a second face was discovered by them on the dorsal side of the shroud. This second face is very faint and can only be seen with special equipment. It is a mirror copy of the face seen on the front of the shroud. I think it’s evidence of radiant energy making the image. Here are the events that I believe made the image(s).
Step 1: The body in the shroud began emiting this "divine light" during the resurrection event. During this event, the divine light burned (or whatever you want to call it) an image into the linen all around the body. The closer the linen was to the skin, the more prominent the image became. Also, it appears to me that the image of the face is the most prominent, suggesting that the divine light was brighter there than anywhere else. Just as Moses' face absorbed the divine light and then glowed, I think the shroud also absorbed this light and began glowing too.
Step 2: The body vanishes, and the top half of the shroud falls down on top of the bottom. Assume the image on the shroud is still glowing for a while (like Moses' face did). Since the image of the face is now in direct contact with the linen that was under the body's head, the glowing image is still bright enough to burn a copy of itself into the linen. This image should be a reverse image (which it is), it should be fainter (also true), and be aligned with the top image (which it is). Other brighter features, such as the hands, are also evident on the dorsal side.
If we could somehow show that the 1st face was created with 3-D multi-directional radiation, and the 2nd face was created with mono-directional radiation (due to it being a contact-transfer), I think it would add support to the theory that the resurrection event caused the image via a radiant divine light that charged the linen and lingered long enough to create the second image. -- Donald p curtis ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh my!! I awoke this morning realizing what has just been said. Donald, given the heart of God, the face that attended to Jesus was likely Yahweh's. Remember how the Father ran out to greet his son (parable of the prodigal son). Oh my!! Thus the shining cloth, like Moses' face. To others, the cloth contains evidence of Jesus' passion week, His crucifiction, His resurrection and His Glory. To Jesus I pray: thank you Jesus for giving Donald and I the eyes to see that which has not been clearly seen for over 2000 years. I bend my knee in humility and respect.
To others: The cloth is authentic. We now KNOW how the picture of a "real" crucified man came into being. Jesus IS who He is. The cloth is direct evidence.
For the truth seekers, the evidence is all there. Keep looking. Evidence to date contains answers to the who, what, when, where, and now "how". Read "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci. There are over 300 authoritative references to evidence.
To the antagonists and athiests, take off the blinders and repent. Your belief systems don't want to acknowledge the evidence that STURP found. Rather you invent theories without checking them out with the actual facetime research. For the shroud is PROOF that Jesus rose from the dead, and IS divine ( the cloth captures the glory (intense light). Be aware that since Jesus resurrected, then the promise of His return to judge the living and dead is real. Repent and seek the heart of God.
May God bless you all with the ability to see what Donald and I see. JimfromGTA ( talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You asked for improvements:
Because the shroud is a latent image of a real crucified person (per facetime research) and NOT a painting, nor, a latent image of a painting, you need to expand on how a latent image could have been made. The ramblings of the article misses this central point. Your article, while quite extensive, does not explore what Donald P above relays. It misses the image of the second face and does not explore the history of Biblical intense light events. These are relevant to the theory about imprinting, the "how" that everyone is trying to answer. The reason that this is important is that no KNOWN intense light source exists prior to the invention of the light bulb and ultraviolet lamps that occurred long after the shroud existance. Intense light events have a documented history and belong within an article that is about, after all, a Biblical personality and the man in the cloth, Jesus. So this info belongs in an encyclopedia.
In one section, you make it sound that religious information is NOT scientific. This is incorrect. Biblical information like other historical writings, provides information upon which events are confirmed (eg. Biblical archeology, Jesus' passion week, burial, and resurrection).
The tie into the Shroud of Edessa is missing and gives the impression that the history of the shroud of Turin ceases at to the 1300's. This misleads readers and gives a false impression about the Shroud. Actually the Shroud of Turin matches the Shroud of Edessa as captured in a painting, and the sermon of the Bishop of Constantinople c.1000 AD (ie. sermon states not a painting) ties to the Turin Shroud. The folds in the Turin shroud cloth match the presentation of the Shroud of Edessa in another painting. This match provides further linkage. And there is a couple of documents in existence that provide evidence of the passing of the Shroud to the Crusaders, the handover to the Shroud of Turin identity. These are missing from your article.
