Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

There ARE NO convincing arguments that the Shroud of Turin is GENUINE

PERIOD

Those who believe the Shroud is genuine should read skeptical enquirer. Or at least watch Joe Nickell's demonstration of how easy it is to make another shroud (the one in Turin has a several centuries start).

Lung salad (talk) 13:04, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we could arrange a debate between you and Jim, and could even sell tickets. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, the only thing that matters is WP:V and WP:RS and arguments for and against have already been presented. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the arguments for authenticity are not conclusive Lung salad (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think nothing is conclusive about this artifact given that it is under lock and key and can not be looked at or studied. But as a mystery it does generate pretty good business for the book publishers. History2007 (talk) 15:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It's conclusive that the image can be replicated. It's been done. Lung salad (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS sources for that? Pro and con? Are all experts and sources unanimous on that? History2007 (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

No believer would take any notice of that fact that the image on the shroud could be replicated. Believers seek mystification and not clarification. The French scientists according to this source seem to have used Joe Nickell's techniques on producing the image [1] Lung salad (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry please see WP:RS. That source is a blog and can not be used in Wikipedia, and the magazine was a science "magazine" and not a peer-reviewed journal. Leaving aside the believers, there is no indication that the magazine experiment has been subjected to review by other scholars. I see no WP:RS sources regarding that. Also please see WP:V: Wikipedia is not about truth but about providing a summary of scholarly references. History2007 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa - Wikipedia guidelines are being violated on a daily basis and unreliable sources and links used by the minute. That apart, the content found on the Blog is a transcript from an article - probably a newspaper article - you know, those newspaper articles that are not peer reviewed and used as references on Wikipedia all over the place. Lung salad (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, if some wiki-rules are broken elsewhere that is no ground for doing it here. Newspaper articles can certainly be used, provided they quote events. But here the magazine "performed the experiment" not report it. In any case, the fact that the magazine performed the experiment does not mean that all scholars support it - be they believers or not. It may be possible to reproduce the shroud, but the magazine may have done a half-baked job this time. Who knows without scholarly analysis. Please read WP:V again. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers can be quoted if they report events - well, this website reported the experiment performed by Science & Vie [2] Lung salad (talk) 21:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, we are having a problem of logic here. Of course the newspaper reported it, and of course the magazine staff "performed" the experiment, and the magazine staff probably think "they did a good job" but does that make it conclusive from the viewpoint of WP:V? No by a lightyear. To be stated as conclusive in Wikipedia you will need multiple, scholarly sources that say the magazine staff did not do a half-baked job. You have presented no such sources. Did I suggest reading WP:V? If not, let me suggest that now. History2007 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:V is violated by each second of the day on Wikipedia. You are saying that the magazine article cannot be quoted even objectively within an unbiased context on a Wikipedia article. Another thing, the belief in the authenticity of the Turin Shroud represents Fringe theory, since there are no absolute convincing arguments pointing to this objects' authenticity. When the shroud becomes replicated, the 3D effects and all other associated effects accompany the replica, that's a fact. Of course this fact will not receive consensus because there are scientists with fixed agendas who believe in the Shroud's authenticity. Just like there are scientists out there who believe in UFOs, in ancient astronauts, in mystic Knights Templar, et al. If you scrutinise the references for this Wikipedia article, do they all really pass the WP:V test? Lung salad (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not even bother responding to the illogic that: "WP:V is violated by each second of the day on Wikipedia". That statement does not deserve further response. Look, there is a murder every few hours in the US. Does that justify murder? Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We? is not the soundtrack for this article. The statement "WP:V is violated by each second of the day on Wikipedia" does not deserve a response. History2007 (talk) 12:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Science & Vie N°1054 July 2005

[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] Lung salad (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see the comments above. That is a magazine article, not scholarly consensus on being conclusive. May I suggest reading WP:V? Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there is no consensus on the Turin Shroud. You continue to talk in circles. Magazine articles are used as sources in Wikipedia articles, as are all manner of unreliable websites. Your comments don't alter that fact. Lung salad (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you say: "Note that there is no consensus?" Did you really write that? I am sorry, I should go back and read my own posts again. I seem to remember writing a few paragraphs above that: "I think nothing is conclusive about this artifact". Did I not write that? Do I now need to go back and read what I wrote before? Hello? Are we there? The article correctly states that the Shroud "is the most controversial artifact in history". That statement is correct. What is flatly incorrect is your statement that "It's conclusive that the image can be replicated." Did you not write that? Would you like to "note it"? Maybe you should read your own writings first before you asking me to note mine. Do give me a break here. History2007 (talk) 12:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

@Lung salad. I think you should read the peer-reviewed articles published in 2011 by Fazio and Mandaglio in Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids: Can a Latent Image Explain the Carachteristics of the Shroud Body Image? and Stochastic Distribution of the Fibrils that Yielded the Shroud of Turin Body Image. I guess that you will see by yourself where is the difference between science and Science et vie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thucyd (talk • contribs) 12:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, the type of article you pointed to Thucyd is an example of a "Solid source" (pun intended) that clearly passes WP:RS and WP:V. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reference is a bit disappointing as there is what I like to call "professional skeptic" type criticism. Many of the articles highlight questions. But what is missing is a dialogue between research people such as Rogers and his critics and how each responds regarding their observations vs. each other or answers questions about process for info that is missing. For instance, one critic says Roger's did not disclose the source of his thread. That critic should have picked up the phone and asked Roger's associate who published the article. This would have eliminated the question. Professional skeptics create doubt. Professional researchers go the extra mile. Your critics need to do more to gain respect.JimfromGTA (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I found your reference to Latent Images and Stochastic Fibre. The Bible includes a reference to an intense radiation effect, during Christ's ministry that was witnessed by two people other than Christ. Is it possible that the intense light effect involving ultraviolet radiation may have repeated itself at the time of Jesus' resurrection, thus creating a latent image? A second hypothesis is that the presence of acid (used to duplicate the image on linen during replication experiement) etched the image into the linen. It is interesting to note that myhrr was present during Christ's burial. And myhrr has an acidic base. Would this have caused the image to be etched into the cloth? Interesting. Maybe the historical record can give us clues as to how the image was created.JimfromGTA (talk) 23:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

As soon as I get my hands on the artifact I will personally test that. Until then it is all speculation.... History2007 (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Lung Salad, since the authenticity of the shroud is a highly contentious issue, your reference's claims follow under the jurisdiction of Wikipedia's exceptional claims policy, since it follows under: "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science." For this reason, those claims require high-quality sources, such as those peer-reviewed articles as User:History2007 describes. Consider writing a letter to the editor of that magazine in order to get that work published in an environment of high review. Until then, however, it cannot be distinguished as reliable enough for such a heavily researched and contentious debate.

I believe that it is kind of random to assert, "There ARE NO convincing arguments that the Shroud of Turin is GENUINE." We have all this evidence--blood stains, dust and pollen (which skeptics assert were "planted" ...everything is a huge conspiracy scheme now-a-days, right?), and other evidence all pointing to its authenticity. This evidence has be contested on various accounts, but scholarly work has not been able to identify the shroud as fake, even with all our advances in technology and science. It can't even be reproduced. I feel that at this point, asserting that it cannot be proved authentic would be the equivalent of asserting that nothing can be determined authentic. Essentially, you would be saying that nothing is determinable as authentic and that everything may eventually be proved false, if we just wait a bit long for science's advances to tell us. But are we supposed to just wait indefinitely? Can nothing in history be identified as authentic? I don't believe that you should just keep saying "it might not be authentic" indefinitely.
Let's take a look... What have improvements in science been telling us, anyway? As technology has grown, we have only found more and more reason to believe that the shroud is authentic. If this is not an indicator of the ultimate authenticity of the shroud, then nothing is. You would be asserting that nothing will ever be determined as authentic.
COice6 (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Image Recreation Evidence Demonstrates Shroud's Authenticity

The documentaton and evidence surrounding the Shroud answers the who, what, when, where, and why. Roughly 100 characteristics found in the evidence and documentation surrounding the Shroud speaks to its authenticity. Given that the Shroud is not a painting, the "how did the image occur?", is an open question.

During the time of the Shroud's examination, various methods to determine whether the shroud was a painting or fake was tried. Various methods to reproduce the image failed. The STURP team, who spent 25 man years of research on the shroud and determined that it was NOT a painting. They did NOT answer "how" a non painting image occurred on an ancient jewish burial cloth that matched cloth manufactured in the 1st Century AD.

The above referenced articles found in the previous section about latent effect and acid impact help to explain the "how". They demonstrate a method that people have tried and worked. The only two questions are where did the light source come from or where would a heat source and acid come from. Since the image is the residual "evidence" of a cause, thBold textere must be a root cause effBold textect that occurred to the crucified man in the cloth.

(1) We KNOW that intense light surrounds rare spiritual events and that these have occurred in our time (I have personnally interviewed 2 witnesses of "intense spiritual light"). One event occurred in Canada, the other in Peru. Both witnesses had an senior business executive background, one had been a Director of Personnel for a Fortune 50 company, while the other, had been a VP of an aerospace company (both very intelligent, and articulate people). Both were priests at the time of occurrence.

(2) We know that this light DOES NOT consume, as the intense light effect did not harm the witnesses. Biblical references to intense light did not harm the witnesses in those events either (eg. burning bush of Mose's encounter, sheppards at time of Jesus' birth).

(3) We know that the intense light occurred a number of times surrounding important spiritual events of Jesus' life. At his birth (angels appeared), at his transfiguration (witnessed by 2 people) and at his death (angel in front of tomb).

(4) We know from the Bible that an acidic sustance was used in the preparation of the body (John talks of myhrr, an acidic oil).

