Here, belatedly, is the first issue of my restarted Shroud of Turin News. My last issue was October/November 2008. After I catch up with January's news, I will then add to each month's issue, excerpts of newsworthy articles about the Shroud, newest uppermost. The articles will be bold to distinguish their words from mine (or vice-versa).
On January 28 I had a system file failure on my 7 year-old computer running Windows XP, which stopped it loading Windows. So rather than re-install XP, because it may have been a warning of impending hard disk failure, I decided to buy a new computer running Windows 7. I did not then realise that much of my old software and hardware would not run under Windows 7 and that so many things, including my idiosyncratic way of writing my blog posts, would have to change. If any reader can recommend a HTML WYSIWYG editor that writes clean and uncluttered HTML code, suitable for posting to Blogger, please let me know in comments.
"A new detail observed on the Shroud of Turin," The News Association of Jean Carmignac, Paris, No. 50 - June 2011 ... 
We
[Left (click to enlarge): Photo by Reginald Wehrkamp-Richter showing a triangular shape in the right foot of the Man on the Shroud]
learned in late 2010 of the astonishing discovery made by Mr. Wehrkamp-Richter, who uses – and creates – medical equipment as part of his professional activity. From his friend Barrie Schwortz, a photographer who was a member of the American research team STURP in 1978, Mr. Wehrkamp-Richter has acquired a full-size facsimile of the Shroud of Turin, which reproduces on transparent photographic film more than 4 meters long everything that is impressed on the Shroud. 
Very close observation, aided by adjustments in lighting and contrasts, has allowed him to discover the image of a geometric form in the centre of surrounding blood traces ...
[Right (click to enlarge): Shroud Scope closeup of the Durante 2002 vertical positive image of the sole of the right foot. Note the polarity is opposite.]
This triangle is nearly equilateral; an exact geometric figure, which appears within the bloody image. What is the meaning of this image? ... Can we see the image of a hole which partially preserved the clear boards in the flesh, even if the hole has been partly filled in a second phase? ... Are these traces remainders of coagulated blood, which when dried out, became hardened and preserved the form of the nail? Is this the silhouette just of the hole which one can see and which the enormous nail has driven into the flesh of the man of the Shroud of Turin? ... The question is no longer: Is the Shroud of Turin Yes or No the authentic Shroud of Jesus? But how can anyone still say today, at the beginning of the third millennium, that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, given all the scientific work that has been done in the last hundred years and more? Now we know with absolute certainty that the Shroud of Turin is unforgeable. And if the Shroud of Turin is authentic, then it is a direct witness of Resurrection ... This appears on Shroud.com's Update of January 21, 2012 so I am including as the last article in January's Shroud of Turin News. I am still a bit sceptical of this until it is confirmed by an independent witness who I trust, e.g. Barrie Schwortz. But on a Shroud Scope close-up of the right foot area (see above), there does seem to be something angular there, although I cannot definitely make out a triangle at that level of resolution. But if it is confirmed that it is the imprint of a large Roman nail (and that is the term Thomas used in Jn 20:27 KJV: "Except I shall see in his hands the print [Gk. tupon = Lit. "type", i.e. the "stamp" or "mark" of where the nails were] of the nails ... I will not believe"), then, as I replied to the commenter who told me about the article: "This is [or will be] the final nail in the coffin of Shroud inauthenticity (pun intended)!" When I wrote this in 2012, I did not know that French surgeon Pierre Barbet (1884–1961) had already discovered the mark of the large, square in cross-section, Roman nail in the man's right foot[23Jan23]!
[Below (enlarge): "Half-way along there is a rectangular stain, rather nearer to the inner than to the outer edge of the impression, and this is where the flows seem to have their centre ... This four-sided image is certainly the mark of the nail ..." (Barbet, P., 1953, "A Doctor at Calvary," Image Books: Garden City NY, Reprinted, 1963, p.125)]
"Luciano Buso - an artist who cracked Giotto Code, 
The Voice of Russia, Jan 31, 2012 ...