Your limestone evidence is understated. The actual research demonstrated a connection to the limestone shelf of the tombs that Jesus was by historical tradition, buried in. You make a statement of ancient Jerusalem tombs but do not take it to the step that the research actually found.
Your pollen evidence is understanded. Frei's work was collaberated by the Hebrew University professors, including one professor who made the statement that one unique specimen of pollen could only have been picked up by direct contact in the Jerusalem area. My own research is that outside of the realm of McCrone, Frei's work is respected. McCrone's followers have "slandered" Frei to get their way. But given the politics surrounding McCrone, I understand this.
Much of the above evidence is documented in Mark Antonacci's book with authoritative references.
There is no discussion on the aging of the cloth and the work that Rogers did. He demonstrated chemically that the cloth was older than that which the carbon dating suggested. This was an alternative proof to his research. Further, as Rogers relays, the weave of the cloth is older than suggested by the carbon daters. This was documented in Roger's last research paper on the carbon dating problem. c.2005.
I assume this is the type of info that you are looking for. JimfromGTA ( talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
After having reviewed the material of the Shroud, I have arrived at the conclusion there are NO convincing arguments that the shroud is a fake. People have been unable establish "fakery" over many years. (Note the original STURP team work did a lot of research into this area and failed to establish that it was faked, given the C14 testing did not validate a middle age dating of the cloth).
I don't want to interrupt the outpouring of love here guys. But this flower/pollen discussion does not sound like Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair and is well within the realm of WP:Forum. Therefore, per WP:Forum, if you want to discuss this further, please find a suitable airport bar where you can both fly to meet and get sloshed and wax on it. Let me know which bar, I may just show up. You might make friends after all. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The scientific method is that truth be established with evidence, not that evidence MUST be found to prove an opinion false. If there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus then we must believe it is not until it is otherwise proven to be Jesus shroud.. Lewisharry ( talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
I've recently read the paper by Giulio Fanti, describing a hypothesis and some experiments with Corona Discharge: www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf My feelings are mixed at best. One one hand, Fanti seems to reject the extreme hypotheses based on pion/muon/jitteron/technobabblon theory. He calmly and openly states there is no possibility a form of energy like that was radiated on The Shroud and not damaged the fibers grossly (deep scorching, etc).
On the other hand, Corona Discharge theory seems more reliable and doesn't neccessarily employ the Supernatural. For example, the static electricity could have been caused by ferro-quartzite piezoelectric effect during an earthquake or by a ligthning (normal lightning bolt or the hypothetical yet scientifically probable ball lightning) eg. during heacy thunderstorm. On the other hand, however, Fanti seems to lean to the supernatural explanations of the source, or at least it's how I understood his efforts.
On one hand he explains an earthquake-induced theory (though extended by mentioning a possibility of spontaneous generation of static electricity), on the other, however, he tells about the internal source of radiation, which, as I read it, implies the "miraculous" or otherwise unknown phenomena. While he mentions the ligthning-based hypotheses, he doesn't elaborate them, and they were created by other scientists.
Some facts in his testing seem to indicate the second hypotheses being more reliable, though Fanti doesn't openly claim it was a miracle and still leaves room for natural sources of energy. Anyway, the work on Corona Discharge-based image formation itself, setting the miracles and even The Shroud aside, seems to be purely scientific and I guess that's why it was allowed to be included in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, the most crucial thing here seems to be finding of any scientific critique of Fanti's work, confirming or disproving his claims.
Some criticism of the pro-authenticity attitude is here: http://devapriyaji.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=134804&p=3&topicID=35048627 However, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, just a forum with some articles posted.
Greetings, Critto ( talk) 01:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that the changes made by Thucyd since Rick Norwood's last version were major, and were made without consensus I have restored to Rick Norwood's version per WP:BRD. History2007 ( talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that you were given ample opportunity to document your edits using standard reference format. The number of people following the page is not the issue, the use of standard documentation is the issue. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
One difference between real science and fringe science is the difference between exact specifications and vague suggestions. Energy? All right. What frequency? What intensity? Where is the evidence? Real scientists do the math. Rick Norwood ( talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This sounds like a good source. Unfortunately, to read it cost $18. Has anyone read it? Rick Norwood ( talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Rick Norwood ( talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I would like to add a link to the page: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_shroud_turin_significance_1981.htm
We can see what others say, but to me that "personal website" is not WP:RS, sorry. History2007 ( talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality ONCE AGAIN:
In the paragraph "Dust-transfer technique" , The conclusion presented is NOT from those who led the experiment ,Emily Craig and Randall Bresee, but from Fanti and Moroni (always them) Fanti and Moroni do not represent the entire scientific community, especially in a study such as this one, where conclusion very dissimilar are brought forth by various research teams. Thus to prevent ambiguity, the sentence: "However, it does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level." MUST be changed to "However, according to Fanti & Moroni's conclusions, dust-transfer didn't reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level."