(5) We know that research demonstrates that the presence of intense ultraviolet light or heat and acid would create the shroud image. Since, according to documentation, an important spiritual event occurred at the time of Jesus' burial, then, it is reasonable to conclude that image was formed from a spiritual event where intense light as a light and heat source was present.

This answers the how. This is consistent with the other evidence that surrounds the shroud. It again speaks to its authenticity.

Summary: Given that roughly 100 characteristics found in research and documentation that supports the authenticity of the shroud, then it is reasonable, that the residual effect of intense light or heat and acid would be present as well. And indeed it is. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Original research has no place in an encyclopedia though.Theroadislong (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, "intense light" surrounds everything if the viewer ..... Priests are more likely to "have" religious visions, while the less-religious are more likely to see flying saucers in that bright glare of light, or pink elephants maybe. This is not "proof" of anything. There is a reason why rural hill-billies have more alien encounters than city folk - rural homebrewed moonshine has a much higher alcohol content than store-bought liquor.

You distort the feedback with your own bias. That is not what they said. You have not even heard the details but draw a conclusion.JimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The most obvious "proof" against the process you describe is the very image itself. The image on the Shroud is clearly a 2D representation of a 3D object, exactly like a photograph, or a rubbing of a bas relief. If the cloth had been wrapped around a 3D object such as an actual body, and the image "burned" onto the fabric by internal radiation or similar, the resultant image would be a "wrap-around" picture which, once the cloth is spread flat, would show a distorted image as though the corpse had been run over with a steam-roller. The claims that the portions of cloth which were in close contact with the corpse were burned more darkly, are bunk - paint your face, wrap it with a cloth, unwrap the cloth and you will see a roadkill view, not a perfect photograph with highlights and lowlights. The very shape of the image on the Shroud "proves" beyond doubt that it was not made while the cloth was wrapped around anything, but was made while the cloth was spread flat.

Interesting feedback. Thanks. It will be interesting if others agree with your opinionJimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Acid plus UV light is an excellent way to put an image on cloth. This could have been done by placing a glass plate bearing a painted image over the flat cloth and letting sunlight burn the image onto the acid-soaked fabric, or by a full photographic process using a camera obscura structure and a 3D corpse or statue. Both methods have been successfully reproduced. The flat glass sheet is the most likely to have been used, because the method could easily have been discovered by accident when a glass bowl was left to stand on a table-cloth on which vinegar had been spilt, and when the owner decides to wash the cloth a few weeks later he finds the legend "Made in Venice" has been burned onto the cloth as if by magic (if he is an alchemist) or by Divine Intervention (if he is a monk). No burning bushes are required here. Wdford (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Your minimalization of the complexity of the evidence of the shroud is noted. While an interesting story, highly unlikely as both frontal and dorsal image appears (not just one side), UV sources were not invented until 1800's, the incredible microdetail of the image (wounding,etc) does not lend itself to orginating artistic reproduction. Doesn't account for how one would have a 1st century Egyptian style weave cloth. About 100 characteristics in the cloth. Too simplistic. On the other hand, the intense light theory does account for all 100 characteristics. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, I think you can see the pattern here now: you type some theories of your own, other users note that they are WP:OR, then you type more theories of your own, and the cycle continues. This is turning to WP:Forum. Time to stop on personal theories. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

History2007: The intense light theory has been advanced by others such as author experts. The theory is NOT personal. This type of evidence is NOT found in your article, but is relevant as the "how" of the image is still in controversy (shroud is NOT a painting). One of the critical responses was quite interesting.JimfromGTA (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually Thucyd knows much more about that the literature on that topic. So he can probably say what the current scholarly opinions point to. History2007 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC). Thanks, History2007.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, enough of this desperate justification. I understand that you badly want to believe in miracles. Fine. However, try this for yourself - paint your face with food coloring or makeup, drape your handkerchief over your face in the manner of a shroud so that it gets coloring on it, and then unwrap the cloth carefully. Does the image look like the Shroud image, or does it look like you got run over by a steamroller? Try it, Jim, then understand why your theory doesn’t hold up at all.

It makes no difference that the Shroud shows both a frontal and dorsal image – the Shroud is long, so you have two glass plates with the respective images painted thereon. Not difficult at all – you just need two plates of glass and a longer patio to bake it on. No artificial UV source is required – the sun does it all for free. Try this for yourself – take a small sheet of ordinary glass, paint something on it with ordinary paint or use masking tape to make a simple image. Place a piece of white cloth on a sunny window-ledge, wet it with strong vinegar, place the glass on top on the cloth and leave it in the sun for two weeks. No miracle required. You can use this process to produce as much detail as you want, as you can paint fine detail on the glass. It's not paint that creates the image on the cloth, its "sunburn" - the paint on the glass creates a shadow, which has the same effect as tanlines on skin. That's why the Shroud image is in negative.

Finally, all the other elements such as Egyptian-style cloth (why would Jews use Egyptian cloth?) and Jerusalem dust and pollen etc would all be well within the means of a Crusader, and the Shroud originally “appeared” in a Crusader family, so all the issues are thus accounted for. Still no miracle required.

QED, Jim. Then add to that the carbon dating, and .... Wdford (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC); As I understand it, according to 6 scientists carbon dating testing was in error because it was repair material, not representative of the cloth as a whole. So it is a non issue.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You have an interesting theory about the glass, but NO proof that your hypothesis occurred. Why? (1) No historical evidence of anything you say exists that I know of. (2) Detailing on the shroud means you must have a "picture" front and back, be perfect in your anatomy of wounding, etc. (3) The wounding alone when placed under microscope was "real", not painted. (4) And the knowledge of medicine was in the dark ages around the time of the Crusaders. So they would not be able to reproduce the precision of the wounding. (4) Blood exists on the cloth, around the wounding. So why would this be there, if you hypothesis was correct. (5) This project would be extensive and subject to "painting errors" that would have been reported if they existed. STURP report no such errors nor the impression that the shroud was a reproduction of a painting.

Just because you have a theory, doesn't make it so. Based on the evidence that Dr. Rogante gathered, your hypothesis fails. (reference pg 26, The Resurrection of the Shroud, Mark Antonacci). You need to provide collaberating proof of you hypothesis. Your theory fails in this regard and is the reason I refer to the 100 characteristics. Your theory MUST fit within the context of approximately 100 characteristics. AND it doesn't. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Look at it another way Jim: Had there been 100% proof, the first press release would have come from Agenzia Fides, then a mention on the front page of L'Osservatore Romano. The Holy Office does not shy away from declaring miracles, they announce miracles all the time as they declare saints. In this case, they hint, they celebrate, they display in Turin, etc. but do not put out press releases about 100% proof. History2007 (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If something is a miracle, I see no problem with that. That would be consistent with Christian experience. Given the scepticism surrounding this, I think the Vatican is reflecting the "politics" of the Shroud. So I understand why they have not declared a miracle.

The STURP team did lots of alternative theory testing. That is why no one reached a conclusion after 25 man years of research as to the "how". It baffled them. I've seen the look on a STURP scientist face when he talked of the baffling puzzle. So it isn't about 100% proof, its about evidence within a context. When placed into context, many theories have failed. Including the glass one because the image is real when looked at with a microscope. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Shroud is NOT a painting. The Shroud is NOT a latent image of a painting. It appears to be a latent image with 3D depth into the cloth, of a "real" crucified man on a 1st century Jewish burial shroud who wears a crown of thorns and matches the passion story "wounding" experiences of Jesus in the Bible. On the cloth was found limestone from the gravesite and pollen from the area. How the image got there is the question.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, question is the key word there. Lots of questions, very few answers without access to the artifact. History2007 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, one last time. Coat ANY 3D object in a paint of some sort. Wrap it as though with a shroud. Unwrap the cloth carefully. Does the image look like the original object, or does it look like it got run over by a steamroller? Try it, Jim, please please please, then understand why your theory is plainly wrong, despite your pollens etc. Crusaders flogged people all the time, they knew exactly what flogging wounds looked like, and they spent their adult lives in Jerusalem, where they had ample access to pollens and dust and cloth and all and all. But the big issue is the shape of the image itself - the Shroud bears a 2D image, which could never have been made if it was wrapped around a 3D object and exposed to intense internal light. Try this experiment, and see that the Shroud is plainly a fake. Even if there is no proof (yet) about how the image WAS made, we can clearly see that the image WAS NOT made by an intense light emitted from a 3D opject onto its wrapping. PS: if your beloved STURP scientists couldn't tell that their sample was being taken from intrusive material, then I am loathe to trust them about anything at all. Wdford (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

See discussion in next session. Evidence of an attending being (second "intense light" face) may provide answer to your dilema as to how the 3D distortion was overcome. That is the cloth was held, not wrapped. Or the radiation was transferred to the cloth itself, like the face of Moses.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Wdford: Dr. Rugante, who ACTUALLY inspected the cloth found that the wounding in the head area was "real", not painted. Your theory about the glass fails when put into context.

Quote: According to Rodante, "The perfect correspondency of the forehead clots imprinted on the [Shroud], overlaying as they do the vein and the artery in the mirror image, gives us the certainty that the linen covered the corpse of a man, who, while living, suffered the lesion of those blood vessels". (reference pg 26, The Resurrection of the Shroud, Mark Antonacci).

The current question based on the evidence is: "how did a picture type image" of a "real man with Christ's passion wounding and description" get onto a 1st century Jewish shroud cloth and come into contact with Christ's tomb?. And because the image is "3D deep" into the cloth, what was the source of energy in 800 to 2000 year ago setting that would caused the image imprinting? To me, the only "known" high intensity light that existed in history at that time would have been reported cases of light associated with spiritual events. Jesus qualifies as a candidate for this.

