(April 29, 2009) The Archdiocese of Turin has officially announced the dates of the 2010 public exposition of the Shroud in Turin: Saturday, April 10 to Sunday, May 23. Pope Benedict XVI should also visit Turin during the exposition although the date of has not been announced yet.
It will be an exceptional exposition as it will be the first time the Shroud is shown since its major restoration in 2002. During that restoration the 400-year old patches were replaced with smaller and less obstructive ones and the backing sheet was replaced with a new one.
It is usually the case that other events (e.g., scientific meeting) are organized during the Shroud exposition. I will post more information about these on this Web site when they are announced.
(April 18, 2009) I presented a paper at the 2005 Shroud Dallas Conference that the Shroud of Turin was not flattened when the images formed. The paper is available from this Web site (see Papers). Yet, I am often asked to explain the importance of such a detail. I think it is quite important: 1) It reveals some non-obvious fact about the Shroud; 2) that the skeptics, who often claim, that the Shroud is obviously a hoax based on the fact that you cannot project the body image on a cloth without getting major distortions, are wrong. Not only do these skeptics provide no data to support their claim, they claim that this fact is obvious and that anybody thinking otherwise does not want to see this simple fact and is blinded by their belief in the authenticity of the Shrou. Ironically, their handwaving arguments are proved to be wrong and their own beliefs made them get wrong conclusions.
First, there are often arguments that the Shroud must have been made flat by somebody or something for the images to form without major distortions. There is no necessity for this. This is what the paper shows in detail. It also shows that this is true even though a real body rest underneath the cloth. That answers the skeptics that say that the Shroud images must have been made from a low profile bas-relief to avoid the image major distortions and keep the blood stains aligned with the images (e.g., blood stains that appear to be on arms, are over the arm images). These skeptics do not show any data and simply argue from handwaving arguments that major distortions must occur just like a Mercator map projection distorts the continents once projected on a sphere. This is actually not the case for a cloth loosely covering a body.
Second, there are simple basic facts that show that the Shroud was not flattened. These facts are easy to see on the Shroud: the blood stains are not off register vertically. Note the important detail: vertical. That is, for example, the blood marks over the arms are indeed naturally occuring over the arm images. The blood stains are not off the arms; and the blood stains over the head are not off the head vertically. So the Shroud cannot have been flattened, otherwise these blood stains would be off the head or arms. (You can look at the Shroud and see that the blood stains over the arms are there with a precision to the millimeter. They are not off the arms, above or below.)
I think that this is quite an extraordinary detail that also shows that handwaving arguments against the authenticity of the Shroud are common but wrong.
(April 7, 2009) The Vatican's newspaper L'Osservatore Romano reports that Barbara Frale, an historian and an expert on the Knights Templar, has uncovered evidence from the Vatican Secret Archives that the Shroud of Turin was in the hands of the Templars between the time it disappeared from Constantinople in 1204 and its appearance in Lirey, France, in 1357. The document relates the account of a young Frenchman, Arnaut Sabbatier, in 1287: "I was shown a long piece of linen on which was impressed the figure of a man and told to worship it, kissing the feet three times".
This discovery would answer an old question about the whereabouts of the Shroud of Turin between Constantinople (1204) and France (1357). It is not clear, though, how the Shroud would have been given to Geoffroy I de Charny, in France.
(April 5, 2009) A Shroud conference was held at the O'Hare center, at the Nativity Church in Menlo Park, California, on Saturday, April 4 (yesterday). The speaker was Roland Deptuch, Ph.D., a chemist and physicist working in Silicon Valley.
The room was packed (I had to stand up in the back with the door of the conference room opened). The presentation was at a nice pace with lots of slides.
One comment and a question from the audience caught my attention:
- The danger of supporting one's faith on the Shroud when
eventually it could be proven with certainty that it is not authentic.
The other was somehow the opposite.
- How can one needs faith if the Shroud proves with certainty that the resurrection occurred?
Several people from the audience, and the speaker, responded to these questions. One answer was very well articulated with lots of details about what the STURP accomplished (although the acronym STURP was not used, but a reference to the researchers from Nasa was mentioned). It would be difficult to summarize these answers.
My answers would have been the following.
To the comment, I would say that the Shroud gives a great answer to the believers that the resurrection was a real event that left physical traces on such a simple thing as a linen cloth. To the non-believers, the Shroud is a sign. It is an object on which scientific rationality can be applied and a conclusion can be reached. It is not an end in itself, though. It is a route towards something beyond the Shroud.