[Left: Statue representing Giotto, outside the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, Italy: Wikipedia]
... Luciano Buso – an artist and art-restorer from an Italian town of Treviso – is confident that it [The Shroud of Turin] was a replica of the original Shroud made by a great Italian medieval artist Giotto di Bondone. ... Mr. Buso, how did you manage to establish that the famous Shroud of Turin was created by Giotto given the fact that you did not have direct access to it? During this study I only used the same methods that I have already used during my examination of other pieces of art ... All of these artists used a special technique of hidden writing. And in the case of the Shroud it was sufficient for me to operate with its photograph only. In your opinion, why of all the great medieval masters it was Giotto who was honored with the job of replicating the burial cloth of Christ? As I have written numerous times, in my mind Giotto was chosen as a famous artist of his time whose name was well known primarily due to his popularity and his craftsmanship. ... Are you ready to insist on your point of view? If yes, what counter arguments are you going to use to prove your point? The fact that all theories related to the Shroud of Turin are to be proved invalid to some extent became obvious to me back in 1980s when a group of world renowned scientists who performed carbon dating test on a small piece of the cloth put the Shroud's origin around 1280-1320. ... I can say only this: those who want to doubt my theory will also have to appeal the results of all my work to study hundreds of pictures painted between years 1300 and 2010. In all those I found hidden writing. There is a book about to come out in which I give a precise and detailed account of all examples of hidden writing I have encountered. What I don't understand is this: what's the point of denying my theory that proves that Giotto created the Shroud of Turin in 1315 if the existence of these hidden writings is obvious. ...Busco's "hidden writing" in the case of the Shroud is nothing more than "several veiled appearances of the number 15" which supposedly "indicate Giotto created the Shroud in 1315"(!):
"An art critic has claimed the Shroud of Turin, an ancient linen sheet revered by some Christians as the burial cloth that wrapped Christ's body after his crucifixion, was created by the Italian master Giotto ... After months of careful examination of photographs of the Shroud - the relic is kept locked away and not available to be viewed unless on special occasions - Luciano Buso... says that several veiled appearances of the number 15, hidden in the fabric by the artist, indicate Giotto created the Shroud in 1315 - and that it is a copy of the original which had been damaged and was then lost over the centuries." ("Shroud of Turin is a fake created by famous master Giotto, claims Italian art expert," Daily Mail, 8th June 2011).
Sounds like Busco's `theory' is more about his making money through sales of his new book than any actual artistic or historical evidence that Giotto di Bondone (c.1266-1337) painted the Shroud. I could point out the usual evidence that invalidates all claims that the Shroud is a painting, i.e. there is no paint or pigment on it that accounts for its image, the image is extremely superficial ("one fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter"), it has no outline and no directionality, it is a photographic negative which was unknown until photography was invented ~600 years later in the early 19th century, etc. But I will quote The Guardian's art critic, Jonathan Jones, who answers "Nah" to the question, "Did Giotto really paint the Turin Shroud?":
"Claims that the shroud was a 14th-century hoax by Giotto may be far-fetched, but at least they get us talking about this profound and brilliant painter ... But why would he want to? Nothing in what is known of his life or art suggests any such activities or interests. ... the idea of Giotto taking time off to concoct a relic seems silly. He was too well-known, too ambitious and too profound to either want to do it or get away with it unnoticed." ("Did Giotto really paint the Turin Shroud? Nah," Jonathan Jones, The Guardian, 9 June 2011).
"A painter pulled between the pretty and the prophetic," TheSpec, Regina Haggo, January 26, 2012 ... Kurelek's major blockbuster 
[Right: "Self-Portrait," 1957, by William Kurelek (1927-77): The Dark Side of William Kurelek]
exhibit opening in Hamilton William Kurelek ... The Art Gallery of Hamilton is hosting the largest-ever exhibition of work by Kurelek, one of Canada's greatest 20th-century artists ... In Self-Portrait, painted in 1957 while Kurelek was in England, the artist looks directly at us ... Artists' self-portraits can tell us both what someone looks like and what makes them tick. He's placed himself in front of a wall neatly covered with images. A picture of the dead Christ from the Shroud of Turin might serve as a reminder of his recent conversion to Roman Catholicism .... Kurelek's other religious paintings are more subtle but they deliver the same message: seek spiritual salvation — or suffer the consequences ...