Wdford: My question to you is: what was the energy source of more than 800 to 2000 years ago that would have caused the imprinting. JimfromGTA (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

First off, Jim, as I have mentioned several times already, the “energy source” used to make the image was almost certainly the sun, which emits a range of radiation so intense that it fades fabrics and pictures, damages carpets and will burn out your eyes if you are stupid enough to risk staring at it. The sun was almost certainly in existence 800 – 2000 years ago, so I think the sun neatly satisfies that requirement. QED.

Second, at least you have recognised that an intense internal light burning an image onto a wrapped cloth would have caused a serious 3D distortion. That's progress, of a sort. Since this distortion would have equally affected the imaging of the “wounds” on the forehead as well, your Dr Rodante is clearly talking nonsense. From your quote it seems that Rodante based this “finding” on the fact that the clots correspond with actual facial blood-vessels. However, Crusaders tortured and beheaded actual humans all the time, and would be intimately familiar with how brutalised heads would bleed, (as would Da Vinci) so this is no evidence of authenticity at all. Added to this, any facial wound will bleed, irrespective of how close the wound is to a vein, because the entire face is woven with capillaries.

However now that you recognise that the cloth would have to be held taut to get a 2D image, you are stooping to hypothising that an angel held the cloth taut above the corpse during the radiation procedure. Again, this is wrong - in such a case the imaging radiation would still be radiating outward in all directions from the corpse, only now it would be even more distorted (due to the uneven distances to the various areas of the cloth) - the same rules still apply. A radiated image could never rise vertically upward in perfectly parallel lines from corpse to cloth – only a photograph can work like that.

Finally, using the Gospels as “evidence” is a bad idea here – the four gospels manage to come up with four different combinations of how many angels Mary encountered at the tomb and where did she encounter them, so the reliability of this “evidence” is more suspect even than that of Dr Rodante.

Wdford (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wdford: With respect to the theory of the latent image, the light source irradiated both back and front of the body. This means the sun could NOT have been the light source as a shadow effect would have occurred either on the front or back, depending on the angle. Please try again (ie. a logical source of intense light that irradiates light in multiple directions internal to the cloth which would result is a negative image of both the front and back of the body on a single piece of 1st Century Jewish burial linen).

I respect your trying to find answers to difficult questions. This is not easy. But keep in mind others before have spent extensive time in direct research. We need to respect the evidence that has been gathered before. The STURP team who spent 25 man YEARS of research directly with the Shroud of Turin went through thorough science reviews, that is detailed cross examination and questioning of evidence before they published.

Dr. Rudante, a member of the STURP research team, is a qualified medical consultant who directly inspected the surface of the shroud. He did extensive research on the head wounding of the man in the image. Given the scientific process that Dr. Rudante had to adhere to, together with his expertise, I respect his opinion. For instance, Dr. Rudante has established as many as twenty separate blood flows on the back of the head of the crucified man. As the prior quote implies, this is "real anatomy", not painting.

Other evidence colaberates as well. Many examples of this exist. Another instance: Dr Victor Tryon of the University of Texas found human DNA with X and Y chromosomes present in two blood samples taken from the Shroud at the back of the head and that these were of a human male. The degraded state of the DNA was consistent with ancient DNA (reference page 28 Resurrection of the Shroud, Mark Antonacci).

With respect to paintings, please provide an example of a painting done by a French artist at the time of the Crusaders from the 1300's that has the anatomical detail that Dr. Rudante expresses. Further you need to explain how multiple instances of "blood" on the surface of the shroud at the precise point of anatomy got there.

I don't get your theory in the context of detailed evidence from actual research done prior unless you can provide "real evidence", directly linked to the shroud, of your opinion.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jim – herewith the logic you requested:

The light source irradiated both back and front of the body – one long flat cloth obtained during crusade in Jerusalem/Alexandria, two sheets of glass placed head to tail, one with painting or etching of the front view, one with painting or etching of the back view, laid out on a long patio or roof, add vinegar, leave undisturbed in the sun for two weeks and voila, a valuable new money-spinning relic! See also http://www.shadowshroud.com/history.htm for a description of one (of many) reproductions performed using this method,, with photos.

Dr. Rudante has established as many as twenty separate blood flows on the back of the head of the crucified man … this is "real anatomy", not painting – painting can be done with great anatomical accuracy if the artist wants to – most “paintings” were decorative only, but people like Da Vinci specialised in anatomical understanding. However, Dr Rudante failed to note that the wrapped cloth would have produced a distorted image rather than a perfect photographic image, so his concept of “accuracy” leaves much to be desired. See also http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/schafersman_skeptics_view_of_shroud.pdf - pg 114 will give you an idea of why the wrap-around method could not work.

Two blood samples taken from the Shroud – so the crusaders smeared blood onto the finished product. No surprises here – blood was a standard feature of holy relics, and many pilgrims would have rejected the Shroud’s authenticity if there were no bloodstains present. However see also http://freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm, where a real scientist reports (yet again) that the so-called “blood” was ochre pigment.

Wdford (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Still no direct evidence. So far you give me inconsistent theory then slam a medical expert with direct research time with the Shroud. Where's the French painting from the 1300's that supports your theory. It's nice to see that people can use various techniques, but they must "prove" the link. And you have not. Again, your theory fails in context.

You offer two people who have NO direct experience with the evidence (no face time). One is person who has NO demonstrated evidence FROM THE SHROUD to prove his theory about the glass. Then the other implies everyone who doesn't agree with him is either incompetent or a conspirator (that is dozens of scientists conspired). Amazing. On the other hand, I see a group of scientists, some part of STURP and others outside of STURP. They spent 25 man YEARS in research. 24 experts in their field from STURP plus numerous others.

You tell me the blood exists, but it was put there on purpose. Steven Shafersman tells me its a painting and the blood doesn't exit. Then you tell me its a latent image of a painting. Confusing?

The reality is that there were 12 different tests by scientists that demonstrated the existence of blood. In addition, they can see the blood flows from the wounds in the image. That's the research by recognized experts who subjected their research to professional scientific review(reference page 25, Resurrection of the Shroud, Mark Antinocci)

Where's the French painting from the 1300's that demonstrates the anatomy precision that you suggest occured in your theory? Still NO direct evidence to support your theory in context.JimfromGTA (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume from your non answer, you don't have an answer to my questions. FYI, Steven Shafersman is stating something that McCrone established in his studies (red ochre). McCrone resigned from the STURP team before it published and did limited research on the shroud, confined to a very small area. McCrone failed to explain the test results of others or do additional testing when asked, according to newsreports,. He did NOT submit his results to science review, but rather self published in his own magazine, The Microscope. (this way he did not have to answer contradictory questions of a science review). The reality remains, 12 different tests established the existence of blood. So Rogers is credible because his work has been peer reviewed, while McCrone failed to complete the science journey (ie. submit to a peer review) to establish credible science. McCrone is the only scientist of dozens who resigned prematurely, that I am aware of. As a consequence, Steven Shafersman relies on evidence that is NOT subject to peer review and was too confined in its testing to draw a conclusion about the shroud as a whole. Therefore, Steven Shafersman lacks credibility.

Your lack of direct evidence demonstrates the weakness of the skeptics arguements. The research establishes that there was present a crucified body bearing a crown of thorns and the wounds of Jesus' passion week within the shroud. The blood flowing from wounds demonstrates this. The shroud is authentic. It contains a latent image of a real man. Again, what was the source of intense light from 2000 years ago? Certainly NOT the sun.......Now you see what I see. JimfromGTA (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Talking to a religious fundamentalist is like talking to a wall, but let us persist a while longer.

We don’t need any French paintings from the 1300’s to support any links – I could just as easily ask Jim to point to a reanimated corpse from 35AD to support his own theory. Unless Jim can produce a reanimated corpse from the correct time period then his own theory completely lacks “context”.

Medieval paintings were purely symbolic, and didn’t need to be anatomically perfect because they were not intended to be passed off as “genuine” relics - the average painting was merely a representation. However artists such as Da Vinci deliberately made their paintings anatomically accurate, and the many statues from the period also demonstrate that the artists of the time were very familiar with human anatomy. They were also very familiar with head-wounds, and could easily duplicate such wounds with great accuracy if they had the incentive. And after all, a scalp will bleed from any puncture, the wound doesn’t have to coincide with a vein – as everyone who knows anything about medicine will know.

My preferred “theory” (which Jim continues to willfully misunderstand) is that the image was bleached onto the cloth using natural sunlight as the energy source, and masking the cloth with a plate of glass onto which the required image had earlier been painted or etched. This has been demonstrated several times to produce the same effect as on the Shroud, using common 1300’s materials such as vinegar as the acid agent. It is also easily done by accident – thereby making the process easy for a 1300’s fraudster to have “discovered”. This process leaves no traces on the Shroud other than the final image, so “face-time” will show no evidence at all of the process – thereby making it seem miraculous, and thus being the perfect fraud.

Rogers himself pointed out that bleaching chemicals and acids would strip away the vanillin (http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf), so soaking the cloth in acid (probably common vinegar) would also match the “evidence”. To get rid of the distinctive smell of vinegar, the fraudster would have washed the cloth in hot water, possibly using soaps, so the vanillin would have been further affected. Blood could be added directly onto the cloth either before or after the washing process, depending on the effect required – human blood would not be difficult to obtain for a 1300’s nobleman with a dungeon under his castle.

A simple glance at a photo of the Shroud will instantly prove that the image was not made by a radiant energy source wrapped up in the cloth – such an image would expand outwards evenly in all directions onto its 3D wrapping and not just vertically up and down. This is exceedingly obvious, but clearly those who want to believe in relics will deliberately delude themselves, as fundamentalists always have done – hence the success of the fraudulent relics industry both then and now.