To the question: the Shroud is not perceived by many people (read millions of people) as being so convincing a proof that the resurrection did occur. There are many objections that can be used to weaken the arguments of authenticity. To sort out the facts, some attention to details must be taken. This is this study that by itself is very interesting. The physical details of the Shroud are quite extraordinary, and someone can see and study these in details. The Web has even made this study easier. It is up to the true seeker to look into these facts and come to a conclusion.
(March 26, 2009) Arvo Pärt has just released a new album called In Principio (In the beginning) based on the text of the first 14 verses of the Gospel of John and the Shroud of Turin. This new album has a piece titled La Sindone (The Turin Shroud). I think the music is inspiring. You can get an album at Amazon or at the iTunes store at a very reasonable price. You can even listen to a short excerpt from these Web sites.
I will post some excerpt right here in the near future.
(March 15, 2009)
Barrie Schwortz
was the invited speaker at the conference that took place on March 14
in Stockton, California. Barrie Schwortz is the editor and publisher
of the largest Shroud Web site in the world at Shroud.com. He was the official
photographer of the STURP group that studied the Shroud for five days
and nights in 1978. I learned on the day of the conference that it was
starting at 9AM, so I missed the morning sessions and unfortunately
missed his first presentation. But I saw his second one at the end of
the day. It was a personal question/answer period. Barrie would
answer what he thought about the Shroud based on the questions from
the audience (more than 50 people). It was interesting to hear Barrie
presents his own point of view on various aspects of the Shroud. Barrie
has published a lot of material on his Web site, but it does not mean
he agrees with all of it. Since he made these statements
publicly, I take the liberty of repeating them here (I do this from
memory and the answers are not exact quotes from Barrie):
Question: Can we discern coin(s) over the eye(s) on the Shroud?
Barrie: I do not think so. It is very difficult to see these images. The purported coin inscriptions are very small, almost not discernible. The resolution of the images we have does not enable us to be conclusive on this. Moreover, it is very unlikely that Jews of the first century, followers of Jesus, would have put roman coins (a pagan symbol of the occupier) over his eyes. And the researchers promoting this view always use Enrie's photograph and are unable to find the coin images on all other Shroud photographies (1898, 1978, etc.).
Question: the wounds on the Shroud, are they images of wounds or were they
made by contact with the Shroud (blood transfer)?
Barrie: interesting question. The answer is: both! There is even a case (on one of the arm) that one wound is part blood and part image of the wound. That is, the wound starts with a clear blood trace then along the way changes into a full image with no blood trace.
Question: since the first radiocarbon dating of the Shroud in 1988 is so controversial and
that the sample that was taken to do it appear as inadequate, why
isn't there a second radiocarbon dating?
Barrie: a second radiocarbon dating must be authorized by the Pope
but his decision is mainly based on the advises of his
counselors. These counselors include the custodian of the Shroud,
Cardinal Severino Poletto. Remember the first radiocarbon dating: the
late Cardinal Ballestrero, custodian of the Shroud in 1988, had to
announce to the world the result of a medieval date. But more
importantly, he was also under enormous pressure from different
scientific groups, with different goals, to modify the protocol of the
radiocarbon dating. The result was a poor protocol that did not meet a
high level scientific standard. For example, the cutting of the
sample: during the meeting to take a Shroud sample they were still
arguing about the exact location to cut. They finally selected
one of the worst locations. This is unthinkable, but this is what has
happened. It sheds a bad light on the preparation of the 1988
radiocarbon dating. The current authorities do not want to be
blame for similar reasons.
(Jan 1, 2009) I have added a new entry in the menu found on the left: Length Measurements on the Sudarium . It is based on a digital photograph that was kindly provided by Mark Guscin. The interface is similar to the length measurements for the Shroud. I have not yet added a section about the Sudarium of Oviedo in this Web site but that will come.
The Sudarium is believed to have been used to cover Christ's head. It has no image but several blood stains. Mark Guscin wrote several articles and a book about the relation between the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo.
(Dec 27, 2008) Many years ago while browsing in an antiquity book shop in France, I came across a book on the Shroud. Not only was it old, but tuck inside was an old newspaper clipping which had a text about the Shroud. It had been written in 1935 by the French writer Paul Claudel. I bought the book with the clipping. Back in Canada, I translated it from French to English. I just included the text titled Your Face, Lord (the original French text: Votre Face, Seigneur... ) in this Web site.
Once you know what Claudel experienced in his life, how skeptic he was about Christ, you can feel how fabulous is the text. And Paul Claudel is a very good writer. But this you can only appreciate if you read the original French text, as my translation, I am afraid, does not do justice to his text.
