tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post4291399986962218134..comments2024-03-14T08:08:39.968+08:00Comments on The Shroud of Turin: Shroud of Turin News - November 2015 Stephen E. Joneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-15406234714310007632018-10-19T07:30:30.365+08:002018-10-19T07:30:30.365+08:00Anonymous
>Hi,
many thanks for your very infor...Anonymous<br /><br />>Hi,<br />many thanks for your very informative article. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />>Can you inform me if there is copyright on the Shroud photographs pleae, as I would like to use some for a project I'm working on. Your response would be very much appreciated. Thank you.<br /><br />My understanding is that as long as: 1) it is only a small part of the original work; 2) you cite the source; 3) you are not charging money for your work the photograph will be in; and 4) it is in the public interest; it is exempt from copyright by being "<a href="https://goo.gl/Ek7mu1" rel="nofollow">fair use</a>."<br /><br />Also some Shroud photos are very old and <a href="https://goo.gl/4vzSD8" rel="nofollow">copyright lapses 70 years after the author's death</a>.<br /><br />My blog photos are usually a reduced size from the original, so they aren't an exact copy. If anything they are an advertisement for the original!<br /><br />I also understand that if a photograph has been on the Internet for a long time and the copyright owner has not objected, it becomes public domain.<br /><br />I don't usually (if ever) use photographs from professional clip art sites like Getty Images.<br /><br />There also was a USA court case (which I can't remember right now) where the judge held that the complainant had to prove that he/she/it had suffered real harm, and it was not "fair use".<br /><br />I only once was told to remove a photo because the original author or site claimed copyright, and I did so, but only after I pointed out the above court case.<br /><br />The above is not in any particular order, but as the thoughts occurred to me.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES. Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my current post can be on any one Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. To avoid time-wasting debate I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-49442035162478931942018-10-19T02:49:16.477+08:002018-10-19T02:49:16.477+08:00Hi,
many thanks for your very informative article....Hi,<br />many thanks for your very informative article. Can you inform me if there is copyright on the Shroud photographs pleae, as I would like to use some for a project I'm working on. Your response would be very much appreciated. Thank you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-64657181404834747072015-12-17T20:10:43.787+08:002015-12-17T20:10:43.787+08:00>So Shroud sceptic, you who knows the evidence ...>So Shroud sceptic, you who knows the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuses to accept it ...<br /><br />That should have been, "... you who know the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity, but refuse to accept it ..."<br /><br />Stephen E. JonesStephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-38098683826389451672015-12-14T23:16:07.972+08:002015-12-14T23:16:07.972+08:00Anonymous
>Who do you think will be convinced ...Anonymous<br /><br />>Who do you think will be convinced by your X-RAY IMAGES explanation ? <br /><br />First, it is not MY "x-ray images explanation." I was persuaded by the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity only in 2005. It is <i>Prof. Carter</i>'s x-ray images hypothesis, which was published in the <i>peer-reviewed scientific literature</i> (which is what the book Lambert, J.B., ed., 1984, "Archaeological Chemistry III: ACS Advances in Chemistry, No. 205," American Chemical Society, Washington D.C." is) in 1984.<br /><br />Second, it is IRRELEVANT to me if you (or anyone) is not convinced by this or any of my posts. All I can do is PRESENT THE EVIDENCE. The ball is in my readers' (YOUR) court to accept or reject it. But if they (YOU) reject it, and if the Shroud is authentic (as <a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow">the evidence <i>overwhelmingly</i> indicates</a>), and they (YOU) are non-Christians, then they (YOU), will face the eternal consequences (as cited above).<br /><br />>You should contact people who are accustomed to X-RAY IMAGES and they'll tell you.<br /><br />Third, I will in a future installment supply names of "people who are accustomed to x-ray images," who <i>accept</i> Prof. Carter's x-ray hypothesis.<br /><br />Fourth, the problem is not whether one is, or is not, "accustomed to x-ray images." Even a layman (like me) can see that the fingers of the man on the Shroud are finger BONES. The problem (as with the other (<a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow"><i>overwhelmingly</i> evidence of the Shroud's authenticity</a>), is REFUSAL TO ACCEPT that evidence. And that is called, "INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE":<br /><br />"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems <i>peculiarly closed to evidence</i>. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for<i> no amount of evidence seems to be clinching</i>. Frequently <i>the facts are simply ignored</i> or <i>brushed aside as somehow deceptive</i>, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called <i>`invincible ignorance</i>.'" (Fearnside, W.W. & Holther, W.B., 1959, "Fallacy: The Counterfeit of Argument," p.113. My emphasis).<br /><br />You have had one more than the "normally ... only one comment per individual under" this post (see below). So this was your last comment under this post.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-39029560400441388872015-12-14T22:17:16.668+08:002015-12-14T22:17:16.668+08:00Who do you think will be convinced by your X-RAY I...Who do you think will be convinced by your X-RAY IMAGES explanation ? You should contact people who are accustomed to X-RAY IMAGES and they'll tell you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-86274756767476484512015-12-14T21:03:35.249+08:002015-12-14T21:03:35.249+08:00[continued]