Wdford (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Wdford: I'm not stubborn. Just trying to be consistent with the roughly 100 characteristics of evidence found about the Shroud.

FYI, STURP did numerous image making tests including direct contact, photographic, etching, paintings, artistic drawings, etc. The basic problem, according to the STURP scientists, was that various reproductions lacked the precise definition of the shroud image. The image experiments had to pass a test using a VP-8 Image Analyzer. If they failed to match the existing shroud characteristics, the theories were discarded. Another reason for discard was techniques could not be replicated because a body had been underneath the shroud. Evidence of a body included such things as blood flowing from wounding and curvature of the frontal cloth image consistent with a body shape. (Reference: Chapter 5, Attempts to Reproduce the Shroud Image, Resurrection of the Shroud, Mark Antonacci).

FYI, the Resurrection of the Shroud has around 35 actual pictures of the results of the various "image reproduction" attempts. You might find this interesting.

Against the backdrop of the STURP findings, I find the glass theory is discarded “at a minimum”, because it does not accommodate the existence of a body. Further it is highly unlikely that the precision of the image would meet the rigorous characteristics of the Shroud. There are over 200 anatomically precise wounds and scourge marks on the image that must be matched. If it were a drawing or a painting, then evidence of drawing or painting would be seen. The image analyzer flushes out the fakes easily. Until you can match the unique characteristics of the shroud, your theory fails in context as did many other theories. It would be interesting, however, if the test of the vinegar theory on a body would match the detail and unique character of the shroud as seen with an Image Analyzer.

My concern about most skeptics is that the standard that skeptics use is almost always WELL BELOW the standard of evidence that skeptics expect. When I ask for “real evidence”, this is because, I can’t discount that one can “fake” a reproduction even though a “real one” exists. For instance, people “fake” counterfeit money each day, and it approaches the “real ones”. Calling something a forgery does make it so even if a “fake” can be produced. You still have to place it into context along with the other evidence and demonstrate linkage.

So you while you have an interesting theory,“in depth” analysis remains, together with establishing a proper linkage to the context. Since your glass and painting theory does not include a body, it fails the “preliminaries” according to professional research criteria.

Don't be frustrated with me, its the complexity of the problem. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The reason I have supported low impact high intensity lighting as described in the Bible is that it is NOT inconsistent with the roughly 100 characteristics and is the only source of low impact high intensity light that occurs in history that I am aware of, occurring in 33AD, or 1300AD. As a Christian (not a fundamentalist, by the way), I am aware of experiences that flow from being in the presence of the life force of God (Holy Spirit) that “non Christians” do not. And Christians, on the whole, have experienced this presence BILLIONS of times. My perspective is shaped by a different set of experiences than “non” Christian who have yet to experience the presence of God’s spirit. That experience includes interviewing two witnesses of intense light.

I can not discount this theory just because you imagine the light must flow equidistantly. First you must explore the characteristics of such light, before you can judge anything. The next section starts this process.

Further, the existance of the body IS placed into context by the fact that the body of the image matches the Biblical description and wounding events of Jesus' passion week. (wounding, Roman scourging, carrying of cross, falling, crucifition, etc.). Because the image is so correct anatomically, a STURP expert declared the image was that of a crucified man. Blood and ancient DNA is found. Limestone from Jesus' historically identified gravesite (2 identified on the same limestone shelf) is found on the shroud. Numerous pollen and floral images from the Jerusalem area are found on the cloth. The cloth is consistent with 1st Century AD Jewish burial cloth. So body context is NOT an issue. User:JimfromGTA|JimfromGTA]] (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jim, I see you like to use the issue of “context”. The most important context here, is that during the Middle Ages one of the biggest money-spinners around was the milking of pilgrims by use of faked “holy relics”. There are other articles on wikipedia about this cynical practice. The Shroud raked in the money for its town and church, and so fits neatly into that “context”. I’m sure you know that, in 1390 Bishop Pierre d'Arcis wrote to Pope Clement VII stating that the shroud was a forgery and that the artist had confessed to creating it. The pope ordered that pilgrims be informed that it was a fake, so as to limit the fraud. That’s a very important context, which could perhaps be expanded upon in the article proper.

Start of context but yet NO proof. This was one of the reasons that the Shroud research was done by STURP. But, STURP found no existance of forgery after 25 man years.

You refer to the “standard of evidence”, and to the fact that the image experiments have to pass a test using a VP-8 Image Analyzer, but nobody has to date created an image using the divine radiance of a resurrection, and cleared that process through a VP-8 Image Analyzer. Double standard or what? That’s also a very important context, which could perhaps be expanded upon in the article proper as well.

I agree. STURP called it a mystery. My premise is that all other means, such as your method fail. So further work needs to be done in this area. When I see the 100 characteristics, forgery doesn't make sense.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You claim that “techniques could not be replicated because a body had been underneath the shroud”. There is no proof at all that a body had been under the Shroud. In fact, as I have repeatedly pointed out, the image is clearly a 2D image, which conclusively refutes any possibility of being made while the cloth was wrapped around a 3D object. You also can’t hide behind the “theory” that we don’t fully understand the properties of “divine radiance” – light is light, and it radiates evenly in all directions – a glance at any light-bulb will confirm this.

STURP researchers are quoted as recognizing a body (Dr. Allen for example). You need to review all the evidence instead of focusing just on skeptical. I didn't make this up. I gave you references to begin understanding the methods of STURP, perhaps you should start there.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the body in the image matches the Biblical description and wounding events of Jesus' Passion Week – the forger was working closely from the Bible stories. Blood-flows are easily faked, as are wounds – if the forger had a nobleman as his client then they might well have hauled in a random peasant and flogged him so that the forger could have a “real-life” model to copy from. Perhaps the unfortunate model also donated the blood?

Absolute conjecture. No proof. And no offer of any proof other than one single letter. No painting, no matching to 100 characteristics, etc. to even collaberate the reference. All made up. Usual skeptical rationalization.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no “historically identified gravesite” – however the crusaders were well aware of the arbitrary tomb that was “believed” to be Jesus’ tomb. They probably got a share of the money that was collected from pilgrims to that site, and could easily have taken the Shroud there at some point.

Incorrect. The likely tombs were identified after research by the Romans during Constantinople's time. Again, you continue, like most skeptics, to "make up stories" and attribute false pretenses to the discussion. This is not research.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is much dispute about whether or not this fabric is representative of a Jewish burial cloth at all, and the flowers and coins etc are not universally accepted either.

Similar fabric has been found at Masada. The techniques are known to be used in 1st Century manufacture. Flowers have been identified by Hebrew professors and captured in photographic evidence. As to quality of evidence, I agree, there is some discussion.

Finally, you seem to rely heavily on Mark Antonacci for your “facts”, but Antonicci is a lawyer, not a scientist or an artist.

Mark Antonacci put together a thorough encyclopdia. It contains 300 authoritative references and hundreds of exhibits. It is thorough about the actual research done. Rogers acknowledged this. He added a couple of chapters on theory that Rogers disagreed with and you quote. Instead of quickly passing judgement on Mark Antonacci "from afar", read it. You'll learn a lot about 25 man years of research and research up to 2000AD. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote Raymond Rogers, in his book “A Chemist’s Perspective on the Shroud of Turin”, on the subject of Antonacci:

1. “Nuclear radiation is required in these “theories” to produce excess radiocarbon and explain the date, while chemical reactions produced by the radiation are invoked to explain the image colour. There are compelling scientific reasons why none of these “theories” can be accepted.” (Pg 79)

Agreed. One of the theories Rogers disagrees with.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

1. “Antonacci’s “Historically Consistent Method” (found in the “Resurrection of the Shroud” by Mark Antonacci) is an outstanding example of goal-directed pseudoscience.” (pg80)

Your forgery theory is "goal-directed". What can I say? Hypothesis must start somewhere.

1. “I believe he [Antonacci] has done severe damage to the credibility of studies on the Shroud.” (Pg 81)

Has he? Why?

On pages 80-82 Rogers also seriously discredits Moran’s interpretations of the colouring of Frei’s fibres, along with Moran’s underlying radiation theories.

Usual science discussion. Don't see the point.

I think Antonacci hardly qualifies as a reliable source, and that perhaps we should reconsider any “facts” in the article that are attributed to him. Do you agree? Wdford

We are at the moot point. You fail to recognize what STURP did in his testing without going to the actual references I have provided. I agree that Roger disagreed with Antonacci theory. But I disagree with your conclusions because they are NOT evidential, but rather suppositional. READ THE EVIDENCE FIRST, then decide. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You method still fails when compared to STURP methods and research. This has NOTHING to do with Antonacci's theory on radiation, etc. You might want to see what I see (I have given you references, before jumping to conclusion and making up stories).JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(talk) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither Mark Antonacci nor Joe Nickle have any "scholarly qualifications" in this area: one is a lawyer, the other an English major. They do, however, have access to printers, and have plenty of readers. If we start deleting these "self appointed experts with 100,000 readers" it is only a question of time before they get added again and take up time. The way Wikipedia works, if someone has a 100k readers they are notable get into the article, for better or worse... usually worse. Else, a few of the 100k people who read them will ask: "why is my hero not mentioned?"... sigh.... However, the types of scholarly references that Thucyd added over the last 18 months do add value to the article and reduce the shallowness of the likes of Antonacci and Nickle. So Wikipedia goes forward. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

? History2007- Have you actual read Mark Antonocci's book?

As I said before Mark Antonacci contains an encyclopedia of information about the research already done, complete with 300 authoritative references and hundreds of exhibits appended to his information. His theories, like all others, are challenged, and rightly so. There are dozens of theories that have taken place. But to wholesale discredit demonstrates you have not read his book.