Since the image on the Shroud is that of the crucified, dead and resurrected Jesus, who is God incarnate (Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1; 20:28; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; Php 2:5-6; Col 2:9; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2Pet 1:1; 1Jn 5:20) the Shroud is a "Fifth Gospel" message of God's self-sacrificing love to each individual in our post-Christian society, to "seek spiritual salvation - or suffer the consequences."
Those who know in their heart of hearts that the image on the Shroud is Jesus', but reject His death on the Cross for them (Eph 2:16; Php 2:8; Col 1:20; 2:14; Heb 12:2), when they stand before Jesus, who is going to be their (and my) Judge on the Last Day (Jn 5:26-27; Act 10:41-42; 17:31; Rom 2:16; 2Cor 5:10; 2Tim 4:1) will be even less able to offer Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)'s feeble excuse of, "Not enough evidence, God":
"Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. `Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,' was Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply." (Dawkins, R., "The God Delusion," Bantam Press: London, 2006, p.104).Russell at least died in 1970, before the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) in 1978 proved that the Shroud was not a painting. But now in the light of the ENEA Report that the Shroud:
"could not possibly have been faked with technology that was available in the medieval period." ("Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe," Nick Squires, The Telegraph, 19 December 2011)
when Richard Dawkins, or any other disbeliever in Jesus, who knows about the Shroud, stands before Jesus, to give to Him an account of their lives (Mt 16:27; Rom 2:6; 14:12; 2Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12; 22:12), if they claim as an excuse for their sin of unbelief (Mt 11:23; Jn 3:18; Rom 14:23), "Not enough evidence, God," Jesus could point them to the conclusive evidence of the authenticity of His Shroud, which bears the image of His crucified, dead and resurrected body!
The next issue is February 2012.
Posted 4 February 2012. Updated 24 September 2024
Posts
15 comments:
Very nice post. I read the article on Dawkins' site and found it even worse than Tom Chivers'. No knowledge of the study's implications, blatant ignorance of the evidence against the Carbon Dating, and no knowledge of historical methodology.
Gio
>Very nice post.
Thanks.
>I read the article on Dawkins' site and found it even worse than Tom Chivers'.
Yes. Dawkins is no scholar, even though he had a Professorship at Oxford (bought for him by Microsoft billionaire Charles Simonyi). Dawkins' actual degree is in Animal Behaviour, i.e. Ethology, not even in Evolution.
Even what Dawkins writes on Evolution needs to be taken with a grain of salt. He is a gifted writer and he has made millions in that field. But when Dawkins pontificates on Christianity he simply doesn't know what he is talking about.
>No knowledge of the study's implications, blatant ignorance of the evidence against the Carbon Dating, and no knowledge of historical methodology.
Agreed. Dawkins is a prime example of believing what one wants to be true, when it isn't.
If Dawkins doesn't repent, he is going to find out the hard way that Christianity is true. Everyone will have to confess, willingly or unwillingly that "Jesus is Lord" (i.e. Yahweh - Paul is quoting Isa 45:23):
Php 2:10-11. 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
Stephen E. Jones
Bravo. Nice comments.
Dan Porter
Dan
>Bravo. Nice comments.
Thanks Dan.
Stephen
Stephen, very nice post. One thought always crosses my mind: no evidence is ever conclusive unless you and I have seen and touched and understood. Otherwise, we rely on the testimony of all the scientific minds as to what they have observed. In similar fashion we have the testimony of those who saw Him walk out of the grave and ascend to Heaven. They willingly suffered to be murdered than deny what they saw. They never wavered. The testimony of scientists is weaker in this regard because they will never have to face such a test to give credence to their observations. So in the end for most of all humanity it is the strength of testimony that leads all to consider the truth of many things. This is at the core basis of all human relationships. Reflecting on this always make me realize the depth of Christ’s words to Thomas regarding those who have not seen and yet believe.