Same remark for paragraph "Bas relief" : The so called conclusion is nothing else but once again the pro-authenticity conclusions of Fanti & Moroni, conclusions whch are presented in the wiki article as "conclusions" while they are only the opinion of Fanti and Moroni and it should be precised it is from them. I propose to replace the beginning of the conclusion by this: "On the other hand, G.Fanti and Moroni once again concluded otherwise , after comparing the histograms of 256 different grey levels [...]"
Also, I would add that Fanti and Moroni's "conclusions" are personal and subject to interpretation since they are subjective : In one word, Fanti is countering Costanzo and Nikell with ANOTHER factor: color saturation, a problem that has not been adressed in Costanzo's research. It's like answering to a question with another question toavoid answering and giving an opinion based on similar conclusions. Let's not forget that Fanti admitted that the intervals of grey level were the SAME between the bas relief experiment and the original shroud.
Is it NORMAL that all paragraphs are ended with a "conclusion" by Fanti and Moroni? The last word is given to these two researchers as if they represented the whole scietific community, the ultimate judges concerning this particular matter. Truth is, they are one team amongst others and their NAMES shold be cited when conclusions DIVERGE. Example: "team Y proposes Conclusion-A ,but team Z claims the opposite of Conclusion-A and proposes Conclusion-B".
And not what we see on this wikipedia article which consists mainly in : "Team Y says Conclusion-A, but it is not true."
"It is not true" is not acceptable, even if there is a ref, the NAMES of those who conclude are vital. If many names, let's say a very long list of research teams and their scientists, are opposing the initial claim, then they must be regrouped. If the initial claim is what I call an "orphan claim" (a claim made by only one team and only one team), opposed by a majority of other research teams, then and ONLY then can one wikipedia contributor say that the conclusion opposing the initial claim comes from the " quasi totality of the scientific community" .
Fanti and Moroni are far from being the quasi totality of the scientific community and have shown to stick closely to the churche's vieww on the shroud.
Energy Discharge: A curiosity but worth noting : the paper released by Fanti, Baldacchini, DiLazzaro, Murra Nichelatti and Santoni concerning the reaction between UV radiation and linen fibers (title: A Physical Hypothesis on the Origin of the Body Image Embedded into the Turin Shroud , link: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p01.pdf ) , Fanti and his team converge pope John Paul II's personal opinion , citing him literally : "The Turin Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence" , which is a theological argument, despite the comment that follows. Citing a pope is unprecedented in an official (thus "serious") scientific paper and this MUST be noted somewhere in the article.
ps: The pope's quote is a tongue-in-cheek way to say that man will never find out how the shroud has been produced, that we can only measure the results and never find the cause, because it is supposed to be the result of the "resurrection" , this being the reason why Fanti and his team are insisting SOLELY on pulsed laser radiation, corona discharge and any other ultra high energy source yielding similar results still to be discovered according to Fanti (Fanti claims in the link I provided that: "Finally, let us point out that the total UV radiation power required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body, of the order of 16 × 106 W/cm2 × 17.000 cm2 = 2.7 × 1011 W, is impressive, and cannot be delivered by any UV laser built to date." )
Fanti is thus a proponent of the supranatural source of high energy levels. This must be clearly explained in the article, but since he didn't write the word "supranatural" nor "divine", it must be explained properly that Fanti induces people to think, through his concluions, that the sources of such great energy are not discovered yet or may never be discovered.
It should also be noted that Fanti dismisses all other theories different than high energy radiation sources because none of them can reproduce the sum of particularities of the shroud. (Literally:"Reference [1] listed, among others, forty-two chemical and physical features of the Shroud body image, and up to date all attempts to reproduce an image on linens having all these characteristics have been unsuccessful." )
How could isolated experiments which tend to prove only certain particular points be compared to the totality of the characteristics of the shroud? Each initial condition is precise and is calibrated to study several aspects ONLY.
