Talk:Shroud of Turin/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Corona Discharge and Giulio Fanti

I've recently read the paper by Giulio Fanti, describing a hypothesis and some experiments with Corona Discharge: www.dim.unipd.it/fanti/corona.pdf My feelings are mixed at best. One one hand, Fanti seems to reject the extreme hypotheses based on pion/muon/jitteron/technobabblon theory. He calmly and openly states there is no possibility a form of energy like that was radiated on The Shroud and not damaged the fibers grossly (deep scorching, etc).

On the other hand, Corona Discharge theory seems more reliable and doesn't neccessarily employ the Supernatural. For example, the static electricity could have been caused by ferro-quartzite piezoelectric effect during an earthquake or by a ligthning (normal lightning bolt or the hypothetical yet scientifically probable ball lightning) eg. during heacy thunderstorm. On the other hand, however, Fanti seems to lean to the supernatural explanations of the source, or at least it's how I understood his efforts.

On one hand he explains an earthquake-induced theory (though extended by mentioning a possibility of spontaneous generation of static electricity), on the other, however, he tells about the internal source of radiation, which, as I read it, implies the "miraculous" or otherwise unknown phenomena. While he mentions the ligthning-based hypotheses, he doesn't elaborate them, and they were created by other scientists.

Some facts in his testing seem to indicate the second hypotheses being more reliable, though Fanti doesn't openly claim it was a miracle and still leaves room for natural sources of energy. Anyway, the work on Corona Discharge-based image formation itself, setting the miracles and even The Shroud aside, seems to be purely scientific and I guess that's why it was allowed to be included in a peer-reviewed journal. Anyway, the most crucial thing here seems to be finding of any scientific critique of Fanti's work, confirming or disproving his claims.

Some criticism of the pro-authenticity attitude is here: http://devapriyaji.activeboard.com/index.spark?aBID=134804&p=3&topicID=35048627 However, it's not a peer-reviewed journal, just a forum with some articles posted.

Greetings, Critto (talk) 01:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes per WP:BRD

Given that the changes made by Thucyd since Rick Norwood's last version were major, and were made without consensus I have restored to Rick Norwood's version per WP:BRD. History2007 (talk) 23:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And where is your consensus ??? 200 persons follow this page... Congratulations. Thucyd (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that you were given ample opportunity to document your edits using standard reference format. The number of people following the page is not the issue, the use of standard documentation is the issue. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rick Norwood. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but, bad faith... It is obviously a standard reference format. Just have a look at many featured articles. Now we have again inconsistent references, bad and dead links, a too long scientific section, an incorrect intro... What a pleasure !

History2007, it is not only for wikipedia, it is also for me : can you give us the exact sentences concerning energy source. You wrote : "This theory and the experiment have not addressed a method by which the high level of energy could have been controlled and directed, without damaging the Shroud" (what is the exact page number, in a peer-reviewed article). I can give you a ref. "Fanti proposed an alternate image formation mechanism based on Corona Discharge that may be able to theoretically explain all the characteristics detected on the TS image, but is not able to reproduce all of them in a laboratory because the intensity of the required energy source is too high. Also Baldacchini proposed a coloring mechanism based on excimer laser irradiation that is able to reproduce many characteristics of the TS image". Fanti, Botella, 2010, p. 040201-6.

Sweet... So there was a laser inside The Sepulchre, not Angels, God, etc? Do those who think so think it means that Jesus was an ET/victim of the ET experiment with human life?? Or are the Angels of God using lasers and guns as in the Legion movie?? Do you consider this still science? I don't. This doesn't mean that laser could not produce similiar effects, though, this only means the "Energy Source" claims are strange and unscientific. Critto (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Same thing for "These theories do not include the scientific discussion of a method by which the energy could have been produced". Page number ???? And it is not peer-reviewed... Thucyd (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:BRD does not work that way. As for the energy hypotheses you have 4 users who feel that section is too oriented towards a Beam me up Scotty view point. And it is not possible to say which page of the Bible states that the name Elton John does not appear in the Bible. But that fact can be stated in Wikipedia. The same for the fact that the papers mentioned do not address detailed calculations about where the energy came from. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One difference between real science and fringe science is the difference between exact specifications and vague suggestions. Energy? All right. What frequency? What intensity? Where is the evidence? Real scientists do the math. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And scientists write peer-reviewed papers : here, experimental results with excimer laser, with frequency, intensity and reproducibility. G. Baldacchini, P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, G. Fanti: “Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud” Applied Optics 47, 1278-1285 (2008)., Di Lazzaro P., "Deep Ultraviolet Radiation Simulates the Turin Shroud Image", Journal of Imaging science and Technology, Volume 54, Issue 4, pp. 040302-(6) 2010, Fazio G., "The interaction between radiation and the Linen of Turin", Radiation Effects and Defects in Solids: Incorporating Plasma Science and Plasma Technology, vol. 165, no. 5, pp. 337-342. Enough ? Want more ? Thucyd (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Great, one may test the image formation with the use of lasers, masers, all kinds of UV, X-Ray and proton radiation devices, but then... so what? If confirmed, this would only prove that it's possible to make something that looks similiar or identically. This is nothing new, there are many ways eg. to cook soup, saw the trousers, plough the fields, solve the mathematical equations, etc. As a programmer I can write a program in Notepad++, Eclipse, Net Beans, or any other editor and the effect is the same. This doesn't, however, prove that the compared thing, a computer application or The Shroud, was made using the same technique. Also, in the case of The Shroud, even its creation by radiation of some kind doesn't imply it was a miracle or someone has resurrected. This can still be an effect of a rare natural phenomena, eg. - to speculate a bit - a lightning might have stroken nearby the grave, which could in some circumstances lead the static electrictity inside the grave to rise, which in combination with the fog of corpse vapours could have lead to creation of this image. Of course this is just a speculation, not a scientific theory, however a scientist can test such hypothesis, too. Claiming this to prove resurrection is a fringe, followed both by some Christian fundamentalists and by some followers of the Book of Urantia, who claim that Jesus was an Alien or the object of some Alien experiments with life. If one resort to supernatural hypotheses, he/she may resort to the UFO/ETI hypothesis as well. Anyway, even such claims can have their place in the article if properly criticised and marked as non-scientific, but rather religiously motivated. Critto (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess that signals that there are 5 editors questioning the WP:FRINGE issues in that section. And again, the other issue to remember is that here hypotheses are constructed without access to the item. In physics/chemistry/etc. one repeats experiments on materials from iron to gold and records the properties. And scientific experiments take place across continents and must all agree about the properties of metals. Here the subject of the theories is locked in a cabinet. I think that is clear now. History2007 (talk) 15:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah fun... Do not study this exoplanet, it is locked in a cabinet, outside our Solar System ! Thucyd (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, Beam me up Scotty and we will go study it on exoplanets. I will start packing now. History2007 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

How sweet... :D Anyway exoplanets may be fascinating, but black holes are even more exciting for me. Maybe I would even risk going through the Kerr's black hole event horizon to check the time travel hypothesis :) Or well, maybe sending a robot first would be better; if it returned safely, I would risk going there myself:) Besides, isn't it funny that more may be told about exoplanets using the newest technologies in Astronomy, than about a piece of linen that is kept locked by the Vatican functionaries who don't want any scientific investigation. Critto (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, and just to be "hip" and trendy, let us do lunch on HIP 130144b as we discuss it. It was discovered today, Nov 18, 2010 as the first exoplanet formed outside and brought in. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Haha, all right :) And seriously, I've added the criticism of the Energy Source hypothesis by Raymond N. Rogers, found in his academic paper "Scientific method applied to the Shroud of Turin" from 2002 (Article). It's totally unacceptable that this piece of criticism was not included, despite the fact it's written 8 years ago by one of the most important researchers on The Shroud. Besides, what's the best way to quote the text from Rogers' paper here? Simple quotes, "quotation" tag or "cquote" tag? I'am a bit lost with the multitude of wiki options here. Cheers, Critto (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Philip Ball, "Nature Materials" 2008

This sounds like a good source. Unfortunately, to read it cost $18. Has anyone read it? Rick Norwood (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I read it. And you too can read it for free. Google and the publications of the Non Linear Physics Laboratory of Santiago de Chile (!) are your friends... You can also read this editorial for free : Ph. Ball, "To Know a Veil", Nature, 2005. Enjoy. Thucyd (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried Google and I tried the Non Linear Physics Lab in Santiago and still did not find the original article. Help? (I did read and enjoy "To Know a Veil".) Rick Norwood (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Thucyd for the following helpful links. Here it is (p. 2). And if you want to read for free a peer-reviewed and featured article, published in 2010 in Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, it's here. Enjoy ! Thucyd (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Camainc, 26 February 2011

I would like to add a link to the page: http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Evangelical_Theological_Soc/habermas_shroud_turin_significance_1981.htm

We can see what others say, but to me that "personal website" is not WP:RS, sorry. History2007 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request 6 March 2011

Neutrality ONCE AGAIN:

In the paragraph "Dust-transfer technique" , The conclusion presented is NOT from those who led the experiment ,Emily Craig and Randall Bresee, but from Fanti and Moroni (always them) Fanti and Moroni do not represent the entire scientific community, especially in a study such as this one, where conclusion very dissimilar are brought forth by various research teams. Thus to prevent ambiguity, the sentence: "However, it does not reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level." MUST be changed to "However, according to Fanti & Moroni's conclusions, dust-transfer didn't reproduce many special features of the Shroud at microscopic level."