(Nov 28, 2008) On Sunday, Nov 16, I attended a presentation on the Shroud of Turin organized by the East Bay Atheists. It took place at the Berkeley public library, California, USA. There was twenty one persons in the meeting room, including the speaker, Ken Miller. Since it is short, I quote the abstract:
Ken Miller will speak on “The Shroud of Turin”. You thought the Shroud of Turin was dead and buried. Think again! The shroud-crowd is at it once more. They want a new test to prove it is genuine. Ken will discuss how absurd such a proposal would be.Naturally, according to the speaker, the Shroud was inauthentic. No proof was needed for that. The talk, therefore, was to show how ridiculous anybody would even think that it could be authentic. I do not think any person in the audience would have even raised the possibility, as remotely as you can imagine it, that the Shroud could be genuine. I think most of the audience did not even believe that Jesus ever existed. So, to believe that the Shroud was probably authentic would have been ridiculous.Ken has a BA 1949 and a MA 1950 in Economic History, both from Stanford. Teaching Assistantship at Stanford in Modern European History 1958-62. Raised as a Catholic but converted to skepticism during army service in World War II.
Be sure to listen to this interesting lecture, and to participate in the discussion afterward.
My interest was to see, first hand, how the subject is presented to such an audience. I was not surprised: common urban myths are repeated, completely erroneous facts are stated, some research work completely misunderstood, etc. And most importantly, there is no analysis, whatsoever, of the most basic facts about the Shroud itself.
The presentation was clear, though, in the form of a chronological history of the events surrounding the Shroud. (I was late by fifteen minutes, so I missed the beginning.) It went from the Lirey time (c 1356) to the radio-carbon C14 dating of 1988. There was a very brief mention of a possible second radio-carbon dating in the near future, but no elaboration on this. It was simply declared absurd to do so, without any explanation of why it would be absurd. All the typical anti-authenticity proofs were given: the D'Arcis memorandum that claims to have found the painter who made the Shroud, the Lirey collegiate that never stated where it was coming from, the anti-pope Clement VII that forbids its showing without declaring it inauthentic, the 1988 radio-carbon dating, etc.
Famous names in the field of Shroud research (past and present) were mentioned: Ian Wilson, John Jackson, Eric Jumper, Alan Adler, Walter McCrone, Harry Gove, Alan and Mary Whanger, Yves Delage, etc.
About Yves Delage: the speaker mentioned that he presented to the French academy of science a series of supporting arguments for the authenticity of the Shroud. He never stated what they were and quickly dismissed the whole set of arguments as pure non-sense. The speaker never mentioned that Delage was an outspoken atheist, like most people of the audience. Either he did not know, which is surprising since it is a well known fact, or simply skip it not to raise any doubts to his mostly atheist audience.
There was some odd statements that show very little understanding of what some researchers had done. In particular, the work of the Whangers showing similarities between the Shroud face image and the face of Jesus as depicted in the Byzantine churches. The speaker stated that the similarities were based on paintings done from memory of the believers and therefore that trying to find similarities was absurd since these paintings were done several century after Christ died. What he never mentioned is that the Shroud is believed to have been in the hands of the Byzantine emperors. This is based on many facts, among them the similarities found between the Shroud face image and the paintings produced in the Byzantine churches. It does not prove the authenticity of the Shroud. It supports that the history of the Shroud can be traced back to the Byzantine empire.
Most of the factual statements were given without any reference. For example, the speaker mentioned that there was some paintings in the medieval ages showing crucifixion of Jesus with nails in the wrists, therefore disproving the statement that the Shroud is unique on this matter. But no such paintings were shown or any reference given. Almost all of the medieval paintings, if not all, show the nails in the palms.
I heard many false facts. For example, that Harry Gove's laboratory participated in the 1988 radio-carbon dating. (He actually wrote an entire book on the subject and states very clearly that his laboratory was not selected to date the Shroud. He certainly participated in trying to get selected.). Another famous one: the laboratories that dated the Shroud were given unidentified samples one of which was from the Shroud. This one keep being repeated, but it is false. The paper published by the three laboratories clearly states that the Shroud samples were clearly identified to the laboratories before they were dated.
And again the speaker stated as truth this common urban legend: the amount of claimed true cross relics is so large that you could build a ship (even a complete armada!) with them. It is fun to state, but it has little ground into reality. This has been proved false a long time ago. (As far back as 1870 by Charles Rohault de Fleury in his book “Les instruments de la Passion”.)