Perhaps Fanti and his team should have a DEDICATED subchapter and not be presented as ultimate "conclusions", sort of laying a biased "last word" , in each theory paragraph. Either a dedicated subchapter, either citing his team in each theory subchapter. !!!!!!!!!!I don't see what else could be proposed to respect neutrality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Corona Discharge: Another point, in "Corona Discharge" paragraph, Fanti and co avoid completely in their paper to explain WHY the back image isn't the same size as the front image, they only compare how FAINT the back is to the front, and this must be inserted in the wiki paragraph: "they also describe an image on the reverse side of the fabric, much fainter than that on the front view of the body, consisting primarily of the face and perhaps hands, but Fanti and his team omitted completely to attempt to explain why the back image is longer than the front image " with link to paragraph: see "Image Analysis" (cf " The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long.[111] " )
Apart from these points, the article is much clearer and neutral than when I complained at first, but still Fanti's "ghost" is present in each and every paragraph and this is not neutral and confuses more than anything else. Info on Fanti must be collected in one place AND he and his team cited each time one feels to conlude with his views.
Seperate issues:
So we need more solid references, less talk, I think. History2007 ( talk) 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Inner West Courier story regarding new data discovery by film scientist Vincenzo Ruello is now on the net google Inner West Courier Shroud Turin Story Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Am closely associated with Vincenzo Ruello, he asks me to talk to you all regarding firstly to thank you for the opportunity maybe be a part of this historical page and also if you feel it important for the exact process to be revealed here or for you to wait for a scientific report to come which may take several weeks. He is concerned that at this stage the exact process has not been revealed and is vitally important and lastly if the process was revealed here many would emulate copy the process, would the members here protect his historical pioneering discovery in how the skin was revealed on the Shroud body. Also please note the face photograph which is quite interesting is causing some problems in the Catholic Church of Australia, they have gone very quiet. Sincerely colleague of Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This is very bad news for the world, firstly Cumberland Newspapers who own the Inner West Courier which has a circulation of 1.2 million readers a week is not an obscure paper and they have verified the story released on the 1st March 2011. A conspiracy is unfolding against the images of Vincenzo Ruello as all major media world wide have refused to publish his images. What has caused this to breakdown after the Inner West story is the images of the three toes ripped off the left foot and also the face. Barrie Schwortz the Shroud photographer told Vincenzo Ruello that they had been working on it for 50 years and now he comes along with a new filming system. I was with Vincenzo when he decoded the images and skin started to appear on the face and body. So other than the 1.2 million readers who saw the story and a few hits each day on youtube it has ended with the major media and Catholic Church and Shroud researches with their countless conferences world wide on the mystery winning out. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God maybe this refers to the few youtube viewers who will see the true face of Christ. The media and the catholic Church have killed off Vincenzo Ruello and you here have also fallen into their plans to stop the face of Christ being seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There is nothing funny about Shroud discoveries to laugh at only fools laugh at Shroud discoveries. Ruello has declared his discovery to be an event horizon in scientific terms it means the dawning of the new age where truth will draw and alter the minds of mankind. He also told me that his discoveries since being downloaded in early February 2011 regardless of lack of media will have a butterfly effect across the world. Laugh as many in the media are but the face as it appears is authentic. For the first time in history mankind is seeing the true face of the Holy Shroud. Vincenzo is currently writing the book. I consider him the greatest scientific mind since Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Unless you watch the Ruello clip on the feet xray images please do not waste your time commenting further. Nasa stated that no encoded images were present of the left foot yet Ruello has downloaded xray images of both feet showing toe nails and bone structure of the left foot missing three toes which he then photographed next to the right foot. Like I said unless you see this clip please do not comment. Also your thoughts on the face of the Shroud he has processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems Ruello doesnt need any media as links to his internet clips are spreading everywhere this should have been included on main article in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.150 ( talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Posted 3/25/2010 by Dan Porter - Those of us in the Shroud Science Group who know of him call him Vinny Pop (his id on YouTube). He wrote to me because of my blog and asked me to arrange a meeting with several scientists to review his findings: at the time a single 12-second shaky video purporting to show something in the eyes of the man of the shroud. I could see nothing but the usual visual noise. I asked him to provide more information including a written abstract of his methodology and findings, identification of the specific photograph he was working from (it looked like it might be Giuseppe Enrie’s 1931 photograph on Orthochromatic film with raking light, which, in my opinion, has far too much granular clumping to be useful for identifying small details). I suggested that a CV would be useful and an outline of a tentative peer-reviewed paper. With this information at hand, I would contact members of SSG. As far as a could tell from his emailed reactions, he was not familiar with a CV or the idea of a peer-reviewed paper.
