Best of Shroud Story

posts worth seeing again

  • Recent Posts

  • Is the Shroud real? Probably.

    The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

    No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

    We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

Mark Andersen Disputed Walter McCrone. Substantiated?

Posted by Dan on 2014

Shroud of Turin Blog

rogersbookIt is widely reported that Mark Andersen, who worked for Walter McCrone, examined the fibers using laser microprobe Raman spectrometry and found that what McCrone thought was (inorganic) paint was in fact an organic substance. But there does seem to be a lack of substantive citations that accompany this reporting. This has led a reader, Andres, to ask, “where can i find Mark Anderson report???”

There was no “report,” as far as I know. Ray Rogers is often quoted from a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer, published in Volume 29.3, May / June 2005; there is no reason to distrust this. This offers us an admittedly inadequate explanation for why there may be no report. The letter reads, in part:

So, Joe, should I suppress the information, as Walter McCrone did the results from Mark Anderson, his own MOLE expert?

In his book, “A Chemist’s Perspective…

View original post 346 more words


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: