Shroud of Turin

[bippy123]

A fascinating video link I found on Stephen Jones blog where Mark Guscin (one of the top experts on the sudarium of oviedo) is being interviewed by Russ Breault. Mark gives a live demonstration on how the sudarium was wrapped around Jesus and also gives some very good information about the different blood stains found on the sudarium. Excellent video and a must need for any serious shroud or sudarium researcher.

http://www.shrouduniversity.com/videos/ ... n.wide.wmv

[Pierson5]

I'm still looking through the pdf you linked in the previous post, but did you happen to have the citation for this?

Using antonacci's work which was debunked easily through his email correspondences with rogers shows that Antonacci isnt qualified as a chemist or textile expert. As far as Mechthild she is totally wrong about the reweave (as stated in my top quoted response).

[bippy123]

I'm still looking through the pdf you linked in the previous post, but did you happen to have the citation for this?

Using antonacci's work which was debunked easily through his email correspondences with rogers shows that Antonacci isnt qualified as a chemist or textile expert. As far as Mechthild she is totally wrong about the reweave (as stated in my top quoted response).

You mean the email correspondence between antonacci and rogers?
I might still have the link somewhere pierson, as its a very old bookmark and I do clean my bookmarks out every 3 to 6 months for personal reasons.Id have to go back and check it out .meanwhile here is a good critique of antonaccis critique of Rogers. It also has a some good info on why Mechthild was wrong on her assertions on the reweave being impossible. I didnt know it was mechthild who picked out that one area which was taken for the testing, which sturp and many others said was the worst area of the shroud to be taken for testing. Mechthild was brought in most probably after teh sturp team was taken out of the c14 testing by the people in charge of it, and as I posted earlier that if they had taken the 26 point advice that sturp gave to them there would have been much less problems with the c14 testing.

Dont get me wrong, the fact that antonacci agrees with Professor Jackson on the neutrinos theory depositing extra carbon 14 into the shroud, (which is a very good theory and one that could end up being the right one), that still doesnt invalidate Rogers peer reviewed work. In other words even though neutrinos could have added carbon 14 onto the shroud, it still doesnt change the fact that the c14 sample was not only chemically different then the other areas of the shroud, but that it also tested positive for vanillin while no other area of the shroud tested positive for vanillin. Antonacci fails to answer this question and instead ignores it completely. The neutrino theory could very well be right without negating the french invisible weave theory which rogers gives very strong evidence for in his peer reviewed paper. So far no one has scientifically refutted his work.

By the way UCSD has a great medical program, plus la jolla is a great place to be, right next to the ocean. What more could someone ask for:)
I was a dietetic major back in the late 80's early 90's but a paraistic illness kept me bedridden for 2 years and my memory wasnt the same after that, plus I was way too sensitive. I felt like i wanted to be there for every person that was sick but my problem is that I cared too much and it hurt seeing these people sick. I guess I didnt have the nerves of steel that is needed by most medical and dietetic students.

Hope all is well
God bless
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/debate.pdf

Their first choice was Madam Flury-Lemburg of Belgium, whom neither
Tite nor Gove had met at the time. Her status as a textile expert was merely one criterion that
should have been considered. The most important criterion for this task would have been her
knowledge and understanding of the Shroud itself. Unfortunately, she had never seen the Shroud,
and she indicated her complete lack of understanding of the complicating factors and history
associated with the Shroud when she stated at the workshop that the Shroud `is the same from
one end to the other.

There is no need to take samples from various places. (...)
(...) A sample was taken from the edge of the main cloth as suggested by Flury-Lemburg, but this
resulted in removing a single sample from the most controversial location on the cloth" (p.196).

Antonacci, in the quoted chapters, does not affirm the repair but shows at least, before the
discoveries of Rogers, its possibility. He also confirms that the location chosen for the dating
was the worst possible one for the same reasons as Rogers.

Of course, everyone has the right to change his opinion. But it should be explained how,
according to Antonacci, the textile experts who had no knowledge of the shroud became
suddenly qualified, why Mrs. Flury-Lemberg who seems to be at the origin of the error of the
single sample and did not seem to understand the complexity of the fabric must be believed
without discussion in 2002, why the different experts who stated the possibility of invisible
repair in the Middle Ages do not count any more, why Antonacci seems suddenly not to know
anything about cotton, etc.

It is extremely illogical, that Antonacci seems to forget in 2005 his own previous arguments,
while, at the same time, the discoveries of Rogers confirm the highly abnormal characteristics of
this sample, directly on threads coming from the suspect Raes/radiocarbon zone.