Nice Post stephen, unfortunately despite all the evidence some will never be persuaded. BTW have you read the article on Shroud.com "New detail observed on the SHroud." This article shows precisely why the image Had to come from a real body. From reading the article I know for a fact The shroud is practically unforgeable
Anonymous
>no evidence is ever conclusive unless you and I have seen and touched and understood.
Yes. But you have to want to see, understand and be touched.
I was thinking only this morning that for those who dismiss the Shroud as not authentic, the only viable alternative is that the Shroud's image is the greatest work of art by the greatest artist who has ever lived:
"The Shroud of Turin is either the most awesome and instructive relic of Jesus Christ in existence-showing us in its dark simplicity how He appeared to men-or it is one of the most ingenious, most unbelievably clever, products of the human mind and hand on record. It is one or the other; there is no middle ground." (Walsh, J.E., "The Shroud," 1963, pp.xi-xii).
So why do those who dismiss it as a forgery, not argue for its listing among the world's greatest art treasures? Because their real agenda (perhaps uconscious) is to insulate themselves from being touched by the Shroud, because they know deep down it would change their lives.
But then theirs is the fallacy of the ostrich with its head in the sand, saying, "If I don't see it, then it's not really there"!
>... we have the testimony of those who saw Him .. out of the grave and ascend to Heaven. They willingly suffered to be murdered than deny what they saw. They never wavered.
This is an important point. Subsequent followers of a false religion can die for it, because they wrongly believe it to be true. But the first disciples of Christianity would know it to be false that Jesus arose from the dead and ascended into Heaven, if it was false. But in fact there us no record of any of the original disciples recanting, even under pressure of torture and an agonising death.
>The testimony of scientists is weaker in this regard because they will never have to face such a test to give credence to their observations.
One reason is that no scientific theory can ever be final. A key principle of science is that a theory must be falsifiable, i.e. it must be able to be proved false by a test or observation.
>So in the end for most of all humanity it is the strength of testimony that leads all to consider the truth of many things ...
This is true of science also. The vast majority of scientists have to take on faith the testimony of other scientists. In a Philosophy of Science unit in my Biology degree, one of the more memorable teachings was that the founder of experimental science, Robert Boyle (1627-1691), an evangelical Christian, regarded the desciption of a scientific experiment in a science journal, as a "virtual witnessing," i.e. it should be as though the reader was in the laboratory watching the experiment:
"Robert Boyle's experimental programme had as its end-product the generation of indisputable matters of fact. In this paper I analyze the resources used to produce these matters of fact, paying particular attention to linguistic practices. Experimental reports rich in circumstantial detail were designed to enable readers of the text to create a mental image of an experimental scene they did not directly witness. I call this `virtual witnessing', and its importance was as a means of enlarging the witnessing public. The notion of a `public' for experimental science is, I argue, essential to our understanding of how facts are generated and validated. In these episodes, circumstantial reporting was a technique for creating a public and for constituting authentic knowledge." (Steven Shapin, "Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle's Literary Technology," Social Studies of Science, November 1984, Vol. 14 no. 4, pp.481-520)
Stephen E. Jones
Anonymous
>Nice Post stephen
Thanks.
>unfortunately despite all the evidence some will never be persuaded.
Yes. See my previous comment that they don't want the Shroud to be authentic, because it would change their lives.
Proof of this is that those who claim the Shroud is a forgery, if they were consistent, should be demanding it be listed as the greatest artwork, by the greatest artist, who ever lived.
But even Picknett & Prince don't really believe their own `Leonardo did it' theory, because if they did, they would be demanding the Shroud be listed as Leonardo's greatest masterpiece.
>BTW have you read the article on Shroud.com "New detail observed on the SHroud."
I hadn't but I now have read: "A new detail observed on the Shroud of Turin" (PDF) which shows a triangular cross-section of where the large Roman nail was in Jesus' feet.
>This article shows precisely why the image Had to come from a real body. From reading the article I know for a fact The shroud is practically unforgeable
Agreed. This is the final nail in the coffin of Shroud inauthenticity (pun intended)! I will post it to my Shroud of Turin News. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Stephen E. Jones
Steve, thanks for another good article (still in progress?)! I really appreciate your blog.