Rather than read the actual references and evidence provided, everyone judges. When I ask for proof, skeptics minimalize and don't offer anything. Or argue without looking at the referenced material. Or worse, make up a lot of stories. Seems like a habit. So Wikipedia goes forward.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not read Antonocci's book, but I have read the summaries you have provided, here... pretty substantial summaries I should say. But I did read Ray Rogers' review of the book and Rogers seemed to like it. However, my statement was not about "the book" but about Antonacci himself. His qualifications are in law, not science. he may or may not have written a good book, but as I said he had no scholarly training except in law, just as Nickle has no special training except in English literature. And I do stand by that statement. These people just waded into this field wrote books and sold plenty of them. They both need to be mentioned in the article given their wide audience, but one should not let one's brain overheat over their debate. These are all speculations about an item very few living people have seen or touched. I saw that Nickle had his photo taken near the box that contains it, as though that authenticated his knowledge. It does not. And do remember that in 30 years they may allow another set of tests and all that has been written so far will be useless. T But I guess new authors will have to make a living at that time. Don't they? History2007 (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One should NOT discredit someone when they have NOT read the material produced. Law is about gathering and organizing evidence. Antonacci's work is substantial. That's his expertise. And my experience (I hold 3 degrees, including 1 professional level) tells me that I can rely on his evidence gathering, because he is far more robust in actual evidence than other's I've seen, including anything I have read in Wikipedia. His level of detail including exhibits is exceptional.

As for the criticisms that Wdford offered re: Rogers. I can see why one would want to apply serious research toward them before acceptance / rejection. That is Roger's point. And Antonocci is correctly criticized. Until you actually read Antonacci, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.JimfromGTA (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Three lessons: Wdford and I are getting to moot point. Lesson 1: I agree with Wdford that the "intense light" theory requires work. It's a hypothesis, only at this stage. Characteristics of the "light" require exploration. Lesson 2: Wdford has failed to appreciate the work that STURP has done, and the methods they applied. The fact he /she did not understand the "body constraint" tells me he/she has not reviewed STURP research and why STURP rejected say 40 to 50 theories of image recreation. Until he / she actual understands the actual STURP tools and reasons for rejection, he / she will not have an accurate understanding. Lesson 3: Skeptics need to stop making up stories and actually READ the research done by qualified people and references. It leads to all sorts of distortions when people don't. References are needed in the discussion to support a point of view so that "facts" can be discussed, not fiction. By the way, I agree that Rogers criticized Antonacci's theories. But that only diminishes his theories, not the bulk of his book. Wdford, those were good references. Too bad you didn't read mine. You might have learned something about Antonacci and gotten past "dogmatic".JimfromGTA (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One question: who discredited Frei's work? And where should I look to see the ACTUAL details of that?JimfromGTA (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The dude actually said the sun.
If the sun can really imprint the image of a person onto a sheet of linen, I'd like to see you reproduce that effect.

That's not possible.

I said this before and I'll say it again: I believe that it is kind of random to assert, "There ARE NO convincing arguments that the Shroud of Turin is GENUINE." We have all this evidence--blood stains, dust and pollen (which skeptics assert were "planted" ...everything is a huge conspiracy scheme now-a-days, right?), and other evidence all pointing to its authenticity. This evidence has be contested on various accounts, but scholarly work has not been able to identify the shroud as fake, even with all our advances in technology and science. It can't even be reproduced. I feel that at this point, asserting that it cannot be proved authentic would be the equivalent of asserting that nothing can be determined authentic. Essentially, you would be saying that nothing is determinable as authentic and that everything may eventually be proved false, if we just wait a bit long for science's advances to tell us. But are we supposed to just wait indefinitely? Can nothing in history be identified as authentic? I don't believe that you should just keep saying "it might not be authentic" indefinitely.
Let's take a look... What have improvements in science been telling us, anyway? As technology has grown, we have only found more and more reason to believe that the shroud is authentic. If this is not an indicator of the ultimate authenticity of the shroud, then nothing is. You would be asserting that nothing will ever be determined as authentic.
COice6 (talk) 21:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi COice6. You are curious about how the sun can be used to imprint miraculous-looking images onto cloth? It has been reproduced many times, and you can read about one case here [[13]]. PS: It works better and faster if you first soak the cloth in mild acid, such as spirit vinegar. It’s fine to joke about conspiracy theories, but there is a difference between a Roswell cover-up and a deliberate fraud, motivated by financial gain, carried out in the time when such frauds were really really common.

The main evidence in favour of the Shroud being a medieval forgery are:

1. A context of fraudulent religious relics at that time, many of which had “Holy Blood” on them somewhere.
2. The first recorded owner of the Shroud was a crusader, who would have travelled to Jerusalem, who could plausibly claim to have “found” the thing in Jerusalem, and who would have access to Jerusalem dust, pollens etc. In fact, he may very well have purchased the actual cloth in Jerusalem, at Ali Baba's Textile Emporium, and may even have done the forgery in Jerusalem in between torturing prisoners and waiting for the next battle to start. (Arab science at that time was centuries ahead of European science.) That would explain the pollens and dust etc etc quite elegantly.
3. The Church at the time (who generally supported even the most blatant of fake relics, and who felt nothing to defraud pilgrims) publicly denounced the Shroud as a blatant fake at the time.
4. Carbon-dating has proved the cloth is of medieval origin.
5. The image can be easily replicated using glass and vinegar, both of which were readily available to the forgers of the time, using a technique which requires neither artificial energy nor scientific knowledge.
6. The “Authentic” theory requires a miracle which contradicts all know science, unlike the forgery theory, which requires only basic materials, human venality and gullibility.
7. An actual Jewish burial shroud, from an actual 1st Century Jerusalem tomb, is nothing like the Turin Shroud in any respect. [[14]]

On the “Shroud is Real” side, the only “evidence” is that:

1. The STURP team (working with very old technology) couldn’t find any explanation.
2. Lot’s of people want to believe it’s real, and some have written books quoting masses of “characteristics” while ignoring the actual hard evidence as noted above.

However, since nothing has been proven either way, most people are prepared to allow that the authenticity might yet be proven in the future, even though it’s not looking likely just yet. It would help if the Catholic Church would allow scientists with modern equipment to study the thing properly, but the Church has a vested interest in maintaining the mystery. Now with Italy bankrupt and falling apart, Turin needs its pilgrims more than ever. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Wdford (talk) 13:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Turin needs its pilgrims, there is some truth in that. And along the same lines, there are at least 30 churches in Europe who clam to have one of the 3 or 4 nails from the crucifixion, and business is pretty brisk in most of them. It has been so since the days of Erasmus who complained about the large number of churches built with the wood of the True Cross. Of course, the poor little gift shop in Shingō, Aomori is doing only a fraction of the business of the Euro-churches who have the nails, but hey, every Yen counts these days. So the authorities in Rome may have a vested interest in performing no tests. But that neither proves nor disproves things about an artifact to which there is no access - for whatever reason.

As a side note the finances of the Vatican do not depend on the Italian economy that much, for these days there are more substantial donations in places like Brazil (and Latin America in general) with a larger population base - just as French and Italian fashion houses these days make their money in China. And on the debit side, the largest payments the Vatican makes is to settle legal cases in the US - so it is really an international organization. And international pilgrims do help.