At one point he wrote to me: “You worked on the Shroud and revealed nothing because I am a rock n roll singer who has discovered a new filming technique far advanced than current Shroud scientists you give no credit people have eyes. Ask me build a body of people your colleagues and I will present a scientific written exposure on my techniques. I have destroyed the myth od (sic) the Roman coins they never existed nor made sense my images prove stones accept it MR Expert a lowly musiocian (sic) has solved the eye mystery.”
I agree there are probably no images of coins over the eyes. Most SSG members certainly feel that way. But what eye mystery?
At one point he also wrote: “Dan this is my last message to you. You have treated me with disrespect and judging me before the jury is out . . . How can any respected Shroud researcher scientist argue with my xray images of the 2 large toes side by side proving there is no crossover. Lastly why on God's earth would I reveal my pioneering filming techniques to you or anyone to reproduce my findings and takel my hard work and credit. All true scientists protect their findings until respected scientists start seeing the truth. At this stage I will wait patiently for the Vatican officials or until I find someone I can work with. You know what I take extreme joy in the xray images of the 2 large toenails side by side especially the clearly defined square left foot nail. But as you would say Dan its just video noise. Over and out.”
As best I can understand it, he seems to feel that he has found a way to create an xray image from an ordinary photograph of the shroud. And he thinks he sees something there like detached toes or toenails or something. People (Alan Whanger, in particular) see coins, flowers of all sorts, a sponge, a nail or spike, dice, Hebrew, Greek and Roman lettering, etc. There is absolutely nothing in Vincent’s videos that warrants coverage in Wikipedia.
Dan Porter (Shroudstory.com and shroudofturin.wordpress.com, member SSG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoval ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Dr Dan Porter though you are a respected researcher but not a scientist I indeed do see many images in Ruello's new discoveries. His 3D code diagram is very interesting. You also must be blind as on looking at the left foot feet clip Ruello appaeras truthful three toes are missing and filmed next to the right foot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.195.102 ( talk) 01:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
C Fred so why did you guys publish in main article Garaschelis fake Shroud when he didnt let other scientists verify his work all Garascheli had was some might I say minor media. Ruello has at least shown all his work. Garascheli hasnt even shown the positive Shroud just a negative fake Shroud image which anyone can make so you print articles in main without scientific evaluation C Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.164 ( talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruello has finally revealed the filming process at the site Above Top Secret titled Decoding Shroud Process Revealed For ATS Members Scientists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.179.1 ( talk) 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It is well documented in several articles on the internet that Marco Polo saw and handled asbestos cloth. It is also reasonably well documented that he brought back some samples, at least one of which he gave to the Pope (du jour). It is less well documented that the reason he gave this/these sample(s) to the Pope was that so that he (the Pope) could use the asbestos cloth in which to wrap the Shroud to protect it from further fires. Unfortunately I can no longer remember the books in which I read this, but given the number of internet references it would "seem" to be credible, and would be one "concrete" item of history pre 1390. Old_Wombat ( talk) 09:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
There was a major addition by Telpardec which has interesting material, but it is without any secondary references, and on the other hand is so long and detailed as to deserve its own article if it can be supported beyond WP:primary sources. As is, it is a case of WP:OR - without doubt. I built a temporary page for it here to get started as a new article if it can go beyond OR. However, with apologies, I have to revert it by WP:BRD, given that it is WP:OR at the moment. My suggestio would be to fix the temporary page, discuss it and see if makes it as a page without a WP:PROD or Afd, then add it here. History2007 ( talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
THE problem with the shroud of Turin is the Book of John; 19:40 KJV which says Jesus body was wrapped with many strips of cloth (check the Greek!!) glued together with 100 pounds of Myrrh and Aloes like an Egyptian mummy. John 20:7 says the head was wrapped with a separate handkercheif......... This concluseively points out that there was NO Shroud............ Very often only one gospel tells the Whole story........ Lewis Brackett, San Diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisharry ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
JimfromGTA (
talk)
17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The John 19:40 reference already is covered in the Main Article section on John Calvin's opinion of the Shroud. Jakob3 ( talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
What a curious argument. John Calvin's works were placed on the Pope's Banned Book list (not sure whether this one was included, though). So where to now? Old_Wombat ( talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
"Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. This is not a property that occurs in photography, and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.[102]" that's actually not true. Take any photo, color or grayscale and in an image editor adjust the contrast. You will clearly see that contrast contours in a 3D manner to the depth of the picture, creating a 3D depth to the image. While I am a believer that the shroud is legitimate, this claim is false. I can reproduce this in GIMP image editor. 50.47.132.10 ( talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The Shroud can be linked to the historical documents by using microbiology. According to historical documents, the Shroud appeared in Jerusalem (Bible), in Turkey (Eddessa painting, Bishop of Constantinople sermon, etc), and was transferred to France, then Italy. Pollen samples taken by Dr. Frei (using sticky tape) identified 58 different pollen grains. He identified unique regional species of pollen grains that tied the Shroud to Jerusalem, Judea, Constantinople, Edessa, France, Italy. The vast majority of the pollen were tied to the Jerusalem area. (M.Frei, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum Journal, June 1982). His work on the pollen was confirmed by professors at Hebrew University ( http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf) who inspected the strips of pollen.
The chemical composition of limestone samples taken from the Shroud matched the chemistry of the limestone from the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb (two sites identified by tradition as the site of Jesus' burial). The tombs are located on a common limestone shelf. Work was done by Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago.
Conclusion: Microbiology confirms the history of Shroud before 1300's and confirms that is consistent with known existing documents and paintings of the pre 1300 timeframe. The Shroud was in Jerusalem (most pollen, limestone), Judea, Eddessa, Constantinople, France and Italy. JimfromGTA ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC).
I’ve gone through scripture and re-read the descriptions of the appearance of some angels, the transfiguration, and the appearance of Moses after his meeting with God. In these accounts, the beings radiated with a divine light. That Moses’ face shone and had to be covered with a veil when speaking to the Israelites afterward is very interesting. It seems to suggest that his body absorbed enough of the divine light from God appearing to him so that his face began to re-radiate this light on its own for a short while. Similarly, Matt 17:2 says this about Jesus and his clothes during the transfiguration: "his face [was] shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light." So the clothes gradually picked up a charge from Jesus' body and began glowing on their own.
If you have read Fanti and Maggiolo's April 2004 article in Journal of Optics called The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Shroud of Turin, you know that a second face was discovered by them on the dorsal side of the shroud. This second face is very faint and can only be seen with special equipment. It is a mirror copy of the face seen on the front of the shroud. I think it’s evidence of radiant energy making the image. Here are the events that I believe made the image(s).
Step 1: The body in the shroud began emiting this "divine light" during the resurrection event. During this event, the divine light burned (or whatever you want to call it) an image into the linen all around the body. The closer the linen was to the skin, the more prominent the image became. Also, it appears to me that the image of the face is the most prominent, suggesting that the divine light was brighter there than anywhere else. Just as Moses' face absorbed the divine light and then glowed, I think the shroud also absorbed this light and began glowing too.
Step 2: The body vanishes, and the top half of the shroud falls down on top of the bottom. Assume the image on the shroud is still glowing for a while (like Moses' face did). Since the image of the face is now in direct contact with the linen that was under the body's head, the glowing image is still bright enough to burn a copy of itself into the linen. This image should be a reverse image (which it is), it should be fainter (also true), and be aligned with the top image (which it is). Other brighter features, such as the hands, are also evident on the dorsal side.
If we could somehow show that the 1st face was created with 3-D multi-directional radiation, and the 2nd face was created with mono-directional radiation (due to it being a contact-transfer), I think it would add support to the theory that the resurrection event caused the image via a radiant divine light that charged the linen and lingered long enough to create the second image. -- Donald p curtis ( talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh my!! I awoke this morning realizing what has just been said. Donald, given the heart of God, the face that attended to Jesus was likely Yahweh's. Remember how the Father ran out to greet his son (parable of the prodigal son). Oh my!! Thus the shining cloth, like Moses' face. To others, the cloth contains evidence of Jesus' passion week, His crucifiction, His resurrection and His Glory. To Jesus I pray: thank you Jesus for giving Donald and I the eyes to see that which has not been clearly seen for over 2000 years. I bend my knee in humility and respect.
