Supplemental 10- Part 7 Evidence for Christianity Based on the Shroud of Turin

Enjoy the Podcast:

Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental-10–Part-7-Evidence-for-Christianity-Based-on-the-Shroud-of-Turin-e2bgo2 .

PART 7- PODCAST INTRO SUMMARY (THE TRADITIONAL PAINTING HYPOTHESIS #1):
In Part 7 we will take a look at the very first Shroud skeptical image-forming mechanism; the “Painting Hypothesis” as advocated for by Dr. Walter McCrone. We first take a quick detour to survey the alleged “historical evidence” from the Memorandum of Pierre D’Arcis (1389 A.D.). Then turning back to our main argument, we assess the Painting hypothesis in the light of the various Shroud “Minimal Relevant Features” or (“MRF’s”) and find this mechanism severely lacking in this regard; to the point that it can be said to be scientifically falsified and/or even impossible for it to be true.
We cover all of the “MRF’s”, leaving the most controversial feature (Additional Feature #3- Shroud Images are Not Composed of Paint) and the Cumulative Case Conclusion for our next Podcast episode in Part 8.

Recommended Sources (for further study):

1. 1389 MEMORANDUM OF PIERRE D’ARCIS SOURCES: Here is a link to the actual English translation of the Memo itself = https://www.priory-of-sion.com/biblios/links/memorandum.html .
i) Skeptical Side: Shroud skeptic Joe Nickell presented this evidence along with several supporting lines of evidence to buttress his argument that the Shroud is an artistic medieval fake, see first 20 mins or so here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9FWjU3zHiQ .

ii) Pro-Shroud Side; For the counter-response by actual qualified historians (includes the various surrounding documents overlooked in my Podcast audio), see the article entitled “Deconstructing the “Debunking” of the Shroud” (this is a reply to the Shroud skeptical article above by Gary Vikan, so you can see the other articles as well) here = https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article . Also, see an 11 page article on the Lirey Controversy (Memo) and background information here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part5.pdf .

iii) General Info based on Timeline Data (for surrounding circumstances around the Memo); Finally, here is a timeline/chronological source giving the surrounding background knowledge related to this 14th century controversy, see here = https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2018/07/chronology-of-turin-shroud-fourteenth.html .

2. DR. WALTER MCCRONE (PRO-PAINT) SOURCES: In the first place, anyone interested in doing an in-depth analysis of the Shroud, I highly recommend one buys Walter McCrone’s book, “Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin” (includes detailed background or behind the scenes info from his own perspective at least but also various letters between him, the Catholic Church and other STURP members as well) = https://www.amazon.ca/Judgment-Shroud-Turin-Walter-Mccrone/dp/1573926795 and/or https://www.amazon.com/Judgement-Turin-Shroud-Walter-McCrone/dp/0904962156/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537279191&sr=8-1&keywords=judgement+day+of+the+shroud .

i) Free Online Sources); For those not inclined to buy the the book; here are my usual freely available online sources- McCrone’s main website = http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/ – if you click on the Research tab at the top you can find articles or details related to both the Shroud of Turin and the Vineland Map (http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/McCrone-The-Shroud-of-Turin & http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/66/McCrone-The-Vinland-Map respectively). Finally, here is an 8 page article by McCrone on how he arrived at his painting conclusion here = https://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads/the_microscope__shroud_small-1422560933.pdf .

3. CONTRA-MCCRONE (CONTRA-PAINTING) SOURCES:
i) Main Sources: The number one and most comprehensive source detailing the specifics of all the known tests (pro and con) to date on the question of the image composition (including much of the technical evidence and scientific data that will be presented in the Part 8 Podcast) is by Shroud expert Thibault Heimburger here = http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf (36-page article with detailed explanations of both sides and all the tests to date along with pictures for helpful illustrations as to what is being talked about). Another, less helpful (no pictures), yet comprehensive case of whether the Shroud was painted or blood is by David Ford here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf (19-32 page article). Here is a short 10 page article by Alan Adler on the nature of the Body Images = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf . Now also, while I can’t post the articles or link to them now; remember Barrie Schwortz told me that you can probably get access after Oct 8th, 2018 to about 20 of the actual peer-reviewed scientific journal articles published by STURP scientists Drs. Heller and Adler that I reference in the Podcast and to which the other Pro-Shroud proponents use as their scientific foundation in their conclusions, check back here to see if they become available after Oct here = http://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm – (look for . Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, “Blood on the Shroud of Turin,” Applied Optics, Vol. 19, No. 16, 1980, pp. 2742-2744. & 7. Heller, J.H. and A.D. Adler, “A Chemical Investigation of the Shroud of Turin,” Canadian Society of Forensic Sciences Journal, Vol. 14, No. 3, 1981, pp. 81-103).

ii) Artist Painted Bloodstains with Real Blood Option: There is also an article detailing several scientific experiments and the results conducted by Arthur Lind and Mark Antonacci that I mentioned in relation to the notion of a medieval artist possibly painting the bloodstains using real human and/or animal blood as opposed to using paints/pigments as McCrone said- see Part II: Experimental Research section, p.15-26 for the experimental results relevant to traditional painting methods which assume blood was used to paint the Shroud’s bloodstain images vs. McCrone’s suggestion of red ochre and/or red vermillion pigments, here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stllindpaper.pdf .

iii) Vineland Map Authenticity: This is just a quick source on the Vineland Map controversy whereby McCrone seems to have been overturned, not the main focus of our study on the Shroud so nothing too detailed, but in case interested you can see here = http://www.shroud.com/bsts4307.htm . But also see some of the back and forth on this as some see it as a fake again = https://shroudstory.com/2013/09/08/so-is-the-vinland-map-fake-after-all/ . Regardless of the staus of the map at the moment, the ongoing debate should tell you that McCrone’s findings were far from conclusive and this should lead one to have reservations about mindlessly believing his emphatic pronouncements as being automatically true at the very least.

4. YOUTUBE SOURCES (PRO & CONTRA PAINT):
i) Pro-Paint Video by Walter McCrone; This is a 1-hour presentation by McCrone back in 1986 where he presents his scientific findings which he claims “proves” the use of pigments in creating the Shroud’s Body and Bloodstain images, see here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7cd-4LaBUk .

ii) Contra-Paint Videos; This first video is from STURP member and blood expert Dr. Alan Adler at the same 1986 symposium that McCrone (and Joe Nickell) presented their scientific findings. Adler does the same in his approx. 2-hour presentation here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ZEkEjA4Uw .

Also, here are a couple videos from Art Historian Isabel Piczek explaining why the Shroud cannot be a traditional painting, see 30 min video here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhaWFFlTpfc & here is again a 30 min presentation with her talking about the ridiculous notion of some ignorant Shroud skeptics who think the Shroud was created artistically by Leonardo Davinci (and also more info on why any artist could not have created the Shroud images) here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwFDoF4NgsM .

5. BONUS SOURCES:
i) No Potassium in the Bloodstains: Here is a more recent article by pro-Shroud proponents detailing some of the evidence from the bloodstains, proving its real blood but also address the issue of there being no Potassium detectable and how that is explained, see 1—page article here = https://shroudofturin.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/bbk-7.pdf .

ii) Art Institute of Chicago on Paint Layering: Here is a brief description of how typically paintings will show evidence of various layers or layering unlike the Shroud of Turin images = http://www.artic.edu/collections/conservation/revealing-picasso-conservation-project/examination-techniques/layering . Again, the quote is not directly relevant but you can glean that its unlikely that a medieval painting would not show any evidence of layering.