Same remark for paragraph "Bas relief" : The so called conclusion is nothing else but once again the pro-authenticity conclusions of Fanti & Moroni, conclusions whch are presented in the wiki article as "conclusions" while they are only the opinion of Fanti and Moroni and it should be precised it is from them. I propose to replace the beginning of the conclusion by this: "On the other hand, G.Fanti and Moroni once again concluded otherwise , after comparing the histograms of 256 different grey levels [...]"

Also, I would add that Fanti and Moroni's "conclusions" are personal and subject to interpretation since they are subjective : In one word, Fanti is countering Costanzo and Nikell with ANOTHER factor: color saturation, a problem that has not been adressed in Costanzo's research. It's like answering to a question with another question toavoid answering and giving an opinion based on similar conclusions. Let's not forget that Fanti admitted that the intervals of grey level were the SAME between the bas relief experiment and the original shroud.

Is it NORMAL that all paragraphs are ended with a "conclusion" by Fanti and Moroni? The last word is given to these two researchers as if they represented the whole scietific community, the ultimate judges concerning this particular matter. Truth is, they are one team amongst others and their NAMES shold be cited when conclusions DIVERGE. Example: "team Y proposes Conclusion-A ,but team Z claims the opposite of Conclusion-A and proposes Conclusion-B".

And not what we see on this wikipedia article which consists mainly in : "Team Y says Conclusion-A, but it is not true."

"It is not true" is not acceptable, even if there is a ref, the NAMES of those who conclude are vital. If many names, let's say a very long list of research teams and their scientists, are opposing the initial claim, then they must be regrouped. If the initial claim is what I call an "orphan claim" (a claim made by only one team and only one team), opposed by a majority of other research teams, then and ONLY then can one wikipedia contributor say that the conclusion opposing the initial claim comes from the " quasi totality of the scientific community" .

Fanti and Moroni are far from being the quasi totality of the scientific community and have shown to stick closely to the churche's vieww on the shroud.

Energy Discharge: A curiosity but worth noting : the paper released by Fanti, Baldacchini, DiLazzaro, Murra Nichelatti and Santoni concerning the reaction between UV radiation and linen fibers (title: A Physical Hypothesis on the Origin of the Body Image Embedded into the Turin Shroud , link: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p01.pdf ) , Fanti and his team converge pope John Paul II's personal opinion , citing him literally : "The Turin Shroud is a challenge to our intelligence" , which is a theological argument, despite the comment that follows. Citing a pope is unprecedented in an official (thus "serious") scientific paper and this MUST be noted somewhere in the article.

ps: The pope's quote is a tongue-in-cheek way to say that man will never find out how the shroud has been produced, that we can only measure the results and never find the cause, because it is supposed to be the result of the "resurrection" , this being the reason why Fanti and his team are insisting SOLELY on pulsed laser radiation, corona discharge and any other ultra high energy source yielding similar results still to be discovered according to Fanti (Fanti claims in the link I provided that: "Finally, let us point out that the total UV radiation power required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body, of the order of 16 × 106 W/cm2 × 17.000 cm2 = 2.7 × 1011 W, is impressive, and cannot be delivered by any UV laser built to date." )

Fanti is thus a proponent of the supranatural source of high energy levels. This must be clearly explained in the article, but since he didn't write the word "supranatural" nor "divine", it must be explained properly that Fanti induces people to think, through his concluions, that the sources of such great energy are not discovered yet or may never be discovered.

It should also be noted that Fanti dismisses all other theories different than high energy radiation sources because none of them can reproduce the sum of particularities of the shroud. (Literally:"Reference [1] listed, among others, forty-two chemical and physical features of the Shroud body image, and up to date all attempts to reproduce an image on linens having all these characteristics have been unsuccessful." )

How could isolated experiments which tend to prove only certain particular points be compared to the totality of the characteristics of the shroud? Each initial condition is precise and is calibrated to study several aspects ONLY.

Perhaps Fanti and his team should have a DEDICATED subchapter and not be presented as ultimate "conclusions", sort of laying a biased "last word" , in each theory paragraph. Either a dedicated subchapter, either citing his team in each theory subchapter. !!!!!!!!!!I don't see what else could be proposed to respect neutrality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Corona Discharge: Another point, in "Corona Discharge" paragraph, Fanti and co avoid completely in their paper to explain WHY the back image isn't the same size as the front image, they only compare how FAINT the back is to the front, and this must be inserted in the wiki paragraph: "they also describe an image on the reverse side of the fabric, much fainter than that on the front view of the body, consisting primarily of the face and perhaps hands, but Fanti and his team omitted completely to attempt to explain why the back image is longer than the front image " with link to paragraph: see "Image Analysis" (cf " The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long.[111] " )

Apart from these points, the article is much clearer and neutral than when I complained at first, but still Fanti's "ghost" is present in each and every paragraph and this is not neutral and confuses more than anything else. Info on Fanti must be collected in one place AND he and his team cited each time one feels to conlude with his views.

Actually I had complained about the "over-Fantizising" in this article before, and some of that was removed. Now, you should read the article on Myocardial infarction first my friend, you are overheating here. Calm down.

I clarified the Dust transfer and Bass relief paragraphs as you suggested. But the larger problem I see is that you are making overall assertions with no solid references. I agree with some of your comments, but not all. I think the energy source issue that the Fanti team has published on is in the Beam me up Scotty class, as I said before. But the dust transfer, Bass relief, etc. are also pretty speculative on their own. They are shaky regardless of Fanti's publications. So whichever way one looks there will be debate.

There is probably a need to further reduce Fanti references, but the fellow has published a lot, and I do not see a clear Wiki-policy that stops his work from being quoted. He is a well known professor, and on many issues I do not agree with him, yet the references are WP:RS.

I think you should make some more "brief", "calm" and "solid" suggestions before one can act on them. I would support less emphasis on the energy source items, but again they do need to be mentioned although I do not believe them even for a second. But what you and I believe matters not in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the request may be too long but some details are crucial for the neutrality of the article. Citing the pope in a scientific paper is aberrant for example.

I never said to "erase" Fanti's refs and quotes, one can post as many as he desires as long as the article remains non biased, clear and structured,nothing more natural !

I proposed to REGROUP them or to systematically cite his name and not put down "it has been observed that" or any attempt to generalize to the whole scientific community Fanti's team personal conclusions.

It doesn't mean because I disagree with his conclusions that I refuse that people be aware of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be an error to regroup Fanti's refs and quotes simply because he is the most prominent living sindonologist, he published in several peer-reviewed journals, he is the president of the ShroudScience Group, and was for example chosen to be the guest editor of a forthcoming special issue on the "physical chemistry of the Turin Shroud" (link).

In my opinion History2007 and the IP don't understand that the Corona discharge hypothesis is based on a large electric field produced by an earthquake. Thucyd (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I hope my ignorance of the earthquake can be forgiven, but I see it as science fiction. As do many others. Now, Fanti is very well known, but I do not know that he received the world prize in sindonology, and that type of ranking does not count in Wikipedia. However, it will be totally against Wikipolicy to exile his references (or those of Joe Nickle's or anyone else's) into a specific corner. By the way I do not see the pope quoted in the scientific section here. Did you mean he is quoted in a Fanti paper? If so, that does not again disqualify Fanti as a reference by any Wikipolicy. But quoting the pope in the scientific section here should not be done. In the end, I should remind everyone of the obvious: this is a controversial topic. Do not expect a clear-cut agreement among all parties. History2007 (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

History2007, I proposed to regroup Fanti's work in a paragraph in the same article, not to create a new page . But I also proposed to simply cite his name clearly each time one of his theories is opposed to another team's conclusions.

Concerning the pope being cited, I wasn't saying in the present wikipedia article, but in the LINK I provided, but perhaps you skipped it since my request paragraph was a bit lengthy. :::::Here it is: http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p01.pdf

Go back to the paragraph in question in the discussion page where I first posted the link of this same paper written by Fanti and friends. It clearly shows how biased are his conclusions.

I never said it was a reason to delete it! On the contrary, it should be shown to the readers the affiliations and ideas that motivate some people. For example writing "It is worth noting that in a scientific paper written in (date), Fanti and his team concluded that (pope's quote)" + link.

