Second Face on the Shroud of Turin

Institute of Physics ^ | April 13, 2004 | Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo

[shroudie]

The most definitive evidence yet that the Shroud of Turin is not a medieval fake-relic. This is big stuff, published on a highly respected scientific organizations website, the Institute of Physics, a 37,000 member organization of physicists. Their journal is an ethical journal of peer-reviewed scientific studies.

The Washington Times, BBC, the Observer, the Telegraph of London, ABC Australia, the Chicago Sun-Times and several outlets have picked up the story in the last few hours. In my opinion it reinforces the already clear proof that the carbon 14 testing in 1988 was completely erroneous. It clearly eliminates the polemics of medieval paintings, da Vinci conspiracies, proto-photography and other silly concocted theories being bantered about by those skeptical of Christianity.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, it can almost certainly be inferred that it is Jesus. If that is so, it buries the extra-liberal revisionism of John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who argue that Jesus was not buried.

If it is a genuine burial shroud of a 1st century victim of crucifixion, how is it that this piece of cloth survived the grave and was not ravaged by decomposition products?

The story at the link is quite technical. I suggest alternatively reading the stories in any of the various newspapers or for a clear concise explanation read first Chemistry of the Image and then Explanation of the Backside Image.

From the extract: "Photographs of the back surface of the Turin Shroud were analysed to verify the existence of a double body image of a man. The body image is very faint and the background not uniform; i.e., the signal-to-noise ratio is lower than one. Therefore, image processing . . . was necessary to highlight body features. This was based on convolution with Gaussian filters, summation of images, and filtering in spatial frequency by direct and inverse bidimensional Fourier transformations.

[orionblamblam]

> No one goes to a magician to determine if a Rembrandt or a Rodin work of art is a "fraud."

Agreed. But then, neither do they go to physicists, generally. A physicist might well be able to tell you that the wood or canvas is however many centuries old, and the paint is composed of X, just like Back Then; but he's likely to eb ill-equipped to tell you if it's a fraud. The best fraud detectors are those who are practised at it.

> produced ludicrous copies that only met one if any of the list of criteria established to successfully demonstrate duplication.

Amazing what traces the passage of centuries will erase.

> Magicians work by misdirection and engineering... not too useful when examining a static artifact.

Huh. I'm sure Harry Houdini might have some things to say about that.

[Swordmaker]

But then, neither do they go to physicists, generally. A physicist might well be able to tell you that the wood or canvas is however many centuries old, and the paint is composed of X

Actually, they do. The physicist and the Chemists can tell a lot about the painting's provenance.

Huh. I'm sure Harry Houdini might have some things to say about that.

Are you channeling now, Orion? Erich Weiss (aka Harry Houdini) has been dead since Halloween, 1926. I doubt he can say much of anything. If you are referring to his exposure of frauds, he only exposed the "performance frauds" of the mystics and seers who claimed they could speak with the dead or allow others to do so.

Amazing what traces the passage of centuries will erase.

You have great faith. Please show me any other work of art in which ALL pigments, stains, or other image producing media have completely disappeared, leaaving no detectable trace, over any length of time.

[orionblamblam]

> f you are referring to his exposure of
frauds, he only exposed the "performance frauds"

Well, except for all those pesky "ghost photos" and "fairy photos..."

> Please show me any other work of art in which ALL pigments, stains,
or other image producing media have completely disappeared, leaaving no detectable trace,
over any length of time.

Gosh, you're right. The shroud ahs faded so far it's invisible.

[Swordmaker]

Well, except for all those pesky "ghost photos" and "fairy photos..."

Right... and show me where ANY scientist has researched those photos and found them to be inexplicable? Show me even the professional PHOTOGRAPHERS who have accepted them as genuine. Gosh, you're right. The shroud ahs faded so far it's invisible.

Gosh, surprise, surprise, surprise. Another non-responsive reply from Orionblamblam.

[orionblamblam]

> how me where ANY scientist has researched those photos and found them to be inexplicable

Back in Houdini's day, many scientists found the spirit/fairy photos to be inexplicable as anything other than actual evidence of the supernatural. But they were wrong.

Mnay scientists throughout history have found things they felt sure were proof of the supernatural, from spirit photos to UFO photos to, well, you name it. But invariably they have been found to be in error. So, just because one object has been given *minimal* study (and even in that study found to exhibit evidence of fraud... but of course, we are to discount that evidence, because it contradicts the desired outcome), doesn;t mean that *this* object will be the one to prove miracles exist.

[flevit]

http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf

have you seen this paper discussion the two conflicting views... paint vs. blood? most likely you had, but I found it thorough

[Swordmaker]

have you seen this paper discussion the two conflicting views... paint vs. blood? most likely you had, but I found it thorough

Both Shroudie and I have read almost everything on the Shroud (he more than I)... including historian Ford's article on the blood research. You are right. It is thorough... and pretty definitive. It is, however, a scientific paper and while it does document the actual science, the better material is the actual source papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Ford's report is a good recap for the layman.

What we cannot understand is why some people would prefer to read and believe the non-scientific opinions of a second rate magician to scientists' research in their own fields of specialty.