[Home] [Updates] [Site map] [My Quotes; Shroud of Turin quotes: Unclassified, Classified] [My The Shroud of Turin blog]
The following are quotes added to my Shroud of Turin unclassified quotes in JOctober-November 2012. See copyright conditions at end.
[Index: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep, Oct, Nov, Dec]
14/10/2012 "Before we turn to the archaeological and historical evidence that will round out our picture of the Shroud's origin, let us consider one last time the theories put forward by Shroud "skeptics:' None is consistent with the image on the Shroud, and some are so outlandish that it is hard to see how they could be proposed with a straight face. What these theories seem to corroborate is that the method of image formation on the Shroud is not reproducible by human or natural means. All of these proposed methods fail to account for the many unique characteristics of either the body or blood image. To be accepted as credible, any proposed theory regarding the transference mechanism responsible for encoding the images on the Shroud must be able to account for all the characteristics of the body images and blood marks." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.60). 14/10/2012 "Some of the proposed image-transference methods can be called naturalistic, while others are artistic. In general, theories pertaining to naturalistic mechanisms are based on the theory that an actual body was wrapped in a linen burial cloth, encoding the image with some natural process. Advocates of artistic methods, however, assume the Shroud was created in some manner by an artist. Based on the information acquired from testing and examining the cloth itself, the frontal and dorsal body images, the various wounds and blood marks, and the numerous fibril samples taken from all over the cloth, we are able to draw a number of conclusions about any proposed methods to duplicate the Shroud image." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, p.60). 14/10/2012 "STURP scientists have performed the experiments that test most of the methods claiming to explain the images on the Shroud; they have even designed new theories along with new tests, in an effort to verify the naturalistic and artistic theories. Yet none of the proposed mechanisms discussed in this chapter can replicate all the unique characteristics of both the body images and blood marks on the Shroud. In fact, none even comes close. Although the theories described below have not garnered as much support as the painting thesis, they are nevertheless important to understand-and then discard. The evidence provided by the Shroud itself discredits them, just as it proves the image did not result from the application of paint." (Antonacci, M., "Resurrection of the Shroud: New Scientific, Medical, and Archeological Evidence," M. Evans & Co: New York NY, 2000, pp.60-61). 15/10/2012 "The test went ahead the next year. The most critical procedure, the sampling, was utterly shambolic. It took place in the Sacristy of Turin Cathedral, with the carbon-dating scientists in attendance. The two men deputed to cut the sample, Professors Giovanni Riggi and Luigi Gonella, argued for an hour or more over which site on the cloth to choose, a vital issue that should have been decided well in advance. Eventually, they snipped it from the corner next to the Raes sample, an area members of the (absent) STURP team suspected was unrepresentative of the rest of the cloth. This single sample was cut into three pieces, one for each of the labs. Then, instead of being handed over directly, the pieces of cloth were taken into the Sala Capitolare, the room adjoining the Sacristy, by Cardinal Ballestrero and the representative of the British Museum, Michael Tite. There, in complete secrecy, the samples were wrapped in foil and placed in sealed canisters, along with control samples from other cloths. Finally, the canisters were brought out and handed over to the carbon-dating specialists." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.166). 15/10/2012 "It took six months for the labs to perform their tests and send their results to Tite at the British Museum, who served as the co-ordinator. They were relieved to find that the results were fairly consistent with each other, which was a necessary condition for the test to be considered reliable. At two simultaneous press conferences held on 13 October 1988, one in Turin, the other in London, the world was solemnly informed that the Shroud was manufactured sometime between 1260 and 1390 ... The Church, in the person of Cardinal Ballestrero, accepted the result unreservedly. The Shroud, it seemed, was a certified fake, nothing but a piece of religious tomfoolery from the Middle Ages." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, pp.166-167). 15/10/2012 "How much faith should we have in the 1988 carbon-dating result? Not as much as is generally assumed. Given the patchy record of the scientific technique and the shenanigans of the Shroud carbon-dating project itself, it would hardly be surprising if an error was made. On what grounds can this badly organized test be considered immune to the many problems that afflicted the science of carbon dating in the 1980s? Recognizing the potential for error is one thing, though; deciding that something actually did go wrong is another. What reasons are there in this particular case for disbelieving the carbon-dating result?" (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.167). 