By analogy this applies to those scep...[continued]<br /><br />By analogy this applies to those <i>sceptics who know the evidence of the Shroud's authenticity</i> but don't accept it. It does not apply to those who don't accept the Shroud is authentic, but are ignorant of that evidence. The former are in the same position as those residents in those towns in Israel who personally witnessed Jesus' miraculous works but didn't believe in him. The latter are in the same position as residents in other towns in Israel who did not personally witness Jesus' miraculous works. They will still be judged (if they are non-Christians), but less severely.<br /><br />Jesus stated His principle: "Everyone to <i>whom much was given</i>, of him <i>much will be required</i>." (<a href="http://goo.gl/ArxJns" rel="nofollow">Luke 12:48</a>).<br /><br />So Shroud sceptic, you who <i>knows the evidence for the Shroud's authenticity</i>, but <i>refuses to accept it</i>, Jesus invites you to "repent" (Gk. <i><a href="http://www.menfak.no/bibelprog/vines?word=%AFt0002364" rel="nofollow">metanoia</a></i> = change your mind) and believe in Him, who is God in human flesh (<a href="http://goo.gl/JtpZ0X" rel="nofollow">Mt 1:23; Jn 1:1,14; 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</a>), and died a horrific death on the cross for YOUR sins (<a href="http://goo.gl/xayqPa" rel="nofollow">Php 2:8; Heb 12:2</a>), so that YOU may be saved, escape God's righteous Judgment (<a href="http://goo.gl/OzoVpJ" rel="nofollow">John 3:16-18</a>), and receive from Jesus eternal life (<a href="http://goo.gl/L09oFe" rel="nofollow">Jn 3:15-16,36; 5:24; 6:40,47; Acts 13:48; 1Tim 1:16; 1Jn 5:13</a>). <br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />---------------------------------<br />Reader, if you like this my <a href="http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com.au/" rel="nofollow">The Shroud of Turin </a> blog, and you have a website, could you please consider adding a hyperlink to my blog on it? This would help increase its <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PageRank" rel="nofollow">Google PageRank</a> number and so enable those who are Google searching on "the Shroud of Turin" to more readily discover my blog. Thanks.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-20917213571246807502015-12-14T20:35:42.395+08:002015-12-14T20:35:42.395+08:00[continued]
"Whilst it is not miraculous tha...[continued]<br /><br />"Whilst it is not miraculous that a piece of cloth should survive for two thousand years ... it is nevertheless remarkable that this cloth ... should still be available for us to see and to study. It is <i>miraculous that it bears an image at all</i>. It is <i>miraculous that the image cannot be shown to have got there by any human means</i> other than by instantaneous flash of ... energy ... It is <i>miraculous that the image shows, in perfect anatomical detail</i> ... the figure of a man, frontal and dorsal. It is <i>miraculous that the image coincides precisely with the recorded events which occurred to ... Jesus Christ</i> ... It is <i>miraculous that the image on the cloth is in fact a photographic negative</i>, put thereon nineteen hundred years before photography was invented. It is <i>miraculous that this [image] ... also has the property of three-dimensionality</i>, a technique for the interpretation of which has only been discovered in the last few years. It is <i>miraculous that space-age technology has discovered information in the image that there are coins in the eye-sockets of the man</i> ... that there is very probably real blood on the cloth ... Is not this cloth then <i>Christ's last miracle</i>? Did he not leave on the cloth a photographic negative of his bodily features waiting for the scientists of the twentieth century after his time to decode the data he left for us? Is not this data providing <i>scientific proof of his existence and his powers</i>? ... Here is <i>Christ working again in the twentieth century</i> in a manner far more spectacular and gripping than the ways of mere churches and religions. ..." (Morgan, R., 1980, "Perpetual Miracle: Secrets of the Holy Shroud of Turin By an Eye Witness," Runciman Press: Manly NSW, Australia, pp.174-177. My emphasis).<br /><br />And in the Gospels Jesus called on those who witnessed His miraculous works to believe in Him on the basis of those works:<br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/jqogvX" rel="nofollow">John 10:25,37-38</a>. "Jesus answered them, `I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, <i>believe the works</i>, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father.”<br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/15zB3s" rel="nofollow">John 14:10-11</a>. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else <i>believe on account of the works</i> themselves."<br /><br />or else face <i>a more severe judgment than they otherwise will</i>, if they had been ordinary unbelievers:<br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/WWd02P" rel="nofollow">Matthew 11:20-22</a>. "Then he began to denounce the cities <i>where most of his mighty works had been done, because they did not repent</i>. `Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I tell you, <i>it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you</i>"<br /><br /><a href="http://goo.gl/5OTjCO" rel="nofollow">Luke 10:13-15</a>. "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if <i>the mighty works done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented</i> long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But <i>it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you</i>. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? <i>You shall be brought down to Hades</i>."<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-68823587481907768932015-12-14T20:33:28.924+08:002015-12-14T20:33:28.924+08:00Anonymous
>How do you personally explain the &...Anonymous<br /><br />>How do you personally explain the "extremely long fingers" and "grotesquely small hand" ?<br /><br />What we see on the Shroud is not the man's fingers but X-RAY IMAGES of his finger BONES (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_bone" rel="nofollow">phalanges</a>), as well as of his <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacarpal_bones" rel="nofollow">metacarpals</a> and wrist bones (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpal_bones" rel="nofollow">carpels</a>).<br /><br />>I have the impression that you quote Dr. Carter but don't offer a personal explanation.<br /><br />Your "impression" is WRONG, and indeed BASELESS. It would be clear to a "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person" rel="nofollow">reasonable person</a>" that I AGREE with Dr Carter's x-ray explanation of why the man on the Shroud has "extremely long fingers" and a "grotesquely small hand."<br /><br />Apart from the fact that I had already stated, before I quoted Prof. Carter: <br /><br />"Pia's photograph on the right above ... shows the hand bones of the man on the Shroud are <i>xray images</i>, because they reveal his <i>beneath-the-skin</i> finger, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacarpal_bones" rel="nofollow">metacarpal</a> and wrist bones! (see <a href="http://goo.gl/92IcbD" rel="nofollow">14May07</a>, <a href="http://goo.gl/uvgJol" rel="nofollow">06Oct13</a>, <a href="http://goo.gl/w3OWcg" rel="nofollow">01Dec07</a>)"<br /><br />my quotes ARE (unless I otherwise indicate) what I PERSONALLY believe. And therefore my quotes of Dr Carter, in support of his hypothesis that the Shroud man's fingers appear too long, and the rest of his hands appear too short, because they are X-RAY IMAGES of his under-the-skin finger, and other hand, bones, ARE my "personal explanation."<br /><br />PS. Today, while I was in a shopping centre having lunch, having just read the above comment on my smartphone, and was thinking of my reply, it occurred to me that my assumption that the refusal of Shroud sceptics to accept the <a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow"><i>overwhelming</i> evidence for the Shroud's authenticity</a>, will be judged most severely by Jesus (<a href="http://goo.gl/UFcR19" rel="nofollow">2Cor 5:10; Mt 16:27; 25:31-32; Ac 10:42; 2Tim 4:1, 1Pet 4:5</a>), has a Biblical basis.<br /><br />If the <a href="http://goo.gl/SpJeoU" rel="nofollow">Shroud is authentic, as the evidence <i>overwhelmingly</i> indicates</a>, then it is a MIRACULOUS WORK of Jesus:<br /><br />[continued]Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-72125222423549101542015-12-14T11:41:28.476+08:002015-12-14T11:41:28.476+08:00Dear Stephen,
How do you personally ...Dear Stephen, <br /> How do you personally explain the "extremely long fingers" and "grotesquely small hand" ?<br /> I have the impression that you quote Dr. Carter but don't offer a personal explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-7784052896875328672015-12-13T13:09:28.986+08:002015-12-13T13:09:28.986+08:00Anonymous
>Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciat...Anonymous<br /><br />>Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciate the fact that you share some parts of your private life with your readers.<br /><br />Thanks, but I only shared that I had retired to let my readers know that I now hope to blog more often about the Shroud.<br /><br />Stephen E. Jones<br />----------------------------------<br />MY POLICIES Comments are moderated. Those I consider off-topic, offensive or sub-standard will not appear. Except that comments under my latest post can be on any Shroud-related topic without being off-topic. I normally allow only one comment per individual under each one of my posts.Stephen E. Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16183223752386599799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8955388713581848615.post-54377533620070090442015-12-13T12:29:34.483+08:002015-12-13T12:29:34.483+08:00Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciate the fact that...Retirement- Hi Stephen, I appreciate the fact that you share some parts of your private life with your readers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com