Incidentally, although the preliminary studies of Rogers in Thermochimica Acta about the
datation of the Shroud by the mean of vanillin decay are questionable, it seems to me that
Antonacci himself provides the best argument to support the conclusions of Rogers:

1) Vanillin is easily found on Raes/radiocarbon samples (and the Holland cloth and other
medieval linen) and absolutely not on the Shroud (Rogers)

2) The rate of vanillin loss depends on time and/or heat (Rogers)

3) Radiocarbon area threads were part of the Shroud at the time of the 1532 fire(Adler,
Antonacci)

Conclusion : if heating was the reason of the lack of vanillin on the Shroud, no vanillin could be
found on Raes/radiocarbon threads too. It is found on it. Thus, time is the main reason of lack of
vanillin on the Shroud and Rogers is right : the Shroud is much older than the Raes/radiocarbon
sample and the Holland cloth and probably much older than the radiocarbon dating.

It would remain many things to say, but to conclude, for what relates to me, this discussion, I
will say that: I do not know (and nobody knows it) if Raes/radiocarbon area is a repair (although the data of
Rogers strongly suggest it). I only know that this sample is different. Rogers well showed what
he wanted to show. Thus, for the first time, the radiocarbon dating is really invalidated by the
only means that scientists and radiocarbon experts could accept. Incidentally, the "fanatic
skeptics" have seen the danger (see, for example, their current fallacious press campaign in
France). This is, to me, one of the best arguments in favor of Rogers.

[Pierson5]

You mean the email correspondence between antonacci and rogers?
I might still have the link somewhere pierson, as its a very old bookmark and I do clean my bookmarks out every 3 to 6 months for personal reasons.Id have to go back and check it out .meanwhile here is a good critique of antonaccis critique of Rogers. It also has a some good info on why Mechthild was wrong on her assertions on the reweave being impossible.

If you find the other citation, that would be great. Thanks for the other information in the meantime, gives me more to look over.

By the way UCSD has a great medical program, plus la jolla is a great place to be, right next to the ocean. What more could someone ask for:)
I was a dietetic major back in the late 80's early 90's but a paraistic illness kept me bedridden for 2 years and my memory wasnt the same after that, plus I was way too sensitive. I felt like i wanted to be there for every person that was sick but my problem is that I cared too much and it hurt seeing these people sick. I guess I didnt have the nerves of steel that is needed by most medical and dietetic students.

Oh yeah, one of the topic medical/research schools in the country. Very competitive though. It is quite beautiful. Sadly most of my time is spent in the library or the lab, not the beach . Sorry to hear about your illness. Life happens, we just have to work with the cards we're dealt sometimes.

[bippy123]

Ok Pierson , I could be wrong and the exchanges could have been the review of antonacci's book by Ray Rogers and the counter by antonacci. Heimbergs response, which I just posted previously was most likely the last in defense of Rogers peer reviewed work as Ray Rogers could no longer defend himself as he passed away from Cancer.

The responses are posted here towards the bottom of the lengthy page
http://www.shroud.com/late06.htm

I can't copy and paste a PDF file from my iPod so I hope this will suffice.
Remember that antonacci says also elsewhere that the finding of a reweave doesn't interfere with his added neutrino theory, but for some reason doesn't have any peer review work to refute Rogers thermochimica acta paper.

I like the fact that Rogers had his work peer reviewed to show how good science is used, in this case to invalidate the c14 sample done on the shroud. Notice also that there was a restoration done on the shroud in 2002 because of the poor restoration of the shroud. This was (if memory serves correctly ) another instance where many members of the sturp team voiced their opinions very resolutely against this restoration because of possible problems that it could pose to future dating tests on the shroud, and it was non other than mechthild that did the restoration. Rogers also could not allow himself to believe that the explanation of the shroud image could be of supernatural origin, and despite the image defying all kinds of natural explanations, decided to put forth his opinion of a malleard reaction, but even that explanation was shot down for many reasons (the production of spatial 3G information of the shroud as well as no side images on the back or front images as well as the second more faint image found on the back of the shroud which I don't believe was seem by the sturp team in 1978). This was one area where Rogers ventured out recklessly because of his methodological naturalistic worldview.

There is a link to Jackson's cloth collapse theory that explains why a second more faint facial image gives credence to his cloth collapse theory, but I'm not that knowledgable in physics, but like I said I hope to be one of Jackson's students in a year or 2 when I decide to take his advanced shroud of Turin course he is offering at his Colorado shroud center.

But if I were you Pierson, I would be keeping a closer eye on the labs in holland which have found holographic information on the shroud. When they encode all the holographic
info on the shroud image that is when the real fun starts and I'm talking news of global proportions .