15/10/2012 "First of all, dating the Shroud to the Middle Ages makes it literally incomprehensible. For over a century mainstream scholars have viewed the Shroud, a priori, as a medieval artefact, and for over a century they have completely failed to make sense of it. This is unsurprising, for, as we have seen, the Shroud is inconceivable as a medieval work of art and can be understood neither as a deliberate 'recreation' of Christ's burial cloth nor as a bizarre accident. The onus is on those who uphold the carbon-dating result to integrate it into a full and adequate description of the Shroud's origin - just as archaeologists would do with any other carbon-dating result. This they have been conspicuously unable to do. The poverty of the carbon-daters' own understanding of the problem is illustrated by Teddy Hall's comment at the London press conference that someone in the fourteenth century 'just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it' [Sheridan, M. & Reeves, P., The Independent, Friday, 14 October 1988]. Given credence, the carbon-dating result effectively raises the Shroud to the status of a miracle, an object that defies, if not a law of nature, a law of culture. All artefacts are linked to the art and technology of the society in which they originate. Something that cannot be explained in terms of its (presumed) cultural context invites a supernatural explanation." (de Wesselow, T., "The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection," Viking: London, 2012, p.167). 19/10/2012 "My microanalytical work on the sticky tapes from the shroud's surface has proved to my satisfaction that the entire image was produced by an artist using iron earth and vermilion pigments in a tempera medium during the middle of the fourteenth century. All of the image area tapes show varying amounts of two red pigments, which are easily identifiable as either an iron earth pigment or vermilion. The amount of these pigments is greater in the areas of greater image density, particularly the `bloodstains.' Smaller amounts are present in image areas, and in some image areas only very small amounts of the pigment can be found. The dispersion of very tiny pigment particles characteristic of the image areas is totally absent in control samples from the cloth." (McCrone W. C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p. 35). 19/10/2012 "The image was created by an artist who was commissioned to paint a shroud, probably to be used in religious processions or to be exhibited in the newly founded church in Lirey by the de Charny family. I doubt if the artist was intending to fool anyone, and I feel that the church vergers didn't have to make any conscious effort to convince the general populace that this was the shroud of Christ. I think the vergers did allow the populace to come to that conclusion and, since that time, of course, most believers have so concluded." (McCrone W. C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p. 35). 19/10/2012 "Coming back to the image itself, I feel that the artist, having been commissioned to paint a shroud, did an inspired job of thinking just how one might expect an image to appear in the absence of light, hence no shadows. He had to depend on thinking of a cloth simply in contact with the human body. He naturally filled in the portions where the cloth touched the high points of the body and then artistically graded them in decreasing intensity from those high spots, thus creating a pleasing image and one which, it then turns out, automatically produces a photographic negative when copied photographically and indeed develops a three-dimensional structure when interpreted in terms of cloth-body distances as Jackson and Jumper did. There is nothing unusual about this and it was in fact entirely automatic. The artist, of course, certainly knew nothing about photographic negatives, nor did he think about three-dimensional reconstructions." (McCrone W. C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36). 19/10/2012 "Finally, I can see no possible mechanism by which the shroud image could have been produced except as the work of an artist. The faithful representation of all of the anatomical and pathological markings, so well described in the New Testament, would be difficult to produce except by an artist. They are totally without distortion and, indeed, look exactly the way we would like to have them look." (McCrone W. C., "Shroud image is the work of an artist," The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 6, No. 3, Spring 1982, pp. 35-36, p. 36).
Copyright © 2012-2014, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. These my quotes may be used
for non-commercial purposes only and may not be used in a book, ebook, CD, DVD, or any other
medium except the Internet, without my written permission. If used on the Internet, a link back
to this page would be appreciated.
Created: 14 October, 2012. Updated: 1 January, 2014.