But in any case , the Shroud is often a "surrogate debate" about the existence of God, so arguments for and against will again be found regardless of any theories or evidence. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RE:Wdford: If the shroud is easily replicable, as you say, then why hasn't this been publicized and reviewed by a peer-reviewed journal? The website that you referenced does not even have any reference to the actual study done; it has words describing a study, but no reference to that actual study, for people to review. To my experience, many replications have been attempted, but they all failed in one way or another when compared to key characteristics of the actual shroud. History Channel's The Face of Jesus- The Shroud of Turin describes some of these unique characteristics in some detail, as well as some of the problems with the hoax theories. They particularly address some of the problems with some things which you identified as evidence that the shroud is a medieval forgery. If the method that you described could indeed create a replication of the shroud, I don't even have any way of knowing to what degree it holds ground with the original, since I am not scientifically well-learned enough to best articulate the information that you would present. I suggest e-mailing your source and asking them to publish their results in a peer-review journal, where better-learned people are able to articulate the veracity of your claim. Due to the highly-disputed nature of this shroud, I am sure that you can understand why I would request a peer-reviewed result in order to solidify the reliability of your results (see: WP:REDFLAG). I assume that any journal would jump to the honor of being the first publication to conclusively identify the creation of an accurate replication of the original, which would be a huge gain for skeptics.
Aside from this, anything that is popular inevitably has the potential to produce money (whether authentic or not; this fact is something that's uncontrollable), so I generally don't let this correlation taint my considerations with respect to authenticity.
As it stands, the shroud has been identified as incapable of being accurately reproduced, despite all our advances in technology. If what you have asserted is true, then I'd expect to see that published under a peer-review evironment, and reflected on this Wikipedia page within months. Until then, it just appears to be another theory that come close to replicating the shroud, but falls short in some significant respect(s). The fallback(s) may simply have been omitted by the ShadowShroud website that you referenced, or otherwise obscured; I have no way of knowing.
COice6 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Every time I speak with skeptics, they lack an understanding of the 25 man YEARS of research that was done by the dozens of scientists affiliated with STURP. The arguements are the same. My theory sounds good, therefore it must be true. The theory, which sounds good, remains a theory only. It must pass imaging review, and match the unique characteristics of the Shroud. STURP scientists did 40 to 50 image recreations of various ilks. They all failed. Therefore COice6's comment that a peer reviewed image recreation is a minimum. Secondly, skeptics are famous for making up stories. You must prove linkage to actual events and documents that place a hypothesis into context. Lack of referencing and lack of tying to evidence suggests just another "made up" story. That's NOT research.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OK Jim, practice what you preach. If “a peer reviewed image recreation is a minimum”, then you need to produce a reliable source who has reproduced the peer-reviewed resurrection of a corpse, in defiance of the laws of nature, and they must have done it in such a way as to imprint a 2D image onto a 3D cloth wrapped around the corpse, in defiance of the laws of physics. Secondly, you will need to be able to “prove linkage to actual events and documents”. Assuming the Resurrection even happened in the first place, the gospels (whose accuracy is sorely disputed to begin with) make no mention of any images imprinted onto the burial cloth. Furthermore, there is no documentation trail connecting Turin to the Tomb (assuming that it was actually Jesus’ tomb). There is no documentary linkage at all between the Turin Shroud and the Edessa Image. The only documentary evidence that exists at all is correspondence between senior Catholic clergymen denouncing the Shroud as a fraud. Your beloved “25 man YEARS of research” did not prove that the Shroud is a relic of the Resurrection, and the “100 characteristics” do not prove authenticity either. The forgery theory might not have been peer-reviewed yet (as far as I know), but at least it doesn’t need to resort to angels and miracles (the existence of which has not been peer-reviewed yet either). Unless you can meet your own two requirements, then by your own standards, your miracle theory is just another "made up" story. Wdford (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the shroud in itself may not determine that Jesus resurrected. Nevertheless, I feel that the forgery idea has way too many flaws. With every advance in technology, we have only found more reason to believe that the shroud is an authentic artifact. If this is not an indicator of the ultimate authenticity of the shroud, then nothing is. And does it not phase you at all to recognize that no other 2-D artifact in history has 3D holographic information on a 2D plane? I repeat: not one other painting, drawing, or artifact that has been found has this information. Is this not unusual? How would you even fathom creating something with 3D information? And for what purpose--the technology to read that sort of holographic information did not even come about until the late 20th century. How did they even know that they were creating the image accurately? Furthermore, there have been even more recent interesting finds regarding the shroud other than its unprecedented holographic character. The shroud has soo much going on with it at once. Blood, holographic information, dirt, pollen, images of flowers, aramaic words written on it, and in un-distorted image, to say a few. It's such an elaborate and particular creation that we cannot even accurately reproduce today... yet some people assert that it is simply just some ingenius hoax? That's very easy to say, but most people wouldn't even be able to fathom, and none have been even able to accurately create, such a complex creation. The most intelligent minds of the science community are dumbfounded, and although skeptics repeatedly jump to state "there is a way," they have yet to step up the the stage and accurately demonstrate the possible method behind this baffling ingenious creation.
COice6 (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Pathetic. You demand from the non-believers that “a peer reviewed image recreation is a minimum”, as well as proof of “linkage to actual events and documents”, yet you offer zero evidence that your resurrection theory is even possible, far less has it been proven and peer-reviewed. Is that a double standard or what?

The most likely source of large sheets of glass would be the artisans who made and installed the stained-glass windows in the great cathedrals of the time. They obviously knew a great deal about light and glass, and they had access to the material. In fact, the face on the shroud could easily have been made using painted glass that subsequently went into a window somewhere. No wonder it looks exactly like our common medieval depictions of Jesus – it WAS a medieval depiction of Jesus. That window probably didn’t survive the many dozens of wars that have plagued Europe in the 700 years of the Shroud’s life, but who knows – perhaps it’s still out there, in a private chapel attached to some villa somewhere ….

Please be advised that, contrary to the shrill assertions of the believers, it is quite easy for a computer to produce a 3D image from a 2D photograph (such as the Shroud). See [15] and [16] for a sample of that technology - I found these two in a 10 second google search. The people who "discovered" the 3D effect admitted that it required a great deal of computer manipulation to distil the 3D image out of the gray-scale, and indeed simple software now exists that can distil 3D images out of any 2D photo. Not very dumbfounding, after all? The Shroud is not technically a hologram, but apparently the effect is similar to lenticular printing, which is possible in this case because the fibers of the cloth do not present a completely smooth surface, the light-source was moving from side to side while the image was made (i.e. the sun was moving across from east to west each day), and the thickness of the glass created a refraction difference in the manner of a lens. This also "melts" the hard edges of the original glass painting, as we clearly see in the Shroud image. I don’t understand the math behind this, but it all sounds perfectly plausible – unlike the non-peer-reviewed theory about miracles and angels. I don’t doubt that the 3D aspect was incorporated unintentionally, but it is certainly no proof of the miraculous resurrection theory.

Blood was a standard relic prop, pollen and dirt could have been deposited during any Easter Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 700 years since it was made, likewise the flowers, the so-called Aramaic writing (if its even real) could have been added as part of the same imaging process etc etc. No need of miracles. Wdford (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wdford: My reasons for rejecting the glass and painting theory are already enunciated, above. In my opinion, it wouldn't pass a STURP type science review. Our discussion is now moot on this subject. No need to be repetitious.

I already stated why I was interested in the "intense light" theory. Your Roger's comment made me realize that I need to understand the evidence more clearly. As such, I prefer to study the evidence further, rather than engage in hypotheticals at this time.JimfromGTA (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not endorsing Jim's "ressurection light" theory. I nevertheless find too many flaws with any "forgery" theory. The theory that you described... a glass painting? As in they painted the picture with glass? Or can you explain better. They did not find any glass when they examined the shroud, and it is highly impractical to believe that any sort of artistry created the image of the shroud, granted that the image only exists on the carbohydrate layer of the cloth--which is a fraction of the width of a piece of hair. This layer is so thin that you can take it off with some adhesive tape. The carbohydrate-layer quality of the image is a scientifically conclusive fact; you look through any peer-reviewed forums for support of that fact. This carbohydrate-layer quality of the image makes it highly impractical for especially any medieval person to have created such a fine image.
I suggest you read the "Material chemical analysis" section of this Wikipedia article. The image is actually made up of billions of submicrometre pigment particles. In other words, the image is created by billions of dots.

It appears that you have a different conception of what I mean by "3D Information on a 2D image." The shroud, as an "artwork" in itself, has these properties, unlike any other "artwork." I am not talking images created by the help of of computers. The page for the 3D technique that you showed me explains: "the hologram master shooting process involves many detailed steps, so it is very important that all hologram artwork is approved before the project moves into the laser lab for hologram mastering." Are you suggesting that some centuries ago, they had lasers and computers to help them make this image and fool thousands of people hundreds of years later?
Aside from this, the shroud contains a far distinct and unprecedented type of 3D imagery than the 20th-century kind that you are describing. The holographic quality is further elucidated here. This is far different than 20-century holographic pokemon cards, or that 20th-century lenticular printing that you describe. I'm sure if you drop pokemon cards or lenticular prints under a VP8 Image Analyzer, they will not generate 3D images on that computer.

But for the most part, I am actually kind of confused by your argument. Why would you start talking about late-20th century 3D technology in order to justify the existence of 3D characteristics on a ancient piece of linen?

I am not gonna sit here and say that the shroud was created by "ressurection light," but it definitely was not any glass painting.

What bugs me most is when people exclaim that this image "could easily have been made" despite the failure of all contemporary scientists to do so. Don't you think they have all the incentive to be the first to do so? The reason why I assert that your argument needs to be judged under a peer-reviewed environment is because I am not scientifically well-learned enough to best articulate the information that you would present. I suggest e-mailing your source and asking them to publish their results in a peer-review journal, where better-learned people are able to articulate the veracity of your claim. Due to the highly-disputed nature of this shroud, I am sure that you can understand why I would request a peer-reviewed result in order to solidify the reliability of your results (see: WP:REDFLAG). I assume that any journal would jump to the honor of being the first publication to conclusively identify the creation of an accurate replication of the original, which would be a huge gain for skeptics.

Wdford I am not talking crazy here in asking you to do this. This is not "too much to ask." I would require the same for Jim on his theory. You even said for yourself that you were not able to fully comprehend the glass theory that was purported by your source. The Shroud of Turin is a scientific puzzle which would be best articulated under the supervision of the scientific community. This community cannot identify this shroud as a forgery, let alone reproduce it accurately. As it stands, the creation could simply be "miraculous;" who knows? At the least, we have enough evidence that it is not a forgery, and it is definitely not a glass painting.
COice6 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I can explain better. The image is caused by the sun discolouring the cloth. All fabric will discolour in direct sunlight, due to UV damage and such. This is a well known fact – any housewife could explain it to you – I merely said I can’t explain the holo-effect mathematically. The “image” on the shroud was caused by the presence of an object which obstructed the UV rays reaching some parts of the cloth more than other parts. It is postulated that the Shroud image was created by a picture of Jesus being painted onto a sheet of glass, and the sheet of glass then being laid over the cloth, and left for a few weeks in the sun. The UV rays discolour the cloth unevenly, due to the differences in the level of shielding caused by the differences in the thickness of the paint on the glass. The discolouration process is also exaggerated if the cloth is first soaked in acid, such as spirit vinegar.

The Shroud is not an “artwork” as in a painting, it is a photo-image of a painting, and thus it automatically incorporates “3D info”. I am obviously not suggesting that the forger used lasers and computers – that is a troll-question. I said clearly that the effect was accidental, and that we only found it when a software program was designed specifically to lift exactly such a 3D image out of a photo of the Shroud. I specifically pointed out that any modern photo will yield the same type of effect if processed by appropriate software, as my references clearly show. Your reference to [17] says quite clearly that the VP-8 Analyser was invented to extract 3D images FROM 2D PHOTOGRAPHS of the moon. Ergo, it does extract images from 2D photos – that is exactly what it was invented for. (PS: ALL photos are made up of billions of dots.) This perfectly supports the theory that the Shroud is a photo-image. Your reference also admits quite openly that the image had to first be considerably manipulated before the image could be extracted.