Hope this helps

Your right though , my illness was tough but it caused to realize what was truely important in life.
Hope the study of the shroud will open you up to a spiritual journey down the road one day. Hope ur day is going well

[bippy123]

Pierson, heres another good link to go through.

http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf

[PaulSacramento]

The issue of the height of the man in the image has been raised to me, and I recall someone mentioned something about it.
Some say that Christ was short in stature and that this man is to tall to be Christ.
Any views on that?
What has archeology discovered about the height or men in Jesus' time?
Some views suggest that Christ was afflicted with the diseases He cured others of ( Isaiah's suffering servant)and they say since the shroud doesn't show evidence of such, it can't be Jesus.
Thoughts?

[bippy123]

The issue of the height of the man in the image has been raised to me, and I recall someone mentioned something about it.
Some say that Christ was short in stature and that this man is to tall to be Christ.
Any views on that?
What has archeology discovered about the height or men in Jesus' time?
Some views suggest that Christ was afflicted with the diseases He cured others of ( Isaiah's suffering servant)and they say since the shroud doesn't show evidence of such, it can't be Jesus.
Thoughts?

Paul, I havent seen much info through history of Jesus's height, but I have always assumed him to be a bit taller then usual.
The Los Angeles forensic experty Robert Bucklin had the height of the man on the shroud at 5'10 to 5'11" and a half weighing 170 pounds with a good built. Remeber that Jesus did do carpenter work when he was younger and that probably attritubted to his good build.

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Scienc ... udies.html
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Scienc ... eight.html

Fanti had him at 5'8" to 5'9" on the shroud (remember Fanti I believe is one of the scientists on the ENEA group that recreated soem of the unique characteristics of the shroud image with an excimer laser , which they definately didnt have in the past).


Picknett and Prince had him 6'8" to 6'10" but they miscalculated big time on the face to body ratio.



http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/uni/wwl/koe ... lennia.pdf

As far as average height during those times it looks like 170.5 centimeters for a male (about 5'7") So fanti's estimate looks ok and Bucklins height of 5'10 to 5'11" is a bit tall but well within the exceptable range. This was among the first questions asked by shroud experts, and it didnt seem like it was a big deal .

Hope this helps a bit Paul

[PaulSacramento]

Thanks dude

[bippy123]

Thanks dude

Welcome buddy

[Pierson5]

Hey Bibby,

Thanks for the other citations. It's an interesting point of view. I was wondering if you happen to peruse other forums regarding the shroud? This one, for example, has almost 100,000 views and about 2500 comments.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226761

I was reading through it and it looks like there are only 1 or 2 individuals who are defending the shroud (pro-authenticity). I think you have a better understanding of the scientific literature than the other pro-authenticity persons there. If you have the time, it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there. The skeptics there have a much better understand of the literature than I do, so I think you would definitely have your work cut out for you.

[sandy_mcd]

Hey Bibby, ... it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there.

True, you don't learn much with a bunch of fellow travelers as judge and jury cheering on your every statement.

[neo-x]

sandy_mcd » Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:49 pm

Pierson5 wrote:
Hey Bibby, ... it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there.
True, you don't learn much with a bunch of fellow travelers as judge and jury cheering on your every statement.

I think everyone's views should be analysed by a fair audience, not a cheery one neither a hostile one. I visited the page pierson posted and I must say the over all attitude is the same, Christians are idiots. Don't know if any of this is gonna change that.

[Swimmy]

Hey Bibby,

Thanks for the other citations. It's an interesting point of view. I was wondering if you happen to peruse other forums regarding the shroud? This one, for example, has almost 100,000 views and about 2500 comments.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=226761

I was reading through it and it looks like there are only 1 or 2 individuals who are defending the shroud (pro-authenticity). I think you have a better understanding of the scientific literature than the other pro-authenticity persons there. If you have the time, it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there. The skeptics there have a much better understand of the literature than I do, so I think you would definitely have your work cut out for you.

Read a few of the pages. Its clear a lot of them are clueless and are resorting to Ad hominem and other fallacies.

Laughable that they are using McCrone as a reliable and valid source.

[Swimmy]

Hey Bibby, ... it would be very interesting to see you "step into the lions den," and see where the debate goes from there.

True, you don't learn much with a bunch of fellow travelers as judge and jury cheering on your every statement.

Unfortunately the site Pierson linked isn't worth the time. Judging by the comments made by the members of the site. Hateful,Rude,and ignorant. Pretty much sums up your typical atheist forum. This one is no exception.

There is nothing to learn there.


1. They still believe its paint and not blood .

2. Consider Crone reliable

3. Still believe the Dating is right. Where at least a reasonable skeptic will concede its inconclusive.

I see a guy name Jabba trying to defend the shrouds authenticity but for the most part they've done little to nothing to demonstrate why he is wrong. Just saying. "nu uh"