History2007, to be honest this joke will never end, because pro-authenticity proponents will always come up with something funky: now they're speaking of flower imprints on the shroud, next they'll mention dark matter and localised quantum bursts of energy, perhaps teleportation, then it will be parallel dimensions, or more traditional nonsense such as the windstorm mentioned in the bible may have blown so hard it made the linen brush against itself and the body so hard it produced charges so great they left an impression , etc. One day they'll say the face "cried" tears of heavenly perfume, or that the impression on the shroud darkens when a terrible event is about to happen.

I have to stop because I risk giving them new ideas!! There's always some risible pseudo-scientific theory that will be added to the list and the sad part is that people like Fanti are scientists working not-so-secrectly for the church, perhaps paid by the Vatican or simply for personal reasons, who knows. That was my personal opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.163.245 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Seperate issues:

There is no Wikipolicy that says Fanti quotes can not be placed throughout the article. If you see such a policy, please provide a link. The same freedom applies to Joe Nickle quotes, etc. References some person objects to can not be told to go and stand in one corner of the classroom. They are either WP:RS, or not. These are.

If you think Fanti has been biased in some article, there is still no Wikipolicy that says his references can not be used. That would amount to a list of "blacklisted authors". Wikipedia has no such lists. As for the possibility that scientist X got paid by organization Y, that is still not against Wikipolicy. There are many economists who publish on various topics and they get paid by various organizations - say Goldman Sachs, etc. That is not grounds for exclusion in Wikipedia if they are professors and have WP:RS refs.

I still see no concrete policy-based suggestions here. What you need to do is to find a few WP:RS references that say "Corona discharge is totally incorrect". Then we can add those. I think corona discharge is incorrect, but I do not have 20 references that say that. One can not blacklist Fanti from Wikipedia, but one can add WP:RS references that would say his paper was incorrect. So you need to either find those references, or live with Wikipedia as is.

So we need more solid references, less talk, I think. History2007 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruello claims revisited

Inner West Courier story regarding new data discovery by film scientist Vincenzo Ruello is now on the net google Inner West Courier Shroud Turin Story Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

All that I'm seeing is a YouTube video—possibly by Ruello—with a screen capture of what purports to be the Inner West Courier's print edition. No publication date is visible, and the text is barely legible. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

After reading the article from the video, I've left the information in place. I have copyedited the section, including the description of Ruello's methodology in the article. I welcome opinions from other editors in the situation, and if consensus is to remove the mention, I have no objection. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I would wait until some less obscure sources such as BBC, Guardian, NY Times, LA times, etc. write something. These types of claims come and go and the rush and overhype here does not seem justified - except as a rush to pre-announce. The BBC usually covers "any" notable event on this topic, and so far they have remained silent. I would wait until someone more serious covers this. As is I do not see it as WP:RS given that no counter-views have appeared. This really is the "most controversial" artifact ever and everyone has some opinion. So one needs to be pretty selective here about only using higher quality sources, and several sources. I do not see Ruello as having merit for inclusion, and if it does have merit I am sure NY Times, BBC, Guardian etc. will cover it in 10 days. So we should exclude and wait in my opinion. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou C Fred for copyedit. The story is real the reporter was an Alex Ward from Inner West Courier released 1st March 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruello may have performed the experiment. I think he probably played with various cameras. Lots of people experiment in their garages and get mentioned in some obscure newspaper. The question is whether it is notable enough, been the subject of scrutiny from scholars, universities, etc. The answer is "no". Wikipedia should not be the launch-pad for new experiments, so we need to wait until some major newspaper writes, and before that they will talk to some professors who will comment. Then we decide. History2007 (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with History2007. Thucyd (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of interest Thucyd, given that you seem to know the community better, do people take Ruello seriously at all? Or what is teh general reaction, if any? Seems a really strange approach to me, but let us see what other people may say in serious newspapers. History2007 (talk) 14:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you have a look at these articles (Dan Porter's blog), it will give you a good idea of the only reaction... Thucyd (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Am closely associated with Vincenzo Ruello, he asks me to talk to you all regarding firstly to thank you for the opportunity maybe be a part of this historical page and also if you feel it important for the exact process to be revealed here or for you to wait for a scientific report to come which may take several weeks. He is concerned that at this stage the exact process has not been revealed and is vitally important and lastly if the process was revealed here many would emulate copy the process, would the members here protect his historical pioneering discovery in how the skin was revealed on the Shroud body. Also please note the face photograph which is quite interesting is causing some problems in the Catholic Church of Australia, they have gone very quiet. Sincerely colleague of Vincenzo Ruello — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm now agreeing very strongly with History2007's position: we wait until we have coverage in higher-quality sources (ABC, BBC, etc.). I think we should also wait until we have a completely independent "chain of evidence" to the coverage: not only do we have an editor with a conflict of interest who initially added the claim to the article, but the external link providing verifiability is at a non-independent website. While I do not suggest that the photo of the newspaper isn't authentic, I point out that it is not that difficult to fake a newspaper story, so I would place a lot more faith in the story if it could be viewed on the newspaper's site directly, instead of having to look at a YouTube video produced by (a colleague of) Ruello. —C.Fred (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The artifact is either 1,000 or 2,000 years old, depending on who you listen to, so discussing it after two more months will not make a difference. And waiting to see what major newspapers about say this "breaking news" will probably not cause a meltdown in the financial markets. However, if the majors papers discount it Wikipedia just looks less respectable. But given that this is a controversial topic, if we open the door to these "breaking news" items before the major papers cover them we get a collage of garage experiments in a year. So I will comment the item out based on the above and if in 2 months it appears in major papers, we can put it back. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

This is very bad news for the world, firstly Cumberland Newspapers who own the Inner West Courier which has a circulation of 1.2 million readers a week is not an obscure paper and they have verified the story released on the 1st March 2011. A conspiracy is unfolding against the images of Vincenzo Ruello as all major media world wide have refused to publish his images. What has caused this to breakdown after the Inner West story is the images of the three toes ripped off the left foot and also the face. Barrie Schwortz the Shroud photographer told Vincenzo Ruello that they had been working on it for 50 years and now he comes along with a new filming system. I was with Vincenzo when he decoded the images and skin started to appear on the face and body. So other than the 1.2 million readers who saw the story and a few hits each day on youtube it has ended with the major media and Catholic Church and Shroud researches with their countless conferences world wide on the mystery winning out. Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God maybe this refers to the few youtube viewers who will see the true face of Christ. The media and the catholic Church have killed off Vincenzo Ruello and you here have also fallen into their plans to stop the face of Christ being seen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There we go. But, I did not know we were all part of the conspiracy - thanks for the info. But now, I got the idea to market some type of book on the connection between the shroud and hidden image of the Grassy knoll within the shroud. There is money to be made there.... History2007 (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way, jokes aside you should get Vincenzo to read Information theory. The level of enhancement he claims violates a few of Claude Shannon's theorems. Unless Shannon was in on the conspiracy too. I had not looked at Shannon's Wiki-page before, but I was impressed, it is pretty well written, and the info theory page is reasonably well written too. So those should help. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing funny about Shroud discoveries to laugh at only fools laugh at Shroud discoveries. Ruello has declared his discovery to be an event horizon in scientific terms it means the dawning of the new age where truth will draw and alter the minds of mankind. He also told me that his discoveries since being downloaded in early February 2011 regardless of lack of media will have a butterfly effect across the world. Laugh as many in the media are but the face as it appears is authentic. For the first time in history mankind is seeing the true face of the Holy Shroud. Vincenzo is currently writing the book. I consider him the greatest scientific mind since Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, given that other people may come around to read this page in 2 weeks, let me explain the idea and move on. Of course, in Wikipedia what I think about Ruleo matters as much every other editor thinks about him - it matters not. All that matters are refs. But the idea is simple, so let me explain it. What Claude Shannon explained years ago was that the "reconstruction" of partial items has limits. As an example, suppose there is a book and I remove every other letter from the book, so you get 50% of the words. You may still be able to reconstruct it, guessing that whenever there is a "q" the chance of a "u" after it is pretty high, etc. But if I remove 70% and give you 30% of the letters, the reconstruction becomes harder. Now if I remove 99 out of 100 letters the reconstruction is practically impossible and requires "huge guesswork". And Shannon has specific computations that determine the chances, etc. and theorems on them, etc. One can say one has reconstructed it, but it will be highly uncertain. The reconstruction of real-looking 3D images from grainy 2D images (Ruelo has no access to the Shroud, neither does anyone else) just with cameras is 100 fold harder - next to impossible to get it to be accurate if Shannon is right. One can say one has done it, but it is certain to be pure guesswork what the image was. The scientific world still trusts Shannon to this day. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless you watch the Ruello clip on the feet xray images please do not waste your time commenting further. Nasa stated that no encoded images were present of the left foot yet Ruello has downloaded xray images of both feet showing toe nails and bone structure of the left foot missing three toes which he then photographed next to the right foot. Like I said unless you see this clip please do not comment. Also your thoughts on the face of the Shroud he has processed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboveallelse77 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, one thing we agree on: further comments will be a waste of time. In the meantime, you went against consensus and edited it back anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems Ruello doesnt need any media as links to his internet clips are spreading everywhere this should have been included on main article in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.150 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Aboveallelse77 is grossly and unfortunately understating the matter when he recites Ruello's own claims about Ruello's greatness and significance. To use the phrase "event horizon", which very few people could come close to understanding (much less competently explain) is, too, an embarrassing oversimplification. Worst of all is Aboveallelse77's pathetically insufficient worship of Ruello with the sentence "I consider him the greatest scientific mind since Leonardo DaVinci and Albert Einstein." Such a foolish comparison betrays how poorly Aboveallelse77 understands the universe-shattering magnitude of Ruello's findings. Rather, let me correct Aboveallelse77's ridiculous attempt at praise with something more appropriate: Ruello makes DaVinci look like a gibbering idiot, a mental ward with an ever-present stream of cold drool. Ruello makes Einstein look like a raving, malformed vagabond who never once had an intelligent thought. He indeed may be Elijah returned to earth, as promised in the Holy Bible itself!

Ruello is basically the prophet of the new era of Jesus. Anyone who fails to see this will be damned by the forgiving and all-loving Christ into a permanent afterlife of ceaseless shrieking and burning. Anyone who fails to be informed of the news of Ruello's findings is instantly cast by the merciful, Risen Jesus into a sea of fire that will reduce the damned to cinders forever, and ever. In the Christian spirit of tolerance and forgiveness, I will magnanimously say a prayer for the souls of all those absurdly wretched and pitiful heretics who do not see the self-evident divine message being revealed here today. Do not bother writing here until you have opened your minds (and your hearts!!) to the revelation of Christ. Lest He damn you to eternal torment. Amen and hallelujah; hosanna and maranatha! Blue Danube (talk) 07:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Posted 3/25/2010 by Dan Porter - Those of us in the Shroud Science Group who know of him call him Vinny Pop (his id on YouTube). He wrote to me because of my blog and asked me to arrange a meeting with several scientists to review his findings: at the time a single 12-second shaky video purporting to show something in the eyes of the man of the shroud. I could see nothing but the usual visual noise. I asked him to provide more information including a written abstract of his methodology and findings, identification of the specific photograph he was working from (it looked like it might be Giuseppe Enrie’s 1931 photograph on Orthochromatic film with raking light, which, in my opinion, has far too much granular clumping to be useful for identifying small details). I suggested that a CV would be useful and an outline of a tentative peer-reviewed paper. With this information at hand, I would contact members of SSG. As far as a could tell from his emailed reactions, he was not familiar with a CV or the idea of a peer-reviewed paper.

At one point he wrote to me: “You worked on the Shroud and revealed nothing because I am a rock n roll singer who has discovered a new filming technique far advanced than current Shroud scientists you give no credit people have eyes. Ask me build a body of people your colleagues and I will present a scientific written exposure on my techniques. I have destroyed the myth od (sic) the Roman coins they never existed nor made sense my images prove stones accept it MR Expert a lowly musiocian (sic) has solved the eye mystery.”

I agree there are probably no images of coins over the eyes. Most SSG members certainly feel that way. But what eye mystery?

At one point he also wrote: “Dan this is my last message to you. You have treated me with disrespect and judging me before the jury is out . . . How can any respected Shroud researcher scientist argue with my xray images of the 2 large toes side by side proving there is no crossover. Lastly why on God's earth would I reveal my pioneering filming techniques to you or anyone to reproduce my findings and takel my hard work and credit. All true scientists protect their findings until respected scientists start seeing the truth. At this stage I will wait patiently for the Vatican officials or until I find someone I can work with. You know what I take extreme joy in the xray images of the 2 large toenails side by side especially the clearly defined square left foot nail. But as you would say Dan its just video noise. Over and out.”

As best I can understand it, he seems to feel that he has found a way to create an xray image from an ordinary photograph of the shroud. And he thinks he sees something there like detached toes or toenails or something. People (Alan Whanger, in particular) see coins, flowers of all sorts, a sponge, a nail or spike, dice, Hebrew, Greek and Roman lettering, etc. There is absolutely nothing in Vincent’s videos that warrants coverage in Wikipedia.

Dan Porter (Shroudstory.com and shroudofturin.wordpress.com, member SSG) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innoval (talk • contribs) 13:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That explains why BBC/ABC/Guardian etc. has not covered the story. Now, if you can convince him to go and work on the photos of the Mars landing or something, and see people in those, then he may leave this page alone. History2007 (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr Dan Porter though you are a respected researcher but not a scientist I indeed do see many images in Ruello's new discoveries. His 3D code diagram is very interesting. You also must be blind as on looking at the left foot feet clip Ruello appaeras truthful three toes are missing and filmed next to the right foot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.195.102 (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect to the unregistered editor above, we don't care what you personally see. The standard for inclusion is based on reliable sources; in a case such as this, that means significance coverage in mainstream media or major scientific journals. If Ruello (1) subjects his methodology to scrutiny by other scientists and (2) the other scientists publish their results, then we might have something to use to include it. As it is, frankly, it's nothing more than a fringe theory, and subject to the sourcing standards required for those. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

C Fred so why did you guys publish in main article Garaschelis fake Shroud when he didnt let other scientists verify his work all Garascheli had was some might I say minor media. Ruello has at least shown all his work. Garascheli hasnt even shown the positive Shroud just a negative fake Shroud image which anyone can make so you print articles in main without scientific evaluation C Fred —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.159.164 (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Garlaschelli's paper was in the Journal of Imaging Science and Technology. Per their publication policy, "Original manuscripts not previously published and not currently submitted for publication elsewhere may be submitted for peer-review."[1] Peer review lends the journal reliability. The Heimburger/Fanti criticism was presented at an international conference, although it's not clear what ENEA's criteria are for accepting papers.[2] On what basis are you making your claim that Garlaschelli's work was not subject to sufficient scholarly scrutiny? —C.Fred (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Just a side comment: Many of those IP addresses geo-locate to places not that far from guess where.... History2007 (talk) 17:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Allow me to venture a guess, History2007... they geo-locate to the Pearly Gates themselves! Yes, indeed, hear ye, all, of the great revelation of our times! God himself through this amazing and well-respected researcher Ruello has revealed the unarguable and unequivocal truth about His Greatness and the Great Miracle of.... fuck this. I don't have the energy to do it again. The depressing part is that, 100 years down the road, another crowd of rabid brainwashed idiots will be making equally insane claims about Harold Camping or L. Ron Hubbard or whoever. The propensity toward this absurd mixture of indignant foam-at-the-mouth religiosity and grandiose delusions must be hardwired into some people's genes. A transmissible gene(s) is a striking explanation for this behavior. I'm beginning to consider this obligatory raving about any unfounded religious "discovery" that crops up in whatever publication to be a kind of verbal stimming behavior for the terminally weak-minded. Blue Danube (talk) 05:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruello has finally revealed the filming process at the site Above Top Secret titled Decoding Shroud Process Revealed For ATS Members Scientists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.179.1 (talk) 02:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Vetted the link. ATS Member shroudnews77 posted a description of the process he (if we accept the signature that shroudnews77 is Ruello) used to image the photographs. Mind you, this was after his request for scientific scrutiny of his process went unanswered.

Sorry. All the evidence says Ruello has just another fringe theory. It doesn't seem to be worth mainstream media or science taking the time to cover it. Accordingly, it doesn't warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and it's no longer worth my time to discuss. SK —C.Fred (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with C.Fred that this is turning to a waste of time. Is there some Wiki-policy to curtail this type of useless spam debate on talk pages? If so, said policy should be invokes, else we will have WP:FORUM problems for ever. History2007 (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested pre-1390 history fragment.