The question is then how was the photo-image made, and a plausible answer has been given – using materials that were commonly available in the 1300’s, and a process that could easily have been discovered accidentally in 1300’s circumstances. It is unlikely that any scientist today would be able to create an EXACT copy of the Shroud, since this would require the finished forgery to be aged for 700 years in a succession of smoky churches, and that will take 700 years to accomplish EXACTLY.

However, all the key elements can be explained by the UV-through-glass method, whereas the “authentic-relic” theory is contrary to every law of science. Wikipolicy requires that “Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources” – see WP:REDFLAG. I think the average intelligent person would agree that resurrections are exceptional claims, and thus a bit more evidence is required from the authenticity camp than has thusfar been offered. You offer zero evidence that the resurrection theory is even possible, far less peer-reviewed proof that resurrection has been proven to create photos on cloth. So no, we do not have “enough evidence that it is not a forgery”.

Wdford (talk) 12:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

To make a long story short, the resurrection is a "Christian belief" and the article can not just include that as a means of image formation, given the lack of scholarly support for those image formation theories. In that context Jim if you accept the resurrection as a matter of faith, then there is no need for scientific debate since God could have changed the laws of a science for a few minutes. But the article can not support items of faith as a basic tenet for image formation. It is a simple issue and does not even get into the REDFLAG zone, it is way into the ORANGEFLAG zone if we had one. Those theories just do not have enough scholarly acceptance, just as the Edessa image theory does not, as I pointed out below. History2007 (talk) 14:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Explicable?

A lot of information on this page. Not sure what to ultimately make of it all. ...So is this all pretty much saying that... overall, the method creation and longevity for the images on the shroud (in its entirety) remains scientifically inexplicable... at least for now? Or can someone clarify for me
COice6 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The long and short of it is that everyone and his brother has an opinion about this artifact. And they are usually quite emotional about it. Some have presented explanations, other have rejected them. Experts argue about it at conferences for ever, write books, debate for ever, etc. but nothing has been settled yet. The public or the experts have no access to the artifact, make long distance guesses, and the article says: "most controversial" artifact in history. History2007 (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.
COice6 (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

STURP, a consortium of dozens of scientists, did 25 man years of research on the artifact. They concluded it was NOT a painting. They found among other things, (1) blood including DNA, (2) confirmed the image was a crucified man bearing a thornlike crown, (3) determined the image was at the detailed level was anatomically correct, and that the distortion of frontal cloth image indicated curvature like a body was under the cloth. STURP couldn't explain how the image was made even though numerous "trials" were done to replicate but failed to pass the image analyzer tests which required the recreations to match the Shroud's unique characteristics. Carbon 14 testing was performed and dated it to the 1200 to 1300's. Scientists from STURP explain that the sampling threads from the cloth for the Carbon 14 was not of the whole cloth. Rather, it was from medaeval repair material. Therefore the dating from C14 is unknown, according to STURP. A STURP scientist did chemcial tests that indicated the cloth was older than the 1200 to 1300's. This analysis is being disputed.

Peripheral information indicates that the cloth is likely Jesus' burial shroud, given close matching to Biblical, historical (matching to known info about Shroud of Edessa cira 400 to 1100AD and records about the Shroud of Turin cira 1300's onwards), pollen and limestone, burial cloth matches 1st Century Jewish burial cloth, images on the shroud re: floral patterns, etc. However, skeptics who hold a fraud theory will dispute this type of evidence as either not being conclusive on a case by case basis and that even if things "line up" and match, that they do so because its made to do so (fraud).

Skeptics and critics of STURP primarily argue the burial cloth is a fraud based on their assessment of information and the fact that 1 piece of evidence, a letter from a bishop in the 13th century said that a cloth like the Shroud of Turin was a fraud. However, in part, because of that letter, the Catholic Church asked the STURP team to determine if the Shroud was a painting. STURP said, after 25 man years of research it was NOT a painting. They couldn't explain how the image was made, given all attempts at recreation failed to match the Shroud's unique characteristics. Therefore the STURP's 25 man years of research did not determine that the Shroud was a fake.

The controversy helps some people make a living through books and presentations. As History2007 indicates, the artifact has created a lot of controversy. Detailed arguements go back and forth with disputes challenging key aspects of the evidence. Post STURP skeptics have NO face time research as the Catholic Church has NOT allowed further access. The whole gang debates: Christians, athiests. agnostics, and possibly Muslims. Skeptics and scientists as well. Creates interesting biases as to theoretical approaches.

I recommend you read "The Resurrection of the Shroud, New Scientific, Medical and Archeological Evidence by Mark Antonacci if you want a "robust" encyclopedia of info including detailed STURP evidence, illustrations, methods and findings. Brown is another author. Skeptics would recommend skeptical sources. History2007, who has not read Mark Antonacci's book, does not think Antonacci is qualified enough. Rogers, a STURP scientist gave it a positive review with the exception of Antonacci's analysis on some technical theories about the Shroud's creation. I agree with the STURP scientist.JimfromGTA (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The "most controversial artifact" statement was not my personal opinion, it was Meacham's statement in his peer-reviewed survey article, referenced in the page. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds very interesting. Thank you for the concise and comprehensive summary. Do any other editors have anything that they would like to add? Did JimfromGTA miss anything, anything of negative or positive evidence with respect to scientists' determinations as whether the shroud is a fake? Or did he pretty much hit the nail on the head? (I am not looking for theoretical responses or WP:OR; I am looking for responses elucidating evidence/facts that have been peer-reviewed or otherwise determined scientifically sound, as JimfromGTA has demonstrated. Unless, of course, you want to elucidate another popular skeptic perspective such as the pollen-fraud theory.)
I am just trying to get a concise and comprehensive overall perspective as to what extent the shroud portrays itself as a fake, as well as to what extent it portrays itself as authentic.
Furthermore, has anything "inexplicable" been observed about the shroud? (For instance, something that should have deteriorated by now but hasn't, or anything that is otherwise atypical/unusual about it.)
COice6 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And does anyone understand Alan A. Mills's auto-oxidation thing? Is it a valid option or not, what are its pros and cons... can anyone elaborate on it?
COice6 (talk) 01:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In my experience the editor who has read most of the peer-reviewed publications on the topic is Thucyd, and he seems to have included all the key elements. In any case, there is so much pro/con here that adding one more element will not change any minds, I think. History2007 (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Unaware that autooxidation went anywhere. This was a "force fit" attempt to rationalize C14 findings at the time and place a context around them. Historical evidence of DeMolay's death does not match the image evidence in the shroud. (ie. DeMolay was NOT crucified like Jesus). Further, why wouldn't this effect be widely seen in other burial shrouds, like egyption mummy cloth, if autooxidation is a "natural process"?

To date, there is no demonstrated evidence that the Shroud is a fake that I am aware of. Theories fail when put into context. The reason, is that there are roughly 100 characteristics that must be met. Even if a method of reproduction can be demonstrated, one still has to explain how evidence both on the shroud and peripherial to the shroud, such as images of flower, the pollen, the limestone from the Jerusalem area, the 1st Century cloth, etc. got there. So recreation is only demonstration of replication of a process. Context must be proven as well. Why? Copies of most items on this earth can be made to look real. How do we know that we just created a copy of something that is real? Interesting adventure.

Most people are unaware of why the recreations by STURP failed to pass the detailed level criteria of the SHROUD matching. This is why there are major disagreements because skeptics fail to put their theories into context or ignore major pieces of information. It would be interesting to add a paragraph to the Wikipedia article as to why recreations of the image have failed in the past.

Secondly, the Wikipedia article remains materially incorrect because it does not incorporate Edessa evidence. This misleads everyone to thinking that the Shroud of Turin did not exist before 1300's. Given that the Shroud is NOT a painting, and the Bishop of Constantinople circa 1000AD is quoted as stating in a sermon that the Shroud (of Eddessa) is NOT a painting, has blood on it and is a full length image, one has to wonder why Edessa is NOT included in the Wikipedia article. Further there is a painting that existed in Edessa's timeframe that matches the image of the Shroud of Turin. Again, a significant omission.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you add a "Shroud of Edessa" section if you have reliable sources that demonstrate what you've said. The more information, the better. To my experience, many replications have been attempted, but as you have said they all failed in one way or another when compared to key characteristics of the actual shroud. History Channel's The Face of Jesus- The Shroud of Turin describes some of these unique characteristics in some detail, as well as some of the problems with the hoax theories. It also addresses some of the evidence that suggests that the shroud existed before the 1300's. It's an interesting video that I suggest for you to watch.
COice6 (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