So why do those who dismiss it as a forgery, not argue for its listing among the world's greatest art treasures? Because their real agenda (perhaps uconscious) is to insulate themselves from being touched by the Shroud, because they know deep down it would change their lives.
But then theirs is the fallacy of the ostrich with its head in the sand, saying, "If I don't see it, then it's not really there"!
Having observed the degree of sophistry secularists will resort to in philosophy (even embracing outright absurdity and going so far as to deny reason itself rather than accept theism), and watching the knots they tie themselves in and the deliberate ignorance they embrace regarding the Shroud of Turin, I have become more and more convinced that the Christian view of the unregenerated human heart is exactly right. They are at with with God in their hearts and they will not see, despite having no excuse not to, without the grace of God. No amount of evidence, empirical or logical, can break through on its own.
The Deuce
>Steve, thanks for another good article (still in progress?)! I really appreciate your blog.
Thanks. With the latest article about what appears to be a triangular cross-section space of where a large Roman nail (or spike) was through the right foot of the Man on the Shroud, I have now finished my Shroud of Turin News for January.
>Having observed the degree of sophistry secularists will resort to in philosophy ... rather than accept theism ...
I saw that first-hand when I debated Creation-Evolution against all-comers between 1994-2005.
>and watching the knots they tie themselves in and the deliberate ignorance they embrace regarding the Shroud of Turin,
Here is an example from a yet-to-be published BSTS Newsletter:
"Therefore it is not without justification that I bring before you some of the considerations which make me more and more sceptical as time goes on. Firstly the attitude of one of those 1988 scientists, Professor 'Teddy' Hall, was in my eyes starkly unobjective. He said something like, "It's finished, finished! No one will have any further interest in the Shroud of Turin". Setting aside the fact, unconcealed by him, that he is an atheist (and might therefore have an axe of his own to grind) I really must tell of his reaction when I questioned him on these words of his. "Surely, Professor Hall", I asked him, "if your result shows that the image was not produced miraculously by God the Father, will not scientists now be more interested in it, to find out how man did this thing?" His incredible reply was, "I don't believe in God the Father, old boy"! At that moment of breath-taking non sequitur I wrote him off as a thinker. 'The Fool hath said in his heart ...'" (Dr. Michael Clift "Carbon Dating - What Some of Us Think Now," BSTS Newsletter, No. 33, February 1993, p.5).
>I have become more and more convinced that the Christian view of the unregenerated human heart is exactly right. They are at with with God in their hearts and they will not see, despite having no excuse not to, without the grace of God.
Agreed. When Paul wrote his critique of paganism (Rom 1:18-32) in c. AD57, he was probably in his late 50s and had been debating with pagans for nearly a quarter-century. So what he wrote about "their foolish hearts were darkened" was empirical fact.
>No amount of evidence, empirical or logical, can break through on its own.
Not if they don't want to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but would rather believe a Naturalistic lie than the Supernaturalistic truth.
Stephen E. Jones
i don't get what the triangle means
Anonymous
>i don't get what the triangle means
Click on the link "A new detail observed on the Shroud of Turin," and read the original PDF article.
Basically Roman nails (or spikes) were triangular in cross-section.
Therefore the triangular shape in the image of the foot of the Man in the Shroud is the space left after the nail was removed.
Stephen E. Jones
-----------------------------------
Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Each individual will usually be allowed only one comment under each post. Since I no longer debate, any response by me will usually be only once to each individual under each post.
WOW interesting. Soon after i read the pdf article i reasoned that there should be a triangular image on the back side of the foot. This may be speculation but after observing Petrus Soon's websites there appears to be an image of the triangle. Tjis needs further research.
Anonymous
>This may be speculation but after observing Petrus Soon's websites there appears to be an image of the triangle.
Thanks for that information. Let me know in a further comment here if that is confirmed.
Preferably with the web link to an image on Petrus Soon's website which shows the triangle in the Man's foot.
Stephen E. Jones
Cool post. Could some one any one provide a li nk to this paper "Ultraviolet Fluorescence Photography of the Shroud of Turin” written by Vern Miller and Sam Pellicori" If anyone can thanks
Post a Comment