It is well documented in several articles on the internet that Marco Polo saw and handled asbestos cloth. It is also reasonably well documented that he brought back some samples, at least one of which he gave to the Pope (du jour). It is less well documented that the reason he gave this/these sample(s) to the Pope was that so that he (the Pope) could use the asbestos cloth in which to wrap the Shroud to protect it from further fires. Unfortunately I can no longer remember the books in which I read this, but given the number of internet references it would "seem" to be credible, and would be one "concrete" item of history pre 1390. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I believe, everything, everything, I read on the internet. I never doubt the web - wink. But Wikipedia does not work that way. There is W:RS to follow. History2007 (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I dont' believe many things on the internet either, History2007; in fact I am still coping with a mother-in-law whom I love very dearly but who still believes in "Well they wouldn't say that [on the TV news] if it wasn't true, would they?" :) . But you may have motivated me to return to my local library to see if I can find in which book/chapter/verse I read that. Would that satisfy your W:RS? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not my WP:RS, I do not craft the policies, I just read them. And if you do have solid references by established authors, WP:RS says that they can be used. It is a straightforward matter of following the policies. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Biblical refs

There was a major addition by Telpardec which has interesting material, but it is without any secondary references, and on the other hand is so long and detailed as to deserve its own article if it can be supported beyond WP:primary sources. As is, it is a case of WP:OR - without doubt. I built a temporary page for it here to get started as a new article if it can go beyond OR. However, with apologies, I have to revert it by WP:BRD, given that it is WP:OR at the moment. My suggestio would be to fix the temporary page, discuss it and see if makes it as a page without a WP:PROD or Afd, then add it here. History2007 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Important The Italian scientist Piero Ugolotti 1979 pdf article letters KIA has confirmed my filming system (Vincenzo Ruello)

actually works. I have also verified his findings. CKIAZ evidence main clip youtube Vincenzo Ruello. This is now the first known scientist to be supported by my work and for him to have confirmed the principle that angular light filming and overlay works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.54.177.109 (talk) 04:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

THE problem with the shroud of Turin is the Book of John; 19:40 KJV which says Jesus body was wrapped with many strips of cloth (check the Greek!!) glued together with 100 pounds of Myrrh and Aloes like an Egyptian mummy. John 20:7 says the head was wrapped with a separate handkercheif......... This concluseively points out that there was NO Shroud............ Very often only one gospel tells the Whole story........ Lewis Brackett, San Diego — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewisharry (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference to John 20:7 states "strips of linen" as well as "according to Jewish custom".

According to Jewish law, the body is bound in a shroud. Jewish law also FORBIDS embalming. So an Egyptian mummy analogy IS NOT applicable (http://www.uscj.org/guide_to_jewish_fune6211.html). Strips of linen may have been used in the following places: tie the mouth closed, tie the hands, and tie the feet. Also, linen strips may have been used to "sop up the blood" from the wounds and these would be placed within the tomb along side the body according to Jewish tradition (The Jewish Way of Death and Mourning by Maurice Lamm (1969). http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html.

So two perspectives can be formed from this preparation of the body: (1) strips of linen were used or (2) shroud cloth. In the Bible, Matthew, Mark and Luke, refer to the linen cloth (shroud), while John refers to the strips of linen (shroud plus ties plus cloth soaked in blood beside the body). What is interesting is that John refers to a head piece used in the burial. We find that indeed a head piece does exist.

JimfromGTA (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The John 19:40 reference already is covered in the Main Article section on John Calvin's opinion of the Shroud. Jakob3 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What a curious argument. John Calvin's works were placed on the Pope's Banned Book list (not sure whether this one was included, though). So where to now? Old_Wombat (talk) 08:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The banned book list was abolished in the 1960s anyway, so it does not have much effect on anything. Rene Descartes was on it too and all engineers are still using Cartesian geometry. So the Pope's list has been of little consequence. History2007 (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

3d image unlike photographs

"Rather than being like a photographic negative, the shroud image unexpectedly has the property of decoding into a 3-dimensional image of the man when the darker parts of the image are interpreted to be those features of the man that were closest to the shroud and the lighter areas of the image those features that were farthest. This is not a property that occurs in photography, and researchers could not replicate the effect when they attempted to transfer similar images using techniques of block print, engravings, a hot statue, and bas-relief.[102]" that's actually not true. Take any photo, color or grayscale and in an image editor adjust the contrast. You will clearly see that contrast contours in a 3D manner to the depth of the picture, creating a 3D depth to the image. While I am a believer that the shroud is legitimate, this claim is false. I can reproduce this in GIMP image editor. 50.47.132.10 (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Microbiology Confirms Documented Shroud History Prior to 1300.

The Shroud can be linked to the historical documents by using microbiology. According to historical documents, the Shroud appeared in Jerusalem (Bible), in Turkey (Eddessa painting, Bishop of Constantinople sermon, etc), and was transferred to France, then Italy. Pollen samples taken by Dr. Frei (using sticky tape) identified 58 different pollen grains. He identified unique regional species of pollen grains that tied the Shroud to Jerusalem, Judea, Constantinople, Edessa, France, Italy. The vast majority of the pollen were tied to the Jerusalem area. (M.Frei, "Nine Years of Palinological Studies on the Shroud. Shroud Spectrum Journal, June 1982). His work on the pollen was confirmed by professors at Hebrew University (http://www.shroud.com/iannone.pdf) who inspected the strips of pollen.

The chemical composition of limestone samples taken from the Shroud matched the chemistry of the limestone from the Holy Sepulcher and the Garden Tomb (two sites identified by tradition as the site of Jesus' burial). The tombs are located on a common limestone shelf. Work was done by Dr. Ricardo Levi-Setti of the University of Chicago.

Conclusion: Microbiology confirms the history of Shroud before 1300's and confirms that is consistent with known existing documents and paintings of the pre 1300 timeframe. The Shroud was in Jerusalem (most pollen, limestone), Judea, Eddessa, Constantinople, France and Italy.JimfromGTA (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC).

Sorry, but this is pseudoscientific nonsense promulgated by gullible STURP "shroudies": The pollen analysis by Dr. Max Frei-Sulzer (who also claimed authenticity for the fraudulent "Hitler Diaries", and who was dishonorably discharged from his Swiss police job because of incompetent and fraudulent expertises!!!) was totally refuted by Dr. Walter McCrone, who by the way has been the worldwide recognised authority for microscopic analyses of particles. His results showed that: 1) it is inconceivable that mainly pollen of Palestine and Turkey was found, but only few pollen from France and Italy, where the shroud was after all deposited for 700 years; 2) several of Frei's plants from Palestine are insect pollinated and should not be found in this quantity of pollen on the shroud at all; 3) Frei's determination to the species level are not supported by the pollen data; 4) several tapes contained quantities and distribution patterns of pollen that are impossible by natural contamination and are clear evidence for fraudulent contamination by Frei himself, who visited Istanbul (= Constantinople), Edessa and Israel to collect local endemic plants for comparison (and thus also had the pollen at his disposal for manipulating the tapes). By the way, this itinerary was not at all a coincidence, but was directly stipulated by Ian Wilson's 1978 book "The Shroud of Turin", which Frei obviously strived to confirm. Thus, we have a highly dubious character, who had all the means to commit a fraud, and who produced results that can only be exlpained with fraud. One has to be very biased towards irrational belief in the genuineness of the shroud to ignore such an amount of evidence!--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The heart of your argument is valid. Frei has been criticized (although you are probably kicking him too hard) and there is no logical proof that the pollen did not arrive later via some form of contamination - deliberate or otherwise. The pollen matter is unresolved as the article indcates. The article already says that: "Skeptics also argue that Max Frei had previously been duped in his examination of the Hitler Diaries and that he may have also been duped in this case, or may have introduced the pollens himself."

But it should probably be mentioned that the contamination may have been by another method and there is no "proof" that Frei did it. Who knows... the pollen may have been on the habit of one of the nuns who repaired the shroud after the fire and as she put it on her lap to repair it, it got there that way. Unless there is a videotape of Frei planting the pollen we just do not know. Logically speaking, this situation is less than certain either way.

So your criticism is really about the talk page, not the article which already addresses the Frei problem and states that the pollen situation is undecided - much like everything else about the artifact. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Rebuttal: I give references to established facts. I get back conspiracy theory that is unreferenced and unsubstantiated. To discredit a fact, you must establish proof, otherwise you have unsubstantiated accusation. The opinion expessed does not meet any standard of scientific arguement.

For instance, did Dr. Frei take samples from the shroud and is there evidence of this: Answer yes. This is documented. See http://www.shroud.com/78strp6.htm This is a picture of him sampling the Shroud with tape.

Did other scientists view tapes: Answer yes. People at the Hebrew University. Further, after nine years of research, is it likely a person with a background in the area develops an expertise. So it is MOST likely his evidence is real.

Has anyone else taken samples from the Shroud that refruted Max Frei's work. NO. No documented evidence exists contrary to Max Frei's work.

If Max Frei was fired, did this have anything to do with the pollen study? If not, then again, what is your point? That someone can get fired? Günter Bechly, you just present emotional jibberish that is trying to SMEAR someone or related evidence.