One question that intrigued the audience: is the Shroud on permanent display? How can we see the real thing? This was the surprise of this presentation: why would they be interested? The speaker correctly answered that it was not on permanent display but that it is shown only on special occasions. (He did not mention that it is planned to be shown again in 2010. I do not think he knew as he could not answer how often it is shown.) That prompted the only question showing some form of a discussion: why is it not shown often, and permanently, to make more money? (The speaker had stated that it was shown only to make money.) The answer: the Shroud is considered to be too sacred to be shown so frequently. I guess money was no longer the issue.
That gives me an opportunity to mention a simple fact: there was never, to my knowledge, an entry fee to see the Shroud. As a matter of fact, in 1998, I saw it three times during the five days of its ostentation without paying any fee to reserve a place. You do have to be a bit patient though, since the line of visitors is very long. Yet, it is a reasonable wait. As best as I can remember, I waited something like twenty minutes since most visitors scheduled their visit by Internet, phone or mail, and were advised to come at a certain time and date.
As for the discussion after the presentation, it was very short, and not really a discussion. I asked two questions to the speaker to try to get into a discussion mode but without success. My first question: “did you see the Shroud in Turin”? The answer was, of course not. My second question: “you mentioned that the D'Arcis memorandum allude to a painter that would have painted the Shroud. Do we know anything about this painter?” He stated, correctly, that the memorandum does not state any name and that we have no idea who made the Shroud.
Honestly, I did not expect any deep analysis of the unique properties of the Shroud. For example, there was never any mention of how superficial the image is, how difficult it is to reproduce, etc. Anybody listening to such a presentation could not understand why the Shroud is so unique, and certainly the speaker was not there to promote such an objective. It is unfortunately a frequent way the Shroud is presented.
I invite the atheists to look at the basic facts of the Shroud with an open mind.
(Nov 1, 2008) I have now in my hands a book describing the "invisible reweaving technique" titled "The Frenway System of French Reweaving". It was "privately printed and published" in 1951 by the Fabricon Company, Chicago, Illinois. The introduction begins in a very favorable way to anyone looking for a new career . It reads:
Although an intense search has been going on during the last several years for job opportunities, a very satisfying occupation, FRENCH INVISIBLE REWEAVING, has been overlooked. In a sense, this is surprising because the occupation does not require great strength or unusual physical attractiveness, does not require expensive office space or elaborate equipment, and does not demand a special knack for dealing with people. All that is necessary is sufficient intelligence to understand simple instructions, normal eye-sight -- with or without glasses, and the patience to learn the art and to practice it to perfection.
It goes on in describing the reasons this technique is not so well known and practice:
Probably the reason this art of reweaving has gone relatively unnoticed is the great secrecy which has heretofore kept all but a few people in the world in ignorance of the techniques involved. These secrets have been closely guarded and handed down from generation to generation to a select few. The only exceptions were people who paid huge sums in order to receive knowledge of the art. Every novice reweaver had to spend years as an apprentice.
Some textile experts have stood by the statement that "invisible reweaving" does not really exist since any reweaving always leave some trace. Looking at some of the results shown in this book, it is not so certain considering the many pieces that have been cut in the area near the 1988 radio-carbon dating.
Yet, reading the description of the techniques in this book, it is not clear that the reweaving is invisible on the reverse side. The threads that are added are not joined to the threads of the cloth. They are tuck underneath so that their ends could appear on the reverse side.
Actually, perhaps even the trace of the reweaving is gone entirely with the radiocarbon sample that was cut.
I end this post by quoting one last paragraph of the introduction of "The Frenway System of French Reweaving":
There is considerable satisfaction in taking a beautiful cloth garment, table cover, or something else of woven material which has been ruined by accident, carelessness, or wear, and restoring it to its original attractiveness and durability. This is not mere sewing or mending. This is the art of reweaving -- replacing by hand the INDIVIDUAL threads that have been damaged, following the same weave as the machine or hand-weavers that produced the original cloth. The occupation never becomes monotonous because the art of textile-weaving has, through the ages, created an inestimable variety of patterns by means of variations in weaving patterns, colors, and thread sizes.
(October 13, 2008) The theory that the Shroud radiocarbon dating sample was part of an (invisible) reweaved patch is not without merit. There is one aspect of this theory that I have yet to convince myself: how invisible can it be done? Interestingly, Barrie Schwortz kindly published the front page of a book claiming just that: a technique to do invisible reweaving (The Frenway System). It would be much interesting if someone would web-publish a summary of the technique and if someone could do a demonstration of this technique on a piece of cloth that would be a clear proof that this is possible. Or I will order the book and try this out myself! Strangely, I have tried to find French web pages on this technique, and nothing came out. It appears that the French system is not available in French but mostly in English.