To others: The cloth is authentic. We now KNOW how the picture of a "real" crucified man came into being. Jesus IS who He is. The cloth is direct evidence.
For the truth seekers, the evidence is all there. Keep looking. Evidence to date contains answers to the who, what, when, where, and now "how". Read "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci. There are over 300 authoritative references to evidence.
To the antagonists and athiests, take off the blinders and repent. Your belief systems don't want to acknowledge the evidence that STURP found. Rather you invent theories without checking them out with the actual facetime research. For the shroud is PROOF that Jesus rose from the dead, and IS divine ( the cloth captures the glory (intense light). Be aware that since Jesus resurrected, then the promise of His return to judge the living and dead is real. Repent and seek the heart of God.
May God bless you all with the ability to see what Donald and I see. JimfromGTA ( talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
You asked for improvements:
Because the shroud is a latent image of a real crucified person (per facetime research) and NOT a painting, nor, a latent image of a painting, you need to expand on how a latent image could have been made. The ramblings of the article misses this central point. Your article, while quite extensive, does not explore what Donald P above relays. It misses the image of the second face and does not explore the history of Biblical intense light events. These are relevant to the theory about imprinting, the "how" that everyone is trying to answer. The reason that this is important is that no KNOWN intense light source exists prior to the invention of the light bulb and ultraviolet lamps that occurred long after the shroud existance. Intense light events have a documented history and belong within an article that is about, after all, a Biblical personality and the man in the cloth, Jesus. So this info belongs in an encyclopedia.
In one section, you make it sound that religious information is NOT scientific. This is incorrect. Biblical information like other historical writings, provides information upon which events are confirmed (eg. Biblical archeology, Jesus' passion week, burial, and resurrection).
The tie into the Shroud of Edessa is missing and gives the impression that the history of the shroud of Turin ceases at to the 1300's. This misleads readers and gives a false impression about the Shroud. Actually the Shroud of Turin matches the Shroud of Edessa as captured in a painting, and the sermon of the Bishop of Constantinople c.1000 AD (ie. sermon states not a painting) ties to the Turin Shroud. The folds in the Turin shroud cloth match the presentation of the Shroud of Edessa in another painting. This match provides further linkage. And there is a couple of documents in existence that provide evidence of the passing of the Shroud to the Crusaders, the handover to the Shroud of Turin identity. These are missing from your article.
Your limestone evidence is understated. The actual research demonstrated a connection to the limestone shelf of the tombs that Jesus was by historical tradition, buried in. You make a statement of ancient Jerusalem tombs but do not take it to the step that the research actually found.
Your pollen evidence is understanded. Frei's work was collaberated by the Hebrew University professors, including one professor who made the statement that one unique specimen of pollen could only have been picked up by direct contact in the Jerusalem area. My own research is that outside of the realm of McCrone, Frei's work is respected. McCrone's followers have "slandered" Frei to get their way. But given the politics surrounding McCrone, I understand this.
Much of the above evidence is documented in Mark Antonacci's book with authoritative references.
There is no discussion on the aging of the cloth and the work that Rogers did. He demonstrated chemically that the cloth was older than that which the carbon dating suggested. This was an alternative proof to his research. Further, as Rogers relays, the weave of the cloth is older than suggested by the carbon daters. This was documented in Roger's last research paper on the carbon dating problem. c.2005.
I assume this is the type of info that you are looking for. JimfromGTA ( talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
After having reviewed the material of the Shroud, I have arrived at the conclusion there are NO convincing arguments that the shroud is a fake. People have been unable establish "fakery" over many years. (Note the original STURP team work did a lot of research into this area and failed to establish that it was faked, given the C14 testing did not validate a middle age dating of the cloth).
I don't want to interrupt the outpouring of love here guys. But this flower/pollen discussion does not sound like Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair and is well within the realm of WP:Forum. Therefore, per WP:Forum, if you want to discuss this further, please find a suitable airport bar where you can both fly to meet and get sloshed and wax on it. Let me know which bar, I may just show up. You might make friends after all. Cheers. History2007 ( talk) 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The scientific method is that truth be established with evidence, not that evidence MUST be found to prove an opinion false. If there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus then we must believe it is not until it is otherwise proven to be Jesus shroud.. Lewisharry ( talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)