What we DO KNOW scientifically is that pollen was directly sampled from the shroud. Max Frei documented his findings. Professors at the Hebrew University confirmed. Some people criticized Max Frei's work because they were sceptics who professionally criticize. Max Frei had face time with the Shroud, the OTHERS did not and have NOT in a separate examination demonstrate that Max Frei is incorrect. Further, there is NO evidence presented that the PROFESSIONAL SCEPTICS interviewed anyone associated with the evidence like Max Frei, or the STURP team who were present at the time or the Professors at the Hebrew University, including those who did imaging work related to the shroud that confirmed the pollen evidence. (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Max Frei's character assasination appears to be at the heart of this. There appears to be a SMEAR campaign about Max Frei. I find it interesting that Vaughn M. Bryant, Jr. of Texas A&M University and Dallas C. Mildenhall of the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences of New Zealand RESPECT Max Frei so much as a POLLEN EXPERT and CRIMINOLOGIST as to include in their papers the following comments:

"during the 1960s and 1970s, Max Frei, a noted Swiss criminalist, often used pollen as a forensic tool to link suspects to events or to crime scenes (Palenik, 1982). Some of his most noted cases include one in which a suspect claimed that his pistol could not have been used to commit a recent murder because it had not been removed from its storage box in months. However, Dr. Frei proved the suspect was lying because grease on the pistol contained alder and birch pollen, both of which were pollinating when the murder occurred, not when the suspect claimed he had last cleaned the pistol and put it away. In another case Dr. Frei showed that a document was a forgery because he found fall-pollinating cedar pollen stuck to the ink used to sign a document, which had a June date (Newman, 1984). "

http://www.crimeandclues.com/index.php/physical-evidence/trace-evidence/67-forensic-palynology-a-new-way-to-catch-crooks

This does NOT sound like the work of an "incompetent". For people to be quoting Max Frei's work in the same area of expertise as demonstrated in the Shroud and giving him credit as a "noted Swiss criminalist", I just don't buy the character assasination unless direct proof can be offered. Max Frei has the credentials and respect of other professionals in his profession, so his work stands unless there is SEPARATE DEMONSTRATED PROOF.

Better questions: what are the credentials of these unidentified PROFESSIONAL SCEPTICS. Do they produce productive work, or just criticise others? Do they engage in character assasinations? Why should we rely on ANYTHING they say?JimfromGTA (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that I was correct. People ARE sceptical of the PROFESSIONAL SCEPTIC. According to http://shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-McCroneFactor.html, Dr. McCrone NEVER peer reviewed his papers. Interesting that the STURP scientists peer reviewed their findings but Dr. McCrone didn't submit to professional review so his papers are NOT properly reviewed and conclusions tested. So people are suspicious of this critic and his own motivations. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The claim that McCrone did not publish his results in peer-reviwed articles is factually incorrect and a common propaganda lie of shroudies. Experimental details on the tests carried out by McCrone are available in the following peer-reviewed journal articles: The Microscope 28, p. 105, 115 (1980); The Microscope 29, p. 19 (1981); Wiener Berichte über Naturwissenschaft in der Kunst 1987/1988, 4/5, 50; and Acc. Chem. Res. 1990, 23, 77-83.--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Update on McCrone: It would appear that McCrone and the STURP team were in conflict. McCrone resigned after being told that he needed to do additional work related to his shroud findings. It was not good enough for peer review. He did not take into account other information available to the team (such as wet testing). http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf . The work he did related to the Shroud bloodwork WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED as might be suggested by Günter Bechly comment and was self published. (McCrone's magazine is called "The Microscope". reference: http://www.mcri.org/home/section/71-72/the-microscope-journal. This is NOT a peer reviewed journal as Gunter Bechly implies. Publishing in your own journal does not qualify as peer review, but rather self promotion.). This suggests, that McCrone's work was below standard in this instance. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Look at it this way Jim, there is very little chance that you and Günter Bechly are going to agree on this. But the way Wikipedia works if neither side is totally happy, then there s a stable presentation, middle of the road. That is the only way it will work out. And as is, the presentation is about midway between those two views. History2007 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What disturbs me is other than a sceptic's concern over sampling technique of an event that was physically witnessed by others, there is NO evidence of fraud or dishonesty in what Dr. Frei did. In fact, to the contrary, the images on the Shroud matched the pollen and visa versa. So the physical evidence and evidence confirmed by the Hebrew Professors, does not support a dishonest conclusion. But, conspiracy theorists don't look that far. Instead we try to balance reported fact against smear and innuendo. Not a good middle ground for an encyclopedia, from my perspective.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Jim, you seem to strongly misunderstand or misrepresent the arguments. The point is not just a question of the sampling by Frei. The point is that Frei's results themselves clearly suggest a fraud. You did not reply to any of the skeptic arguments: Why so much pollen from Palestine and Turkey, and why so few from France and Italy where the shroud was for 700 years??? How do you explain pollen quantities that are otherwise unknown as natural contamination and that are absent in other STURP sticky tape samples (only Frei's tapes contain these amounts!)??? How do you explain the high amount of insect pollinated plants that should not be present at all??? What does the fact that Frei determined all of his pollen to the species level say about his competence, considering that palynologists agree that this is impossible and considering that the re-analysis of Uri Baruch (a pro-shroudy by the way) could only confirm 3 of 37 species-level determinations of Frei??? Take all this together and consider the fact that Frei was not a professional palynologist but a freelance criminologist, had a dubious professional career (being fired because of incompetence does not count as qualification in most peoples view), and had the means to commit a fraud (he had collected plant and pollen samples in Turkey and Palestine himself). This case is clear and closed. Later peer-reviewed studies such as that by Danin, Whanger and Baruch are no validation of Frei, because they were all based on Frei's fraudulent samples and not on independently collected data. Furthermore, please stop spreading incorrect information: The results of McCrone have been published in five peer-reviewed journal articles, and McCrone and others did indeed re-analyse the original sticky tape samples of Frei and could NOT reproduce or confirm his results! And McCrone was not some dubious skeptic amateur researcher but the world-wide most competent and most renowned scientist for studying microscopic particles. His results count, and his results have to weighted much higher than those of the religiously biased STURP scientists who had competence in totally other fields and who did neither know what to look for nor how to look for properly.--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Why so much pollen in one place and not another?Italic text If the shroud was exposed to the atmosphere during Spring IN A GARDEN AREA (heavy pollen period), then it would have lots of samples. Christ's death occurred at Easter (lots of pollen from Palistine). On the other hand, we know that over time, especially in Italy, the shroud was stored in a container that was not exposed to the atmosphere. Therefore less pollen. We know that the shroud of Eddessa was on display in Turkey. We have paintings and written documents that tell of its existence. So pollen would exist on the cloth areas of display. France has no real record of display that I am aware of. Because of the age of the cloth, Italy is displayed only periodically and indoors, otherwise in an air tight container. So there should be reduced pollen count in these areas. Further, if the cloth is subject to different foldings and surface exposure, you could get hightened levels of pollen samples from pollen rubbing off from one surface to the next. Depending on the sampling surface, concentrations would vary due to this factor. So the concentration theory can be explained by surface exposure and rubbing. So far, your comment about concentrations for Turkey and Palistine are more consistent with known "exposure" history than otherwise. Not fraud.

If I were doing research of samples, and I wanted to ensure accuracy, I would gather samples, just like Frei, to compare against. This is common sense behavior. To suggest fraud, is a stretch for a "normal" act.

FYI, McCrone is not lilly white as you suggestItalic text. He missed the blood on the cloth and called it a painting (iron oxide). Other's with extensive face time, profoundly disagree through MULTIPLE observations using various techniques of discovery. Blood exists and the shroud IS NOT A PAINTING. So I am suspicious of McCrone's conclusions.

If the shroud were a painting, why spend 25 man years of face time research to confuse everyone? This is what frustrates the scientists. It IS NOT A PAINTING and they have had difficulty explaining how the image got there. Reference: Ray Roger's (who had extensive face time) and his Italian professor associate, for instance, clearly states that the shroud IS NOT A PAINTING. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf

Update on McCrone: It would appear that McCrone and the STURP team were in conflict. McCrone resigned after being told that he needed to do additional work related to his shroud findings. It was not good enough for peer review. He did not take into account other information available to the team (such as wet testing). The work he did related to the Shroud bloodwork WAS NOT PEER REVIEWED as might be suggested by Günter Bechly comment and was self published. (McCrone's magazine is called "The Microscope". reference: http://www.mcri.org/home/section/71-72/the-microscope-journal. This is NOT a peer reviewed journal as Gunter Bechly implies). This suggests, that McCrone's work was below standard in this instance. http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf. It also opens the door to a possible grudge against Max Frei as he was part of STURP.

I am interested in your references to "others' testing". Would you have the names and findings. And the existance of other stick tape (given the "exposure theory", it is also necessary to understand their sampling origin on the surface of the cloth). This is interesting. Also, any references to interview feedback with the Hebrew Professors and Max Frei about McCrone's work.