History channel is not a scholarly source, so alternative sources will be needed. There was material on Edessa that was moved to History of the Shroud of Turin because the page was getting too large and overflowing. There is, of course, an article on Image of Edessa. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't attempt to add any history channel material to the article page. I was giving Jim that link for personal reference. Thanks for generally clarifying though.
COice6 (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am looking at the Edessa link. It will come in parts. The shroud is older than 1353, when its continuous possession is documented in medeval history (Rogers). The image of Edessa was a full body image, but was displayed with the "face only". There are folds on the cloth of the shroud that demonstrate that the cloth was folded with "face" outward (John Jackson). And finally images prior to 1353 establish that a Shroud, with unique characteristics of the Turin shroud was painted. I am trying to find a "full length" shroud picture within a battle / town scene. I recall this painting, but can't locate it. I'll update this week.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there may be a painting, but the Edessa image remains one of the weakest pro-authenticity arguments (despite the folding hypothesis) in the literature overall, it seems. History2007 (talk) 20:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your comment. This is about an encyclopedia that relays material information about the history and facts of an artifact. The folding is important because it is direct evidence that the Image of Edessa is the same as the Shroud of Turin. Giving the impression that the Shroud of Turin has no history before the 1300's that Wikipedia does, perpetuates the "fake theory" which, as you know has never been demonstrated.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that Ian Wilson has also proposed that as stated in that article etc., but there are just too many holes in the Edessa approach, e.g. it may have been the Holy Face of San Silvestro or that of Genoa, or.... and that there was a visible face there, while the face on this Shroud is in reverse and not really visible, etc. etc..... Anyway, the Wilson argument is there, and I think it makes his case - but far from conclusively, as with all other cases pro/con. There are so many "diverse legends" associated with the Mandylion that I think the pro-authenticity camp would do better than use that as a reason. History2007 (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

EDESSA UPDATE The Shroud of Turin has been in continuous possession from 1353 to date by the de Charny family of France, then the Savoy family, and then finally by the Pope, after it was willed by the Savoy’s to the Pope. It has resided for centuries at Turin. Prior to 1353, it history has been linked to the Image of Edessa by various historians / authors who have studied the Shroud. They link it on the basis of physical markings on the Shroud, its historical description included in the Narratio de Imageine of Edessena, the Vatican’s Cod. Vat. Graec. 511, pp.143-50b and other documents, the Image of Edessa paintings for likeness (reference: Wilson, Antonocci for studies of likeness), and the observation by Dr. Frei that the Shroud had indiginous pollen that was from the Edessa area and Constantinople areas. It is interesting to note that the Image of Edessa prior to the revealing of the Shroud of Turin in 1353 by de Charny, had disappeared. The most prevalent theory of passing of the Image of Edessa from Constantinople was that the French Crusaders took it during the sack of Constantinople in 1204, transferred it to their headquarters in Greece, then the Shroud found its way to France and de Charny possession. This is based on various documents originating during this timeframe. (reference: various authors such as Wilson, Antonacci, etc.).

According to John Jackson, Phd, there are folds in the Shroud cloth that when “folded” cause the cloth to be displayed face outwards. Tack marks indicating that the Shroud was tacked to a wooden frame in the folded position are also present. A painting, “Man of Pity, ca. 1300” from Constantinople presents the view that the Shroud is folded in. . (details: http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/History/Greek-Byzantine/foldingpattern.html. Original reference: “New Evidence that the Shroud of Turin Pre-Dates the Radiocarbon Date by Centuries” Third international Congress on the Shroud of Turin, Turin, Italy, June 5-7, 1998), Because the folds are worn into the fabric, this demonstrates the Shroud had been in a face out position for years. The problem of the Image of Edessa is that it is said by tradition to be a face cloth. Various paintings of the Image of Edessa paintings from the Byzantine era show Jesus’ face presentation. However, details from various documents indicate that the Image of Edessa was actually a shroud. In his 944AD sermon, marking the transfer of the Image of Edessa to Constantinople from Edessa, Archdeacon Gregory Referendarius of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople, stated that the Image of Edessa was NOT a painting, bore blood and water, and bore the side wound of Christ (reference: Cod. Vat. Graec. 511, pp.143-50b). The Emperor Constantine VII at the time personally venerated the Image of Edessa in 944. The Emperor described the image as “extremely faint, more like a moist secretion without pigment or the painter’s art” (reference: Narratio de Imagine Edessena). Together, along with additional documents inferring that the Image of Edessa had an image of a body and not just a face, it can be concluded that the Image of Edessa is similar in characteristics to, if not the same as, the Shroud of Turin.

Dr. Frei, a Swiss Criminologist, who sampled the pollen of the Shroud along side STURP scientists, found pollen that was indigenous to both the Contantinople and Edessa regions. (Reference: W. Bulst, “The Pollen Grains on the Shroud of Turin”. Shroud Spectrum International 10 (March 1984) pg 20 to 28. Dr. Frei pollen evidence was disputed by McCrone, whose work associated with the Shroud in turn has been disputed by many STURP scientists. An example of McCrone’s dispute with STURP is that he found no blood on the Shroud. 14 tests by STURP scientists demonstrated blood.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what you said was "it can be concluded that the Image of Edessa is similar in characteristics to, if not the same as, the Shroud of Turin." This means that there is a hole in the argument of the shroud being the same as the Edessa image. How big a hole is in the mind of the observer. You may think the hole is micorscopic, I think one can drive a truck through it. And I think there are 1,000 people on each side of that argument. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the historical information before the 1800's have exactitude that you speak of. The linkage is logic and demonstrated. I'll bet you Wikipedia reports the existance of things in ancient people and events even though there much less proof than is being offerred here. To deny the linkage of the Shroud to the Image of Edessa is to deny the reporting of material proven information. You have matching physical description and evidence that the Shroud of Turin had been at the location of the Image of Edessa. I thought the information was fair and balanced. If you have difficulty with some of the words, then by all means modify, as long as the truth about the facts remains. JimfromGTA (talk) 05:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What I think (or you think) does not matter in Wikipedia. It is a question of what the scholarly consensus is. And there is no 100% agreement that the Shroud is the same as the Mandylion. There are experts arguing with each other about that for ever. The Edessa article presents Wilson's theory, but can not say that everyone supports it - because they do not. It is as simple as that. History2007 (talk) 05:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

What parts do you disagree with? The physical evidence or the historical documents. A car is a car. Others call it an automobile. Still others called it a motor vehicle. If descriptions match, no one disputes that. However, with the Shroud, you give it a new name, and bingo, its not concensus. Why not just report the facts or present the alternative theories that have supportable evidence. In this case, there is supportable evidence. To state what Wikipedia states is misleading as historical documents, age of the cloth, the manufacture of the cloth and images demonstrate the existance of the Shroud before 1353.JimfromGTA (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, what I think matter not. What you think matters not.

Now, do you have a peer-reviewed scholarly reference that states: "90% of the expert are convinced that the Mandylion is the same as the shroud"? That is the way Wikipedia works. If you have that, great. If Meacham's review article had concluded that, it would have set the standard. But in a peer-reviewed article that statement will be shot down faster than a duck attending a NRA meeting. That is the "fact". History2007 (talk) 06:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This part is more about history than science. I understand a peer reviewed article for science research, but historical documents? I thought this would be more along the lines of recognized expertise in the area. Wilson and Antonacci qualify for this from a historical basis given their detailed demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

Anyway, could you give me an example of a historical "peer reviewed" reference for the Image of Edessa that Wikipedia has used in the past. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

There you go The history of the image of Edessa: the telling of a story. I do not know if Wikipedia has used that or not, but that is an example of a peer-reviewed item from Harvard - a long way from Joe Nickle and Ian Wilson. And by the way, it argues that the Edessa image was never a cloth! So every one and his brother has a theory and some of them get published in Harvard journals. This is not a slam dunk "Wilson said so" situation. History2007 (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is what she says in the The Medieval Review:

"... it needs to be recognised that the evidence for the Image of Edessa, an object known to us only from texts and artistic representations, represents very murky territory."

And Averil Cameron is a highly respected Oxford scholar. While Nickle, Wilson and Antonocci "established their expertise" at Barnes and Noble, she established it at Oxford. A long way away from them. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See your dilema. An Archdeacon and an Emperor circa 944 record their impressions of a cloth that they identify as the Image of Edessa per historical documents. The Harvard Review tells us it wasn't what an Archdeacon and Emporer saw because " recognized experts" see something else. And that was "peer reviewed"? Amazing. Documented historical witnesses need not apply.

This is what you are telling me: Wikipedia would publish the Harvard Review, but NOT the words of historical documents. To me, an Encyclopedia has been about important knowledge that has supportable / documented information. Go figure. JimfromGTA (talk) 03:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:Secondary that says that - not my opinion. I do not make up the rules. Those are Wiki-policies. History2007 (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

When the Shroud of Turin first appeared in public shortly after its creation in the 1300's, the local clergy immediately denounced it as a fake. However 700 years later, a handful of modern scientists (and other believers of all professions) claim it’s authentic, despite the written testimony of people who heard the forger's confession. When a clergyman speaks vaguely of something you want to accept, then that ancient anecdote is more reliable than all modern scholarship to the contrary. However when another clergyman writes a letter that you don’t want to accept, then its over-ruled (in your mind) by “characteristics” claimed by modern scholars. Go figure. Wdford (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we not learn based on evidence and research? Should we not upgrade our knowledge based on demonstratable information that makes sense? Documents in history have always been used by historians. Scientific tools and criteria have always been used by scientific researchers. Beats arguing incessantly without any benchmarks.JimfromGTA (talk) 19:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry Jim that is called WP:OR. If the door opens to "Should we not learn based on evidence and research?" everyone and his brother will use Wikipedia as a soapbox for new ideas. And I was surprised that even users with Nobel prizes (no kidding ...) have been involved in long debates on various topics. But unless it is published in a WP:RS source it can not be used in Wikipedia. Those are the rules. They are clear: no WP:OR. An example yesterday was that Vinnie was back again this time with a UFO scientist. I wonder if he has ever had a ride in a UFO..... History2007 (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is the basic idea of using WP:Secondary rather than WP:Primary sources, regardless of the Shroud. It also applies to the history of Magna Carta, etc. Wiki-editors may interpret WP:Primary sources in multiple ways, but should not and instead WP:Secondary scholarly sources should be used, e.g. Averil Cameron, etc. And maybe, just maybe we are getting to the end of this discussion... History2007 (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)