(Sept 27, 2008) In the Spring of 1902, a series of French letters was published in the French Revue Scientifique about the Shroud. The protagonists were Paul Vignon, Yves Delage, Charles Richet and Maurice Vernes. The exchange of letters were fueled by the recent 1898 Pia's photograph of the Shroud and the Vignon and Delage analysis of it. The late Dominique Autié made the letters available on the web via his blog. Unfortunately, M. Autié left this world in May 2008. But his beautiful exposition of these letters is still available. The letters are in French, but Google translate can help you out if you cannot read French. The letters are very instructive. In particular, the one by Yves Delage that summarizes the main raisons the Shroud appears authentic.
(Sept 13, 2008) I have written a short essay about some particular wounds in the back of the man of the Shroud. The idea to write it came up to me when Barrie Schwortz (see Barrie's web site) provided the close up photograph you will find in that essay. It shows that for such particular wounds, it is very hard to imagine a forger at work.
(August 21, 2008) The Ohio Shroud conference ended on August 17, 2008. Unfortunately, I could not attend the conference. On the other hand, soon, I hope to report and comment some of the papers that were presented. In particular, the paper by Sue Benford and Joe Marino regarding a possible reweaving of the Shroud where the C-14 radiocarbon dating sample was taken in 1987. Meanwhile, the reader can access audio presentations of the papers at Shrouduniversity.com.
(Feb 29, 2008) A very high definition photograph of the Shroud has recently been done. It is reported to be over 12 billion pixels, which is probably over 50GB in size. It was done by taking almost 1,300 individual photographs over the entire Shroud. I think this is very good news! The company HAL9000 has done the technical work. I have always been a promoter of such a photograph and I am happy to see that it was finally done. Let see how this photograph, or photographs, will be made available to Shroud researchers. A lot of new and interesting results will come out by analyzing these photographs. More details can be seen at Shroud of Turin Gets High-Def Scrutiny.
(Feb 25, 2008) It is being reported in the press that Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, one of the three laboratories that radiocarbon dated the Shroud in 1988, is reconsidering the results of the 1988 dating based on new hypothesis. A documentary by David Rolfe to be shown during Easter will cover this story. Christopher Ramsey, though, does not think the new hypothesis will substantially change the 1988 radiocarbon dating.
I came across the following 58 minutes Shroud video (in French) available on the web. It was produced in 1978 by Raymond Beaugrand-Champagne. Even if you do not understand French, it contains many interesting interviews, among them Ian Wilson, Baïma-Bollone, Hary Gove in his lab discussing carbon-14 dating, Walter McCrone, Max Frei, John Jackson, etc. There is in particular two segments of an interview with the late cardinal Ballestrero. He mentions, in Italian, that many experts have pointed out to him that the Carbon-14 dating would be unreliable for the Shroud. This is stated well before the Shroud carbon dating of 1988. I invite you to listen to it. It is very instructive. (I believe you can order a DVD version from Raymond Beaugrand-Champagne for 15$CND.)
Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, the textile expert and supervisor of the 2002 major restoration of the Shroud, recently wrote an informative article related to the C14 radiocarbon dating. The article argues against the reweaving hypothesis proposed by Sue Benford and Joseph Marino, but I think that its most important aspect is her definitive statement that the radiocarbon dating of 1988 is very doubtful given the amount of greasy material readily visible at the sample area . The article can be found on Barrie Schwortz's Web site: The Invisible Mending of the Shroud, the Theory and the Reality, by Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, 2007. I think the major positive point of this article is very informative and very often forgotten or never mentioned: the location of the linen sample for the 1988 C14 radiocarbon dating is heavily contaminated, and this can be readily seen with the naked eye. Flury-Lemberg reports that the location shows thread stuck together. I quote from her article:
"The presence of the greasy dirt deposit at the removal site alone would be sufficient to demonstrate the uselessness of the carbon-14 method, ..." (The emphases are from the article.)
I am sure that Flury-Lemberg did not mean that the C14 radiocarbon method is useless, but rather that for the sample location chosen in 1988 on the Shroud, the method becomes useless. This has been debated for many years, and it comes back again and again: a much better sampling should have been done. I always thought that this was the primary reason to doubt the 1988 radiocarbon dating. When I saw the Shroud in 1998 in the Turin cathedral, from a distance of around two meters, the coloration of the corners were brownish, indeed looking greasy and dirty. If only the Turin authorities in charge of the Shroud would release high resolution digital pictures of the area where the sample was taken, this would dissipate many misunderstandings. And definitely, a second radiocarbon dating is needed to correct the lack of proper sampling in the first dating.
(May 2007) A Souvenir from the Cluny Museum in Paris.
To address comments and questions on the content of this Web site, please use the Contact menu item.