Good debate. But you make it sound like everyone but McCrone is incompetent with your emotionalism and labelling. I am more interested in references and facts, not smear, labelling, and innuendo. Please be more specific in your referencing information sources. Otherwise all we end up with is "misimpressions" of second hand information. JimfromGTA (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Second face discovered in Shroud of Turin indicates divine energy source

I’ve gone through scripture and re-read the descriptions of the appearance of some angels, the transfiguration, and the appearance of Moses after his meeting with God. In these accounts, the beings radiated with a divine light. That Moses’ face shone and had to be covered with a veil when speaking to the Israelites afterward is very interesting. It seems to suggest that his body absorbed enough of the divine light from God appearing to him so that his face began to re-radiate this light on its own for a short while. Similarly, Matt 17:2 says this about Jesus and his clothes during the transfiguration: "his face [was] shining as the sun, and his garments became white as the light." So the clothes gradually picked up a charge from Jesus' body and began glowing on their own.

If you have read Fanti and Maggiolo's April 2004 article in Journal of Optics called The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Shroud of Turin, you know that a second face was discovered by them on the dorsal side of the shroud. This second face is very faint and can only be seen with special equipment. It is a mirror copy of the face seen on the front of the shroud. I think it’s evidence of radiant energy making the image. Here are the events that I believe made the image(s).

Step 1: The body in the shroud began emiting this "divine light" during the resurrection event. During this event, the divine light burned (or whatever you want to call it) an image into the linen all around the body. The closer the linen was to the skin, the more prominent the image became. Also, it appears to me that the image of the face is the most prominent, suggesting that the divine light was brighter there than anywhere else. Just as Moses' face absorbed the divine light and then glowed, I think the shroud also absorbed this light and began glowing too.

Step 2: The body vanishes, and the top half of the shroud falls down on top of the bottom. Assume the image on the shroud is still glowing for a while (like Moses' face did). Since the image of the face is now in direct contact with the linen that was under the body's head, the glowing image is still bright enough to burn a copy of itself into the linen. This image should be a reverse image (which it is), it should be fainter (also true), and be aligned with the top image (which it is). Other brighter features, such as the hands, are also evident on the dorsal side.

If we could somehow show that the 1st face was created with 3-D multi-directional radiation, and the 2nd face was created with mono-directional radiation (due to it being a contact-transfer), I think it would add support to the theory that the resurrection event caused the image via a radiant divine light that charged the linen and lingered long enough to create the second image. --Donald p curtis (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your statement "If we could somehow show...." let us discuss it when you do and publish it in a WP:RS source. Until then it is WP:OR. By the way, maybe you are using Google Chrome, for it leaves blank lines all over (you don't see them). Time for Firefox? History2007 (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Donald: My thoughts are along the line of yours that there was an attending angel who lifted / held the cloth at the time of transfiguration / resurrection of Jesus. The angel (radiant energy of face behind) holding would have straightened the cloth and overcome the 3D object distortion. Evidence of an attending angel(s) is found in Scripture outside the tomb overlooking the sleeping Roman soldiers as well as talking to the women who visited the tomb. Further the acid of the oil (mhyrr) may have provided the "etching" chemical for the image in the cloth. Interesting fit to the existing evidence. JimfromGTA (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh my!! I awoke this morning realizing what has just been said. Donald, given the heart of God, the face that attended to Jesus was likely Yahweh's. Remember how the Father ran out to greet his son (parable of the prodigal son). Oh my!! Thus the shining cloth, like Moses' face. To others, the cloth contains evidence of Jesus' passion week, His crucifiction, His resurrection and His Glory. To Jesus I pray: thank you Jesus for giving Donald and I the eyes to see that which has not been clearly seen for over 2000 years. I bend my knee in humility and respect.

To others: The cloth is authentic. We now KNOW how the picture of a "real" crucified man came into being. Jesus IS who He is. The cloth is direct evidence.

For the truth seekers, the evidence is all there. Keep looking. Evidence to date contains answers to the who, what, when, where, and now "how". Read "The Resurrection of the Shroud" by Mark Antonacci. There are over 300 authoritative references to evidence.

To the antagonists and athiests, take off the blinders and repent. Your belief systems don't want to acknowledge the evidence that STURP found. Rather you invent theories without checking them out with the actual facetime research. For the shroud is PROOF that Jesus rose from the dead, and IS divine ( the cloth captures the glory (intense light). Be aware that since Jesus resurrected, then the promise of His return to judge the living and dead is real. Repent and seek the heart of God.

May God bless you all with the ability to see what Donald and I see.JimfromGTA (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop preaching/evangelising ...this page is for discussing improvements to the article and is NOT a forum.Theroadislong (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest that the preachings should just be deleted per WP:Forum. I am sorry Jim, but I have a feeling that if you keep preaching, you will just get blocked out of Wikipedia sooner or later. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was overcome by the importance and realization of what Donald P stated. A natural reaction to the evidence.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Article Improvements

You asked for improvements:

Because the shroud is a latent image of a real crucified person (per facetime research) and NOT a painting, nor, a latent image of a painting, you need to expand on how a latent image could have been made. The ramblings of the article misses this central point. Your article, while quite extensive, does not explore what Donald P above relays. It misses the image of the second face and does not explore the history of Biblical intense light events. These are relevant to the theory about imprinting, the "how" that everyone is trying to answer. The reason that this is important is that no KNOWN intense light source exists prior to the invention of the light bulb and ultraviolet lamps that occurred long after the shroud existance. Intense light events have a documented history and belong within an article that is about, after all, a Biblical personality and the man in the cloth, Jesus. So this info belongs in an encyclopedia.

In one section, you make it sound that religious information is NOT scientific. This is incorrect. Biblical information like other historical writings, provides information upon which events are confirmed (eg. Biblical archeology, Jesus' passion week, burial, and resurrection).

The tie into the Shroud of Edessa is missing and gives the impression that the history of the shroud of Turin ceases at to the 1300's. This misleads readers and gives a false impression about the Shroud. Actually the Shroud of Turin matches the Shroud of Edessa as captured in a painting, and the sermon of the Bishop of Constantinople c.1000 AD (ie. sermon states not a painting) ties to the Turin Shroud. The folds in the Turin shroud cloth match the presentation of the Shroud of Edessa in another painting. This match provides further linkage. And there is a couple of documents in existence that provide evidence of the passing of the Shroud to the Crusaders, the handover to the Shroud of Turin identity. These are missing from your article.

Your limestone evidence is understated. The actual research demonstrated a connection to the limestone shelf of the tombs that Jesus was by historical tradition, buried in. You make a statement of ancient Jerusalem tombs but do not take it to the step that the research actually found.

Your pollen evidence is understanded. Frei's work was collaberated by the Hebrew University professors, including one professor who made the statement that one unique specimen of pollen could only have been picked up by direct contact in the Jerusalem area. My own research is that outside of the realm of McCrone, Frei's work is respected. McCrone's followers have "slandered" Frei to get their way. But given the politics surrounding McCrone, I understand this.

Much of the above evidence is documented in Mark Antonacci's book with authoritative references.

There is no discussion on the aging of the cloth and the work that Rogers did. He demonstrated chemically that the cloth was older than that which the carbon dating suggested. This was an alternative proof to his research. Further, as Rogers relays, the weave of the cloth is older than suggested by the carbon daters. This was documented in Roger's last research paper on the carbon dating problem. c.2005.

I assume this is the type of info that you are looking for.JimfromGTA (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, do you think we can resolve this by changing the article title perhaps? Would: "The Shroud is real because Antonacci said so" be an acceptable article title? If we do that then all the discussion may end. Right? History2007 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you guys asked for a critique, I gave it. The points I made are informational, not restricted to some sort of Antonacci theory. Antonacci, because he is so thorough with over 300 authoritative references, is a convenient method of consolidating research. By the way, Rogers, the STURP scientist, in his last paper in C2005 agrees with this opinion. That's all.JimfromGTA (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There ARE NO convincing arguments that the Shroud of Turin is a FAKE.

After having reviewed the material of the Shroud, I have arrived at the conclusion there are NO convincing arguments that the shroud is a fake. People have been unable establish "fakery" over many years. (Note the original STURP team work did a lot of research into this area and failed to establish that it was faked, given the C14 testing did not validate a middle age dating of the cloth).

While there are numerous factors and evidence suggesting its authenticity, there are NO arguments that support the theory that it has been faked, that I am aware of. For instance, the C14 dating to the middle ages turned out to be incorrect, as various people have now established that the C14 samples taken were from an area of the shroud that used repair material from the middle ages. The shroud is NOT A PAINTING has been established and any attempts to characterize the shroud as a "painting" are incorrect. The article from Ray Roger's a member of the STURP team that did face time research on the shroud is very illuminating in this regards.

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers2.pdf . As to the physical imagery, the shroud image was certified by an expert (Professor) that the image was one of that of a crucified man. So dimensional arguements regarding body position have been looked at from a science point of view and the image on the shroud has passed muster as a crucifiction. JimfromGTA (talk) 18:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and there are no convincing arguments that fairies do not exist either. Believers will always keep believing their personally favored fairytales in spite of any conflicting evidence. It is useless to debate this issue further at this place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a blog. Therefore the only important point is that pro and con arguments that can be backed with refrences are objectively represented.--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Gunter, you seem to think the shroud is a fairytale. So give me your best "convincing arguments", together with appropriate research references that back up your claim. FYI, my statement is based on my understanding of the more than 25 man years of face time research done on the shroud together with updates on areas under question (such as the C14 testing and resolution). JimfromGTA (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this would be useless. If you would be really interested in the scientific evidence that proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the shroud is a medieval forgery, you would already know it (e.g. through the book of McCrone). Even ten new radiocarbon datings would not convince people like you. You have already decided a priori that the shroud is genuine, and you prefer to believe in the pseudoscience of the religious zealots of STURP. Sorry but my time is to precious to be wasted in discussions like this. My only interest is to take care that the skeptical point of view is adequately represented in the Wikipedia article. I have no interest to argue with people who pray that a dead jewish carpenter of the Iron Age saves them from eternal torture by a god who loves us.--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Gunter: Our life consists of multi levels of existance with processes that we are only beginning to understand occuring at each level. Sum total, the world's people have experienced the presence of a spiritual lifeforce called God's Spirit billions of times. Christians note this experience as "the Peace that surpasses understanding". The experiences have been recorded for thousands of years (example: the 70 judges of Moses). Gunter, your Atheism's dogmatic negativity is a filter that blinds you to experiencing God's spiritual life force and therefore you can not understand Him. But, because there are billions of spiritual events contrary to your viewpoint, your Atheism lacks a valid hypothesis in evaluating the spiritual process that focuses on that jewish carpenter, who, according to more than 500 witnesses, resurrected. Those that have experienced the supernatural, understand, those that deny the supernatural, don't.JimfromGTA (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to interrupt the outpouring of love here guys. But this flower/pollen discussion does not sound like Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair and is well within the realm of WP:Forum. Therefore, per WP:Forum, if you want to discuss this further, please find a suitable airport bar where you can both fly to meet and get sloshed and wax on it. Let me know which bar, I may just show up. You might make friends after all. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello? Did you bother to read my last posting? I just made clear to JimfromGTA that I have neither interest nor the time to further discuss these issues here, and that my only interest is in improving the WP article.--Dr. Günter Bechly (talk) 13:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I do not read long debates, so I did not notice that, just noticed that it was getting to be a long forum type debate. So let us assume that it is over now. History2007 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Gunter, while I don't share the way you discuss things (ie. labelling and judgementalism), I am interested in opinion. I will look at McCrone to see if his arguments are still valid or have been addressed with updates since his book. Gunter, try reading Mark Antonacci,The Resurrection of the Shroud, M. Evans and Company, Inc, 2000, ISBN 0-87131-963-2. He does a good job of giving factual evidence from multiple sources, not just McCrone. Mark's exhibits and referencing to science and history are thorough and well written (over 300 authoritative references & exhibits), except for a couple of exploratory hypothesis issues.JimfromGTA (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

History2007. Actually I am serious by my statements and have to do with the WP article. There are NO remaining convincing arguments demonstrating fakery, that I am aware. So I was interested in seeing what residual arguments remain after that last update by Rogers, etc. in the mid 2000's. So far, the response is limited (i.e. McCrone, who's work is now dated)JimfromGTA (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually the lack of a solid fakery argument does not amount to proof of authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus, it amounts to "not knowing" that it is a fake. It may have been the burial cloth of another person crucified around AD 51 in Jerusalem. The only link to Jesus is the Barbara Frale argument. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The scientific method is that truth be established with evidence, not that evidence MUST be found to prove an opinion false. If there is no conclusive evidence to establish that the shroud of Turin is the burial shroud of Jesus then we must believe it is not until it is otherwise proven to be Jesus shroud..Lewisharry (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all, the logical conclusion is "we do not know", avoiding a yes/no decision. Please read falsifiability, and preferably Logic of Scientific Discovery itself referenced therein. History2007 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The meaning of my words that the shroud is NOT FAKED means that the shroud is indeed a burial cloth. It IS NOT a painting. This is what the STURP group established. Actually, according to Rogers, the STURP group was asked by an Archbishop to establish whether or not the shroud was a painting. That was the purpose of their study. It is not a painting according to all but one scientist of the group. That discenting scientist DID NOT pass professional science peer reviews of his findings, but was self published. The major criticisms were that his methods were too narrowly focused, and ignored the work of others which employed additional methods of research. The balance of the STURP group passed scientific peer reviews.

It is reasonable to assume that the shroud is indeed the burial cloth of Christ, because the evidence points us to that conclusion. The evidence is found in historical documents that correspond to the trail of the microbiological evidence found on the cloth (pollen, limestone from Jerusalem), the physical wounding and description that matches with precision the original accounts of Jesus' cruxifiction, the existence of microbiology matches the locations where Jesus was buried, the cloth that matches other linen from the era of Jesus, and the fact that the burial shroud is real. All the questions of who, what, when, where, how, and why have been answered in sometimes "microscopic detail". The probability of it being the shroud of another man who was crucified in the same manner and timeframe Jesus is remote and highly improbable. JimfromGTA (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Jim, the use of the word probability in "the probability of it being the shroud of another man who was crucified in the same manner and timeframe Jesus is remote and highly improbable" opens another Pandora's box here. How is this probability assigned? Through multiple observations on multiple shrouds, or via inexact subjective logic or what? Or is it done using the official method used everyday across the world: "my gut feeling is X" so X must be the answer. But gut feelings do not amount to science. In any case, there are multiple experts with multiple guts who argue about this at conferences every year until they all get stomach ache. That one is for sure. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if it was proven that the shroud did cover up someone in the early years of A.D., you can never prove that person was Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, that uses logic, and Wikipedia can't come up with logic on it's own: It has to be provided by a WP:V WP:RS WP:STD. Travürsa (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

But as the man said... who knows what will happen the next 10 years.... For now it is all uncertain, but we can not speculate on the future. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I just find it intriguing how such an archaic shroud evades our scientific understanding, even in this day and age with all our advances and technology. I mean, we still do not understand how it could have been created, with all its longevity and all, correct? And I feel that it is highly questionable that this shroud would have traveled all the places that it had traveled--through the hands of various armies, knights, and kings---if it really wasn't the burial cloth of Jesus; if it was just a burial cloth of some other and irrelevant crucified man.
COice6 (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, it someone wants to assert that this shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus, then they would have to likewise assert that its just a very large coincidence that the cloth portrays all of Jesus' wounds.
1) A crown of thorns is not customary for crucifixion.
2) Furthermore, breaking a person's legs was the customary action of soldiers done to speed the death of a crucified person. Scripture states that they were surprised to find that Jesus was already dead, so they stabbed him, instead, to check. If this is not the burial shroud of Jesus, it would have to be yet an additional coincidence that this person, like Jesus, received an abdominal gash--instead having his legs broken, or just being left to die at normal speed.
3) Last, scientists have explained that the shroud portrays a person who must have been very severely flogged, atop of being crucified. Correlate this with scripture's "Scouraging at the Pillar." Scourging is not a customary practice before crucifixion. Pilate did not want to kill (crucify) Jesus, however, and instead had Jesus scourged--hoping that that would pacify the bloodthirsty crowds. It didn't pacify them, however, and Jesus was thereafter crucified. The scourging is yet another unique aspect of Jesus' crucifixion.
Ultimately, if the person buried in this shroud was not Jesus, then that person would have to just coincidentally received all the same wounds--the crucifixion, crown, the abdominal gash, and the very severe flogging--that concur with scripture's description of Jesus' death.
COice6 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a coincidence at all - the forgers were guided directly by the Bible stories, and carefully duplicated every wound exactly as per the texts. They knew the pilgrims would point to the various wounds exactly as you have, and ponder the "coincidences" exactly as you have. Every successful fraud is based around matching the available "facts" as closely as possible, and giving people what they think they want. Human gullibility then fills in the gaps. QED. Wdford (talk) 23:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Well a team of American scientists (--not appointed by the Vatican) have determined that there is not a drop of paint on the Shroud. Furthermore, post-mortem byproducts have been found on the Shroud. How did the blood and non-painted image get there? As it stands, we are unable to even reproduce the image of the Shroud with accuracy. The image itself only exists on the carbohydrate layer of the linen, a layer which is but a fraction of the width of a hair. How could some genius create such an image and furthermore still be able to still fool us (we cannot even fathom how he would have done this trick), despite all our technology centuries later?
COice6 (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)