Enjoy;
Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental–Shroud-Wars-Round-4–Joe-Marino-vs–Hugh-Farey-e3s6q1 .
Continuing on in our Shroud Wars Debate series, we come to Round 4 whereby, once again, Shroud skeptic Hugh Farey will have to battle it out against a Pro-Shroud expert, this time around we are joined by Joe Marino to discuss 3 major topic areas.
The topics include;
i) Discussion of the dating evidence for the Shroud (includes Joe Marino’s notion of the invisible re-weave hypothesis to explain the 1988 C-14 dating & both the textile evidence and Pontius Pilate coins which are purported to put the Shroud firmly in the 1st century A.D.).
ii) Discussion of the evidence showing the Shroud is or is not an artistic image from the medieval era.
iii) The anatomical, forensic and medical evidence proving (and/or disproving) that the Shroud’s image formation involved an actual human corpse.
Buckle up for another wild ride in the 4th installment of the Shroud Wars quadrilogy!
Recommended Sources (for further study):
Joe Marino Sources (Pro-Shroud Side);
a) His main website = http://newvistas.homestead.com/ .
b)) C-14 Invisible re-weave article = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf .
c) Joe recommends these articles specifically on this issue = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf (with subsequent Addendum article here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/addendum.pdf ) &
d) This is the 3 part article on the politics of the 1988 C-14 dating = http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html
OR (PART 1) = http://newvistas.homestead.com/POLITICSOFTHERADIOCARBONDATINGOFTURINSHROUDPT1.pdf ,
(PART 2) = http://newvistas.homestead.com/POLITICSOFTHERADIOCARBONDATINGOFTURINSHROUDPT2.pdf
& FINALLY (PART 3) = http://newvistas.homestead.com/POLITICSOFTHERADIOCARBONDATINGOFTURINSHROUDPT3.pdf .
There is a corresponding video presentation on the Politics of the 1988 C-14 dating here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al6F8jskkXM and/or the PowerPoint presentation here = https://www.academia.edu/35676841/PoliticsoftheShroudC-14DatingS25 .
e) Written Q&A with Joe Marino = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Marino-refl.pdf .
f) https://shroudstory.com/tag/joe-marino/
g) Audio Interview = XZRS Podcast = https://www.spreaker.com/user/xzoneradiotv/xzrs20180202epaemjoseph-marino or YouTube here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-acjC8KXo . Also, on YouTube = Let’s Talk Radio = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoTg866Wgv8 .
h) Joe’s Paper on invisible re-weave/mending presented at the conference = http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p11.pdf (16 pages). At the Ohio Shroud Conference. He also presented another paper on the C-14 at the conference here = http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf . See all the papers from that 2008 conference here = http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers.htm .
Also see some of Joe’s presentations on other topics at other Shroud conferences in 2014 here = https://www.shroud.com/stlouis.htm and in 2017 here = http://www.shroudresearch.net/conference-2017.html entitled “Politics of the Shroud C-14 Dating” by Joe Marino (60 minutes) and “Invisible Reweave on the Shroud: Evidence For” by Joe Marino (30 minutes).
i) A counter source on the Invisible Re-Weave by former guest and fellow Pro-Shroud advocate Bob Rucker = https://www.academia.edu/35673357/InvisibleReweaveN27 .
j) Joe Marino’s book on the Shroud = Wrapped Up in the Shroud, Chronicle of a Passion = https://www.amazon.ca/Wrapped-Up-Shroud-Chronicle-Passion/dp/097894996X .
Hugh Farey (skeptic side) Sources:
a) Hugh has provided us with the links to his two academic papers on the Shroud entitled “The Medieval Shroud”, see Part 1 (Feb 2018) = https://www.academia.edu/35960624/THEMEDIEVALSHROUD & also Part 2 (Feb 2019) = https://www.academia.edu/38192476/THEMEDIEVALSHROUD_2 .
b) Hugh is the editor at the British Society for the Turin Shroud Newsletter which can be found on the new website here = https://www.bstsnewsletter.com/ and/or archives of the BSTS Newsletters can be found here = https://www.shroud.com/bstsmain.htm .
c) Unbelievable? Debate on the Shroud with Hugh Farey vs. Pro-Shroud expert Dr. Alan Whanger = https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-the-Turin-Shroud-the-burial-cloth-of-Christ-Alan-Whanger-vs-Hugh-Farey .
d) A couple short videos on the Shroud by Hugh Farey = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFKkixeQCGs & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrhuQHJPruE .
e) Hugh also mentioned in the show that people should check out Vern Miller’s newly available photos of the Shroud here = https://www.shroudphotos.com/ .
f) Hugh also mentioned an article he wrote in the latest BSTS Newsletter on the Pontius Pilate coins, see here = Hugh Farey- Pontius Pilate Leptons Article
f) Hugh also recommended the following book on the Shroud entitled “Shroud of Turin: Uncovering the Paradox within the Archives Holy Shroud Guild” by Giorgio D. Bracaglia = https://www.ebay.com/itm/Shroud-of-Turin-Uncovering-the-Paradox-within-the-Archives-Holy-Shroud-Guild/372565978121?hash=item56bea9ac09:g:1f0AAOSw5tNcOl~i:rk:1:pf:1&frcectupt=true .
Skeptics and Seekers 
Here was the initial comment that Joe sent me about his opinions on the Shroud shows on here. He gave me permission to share it previously and so just wanted to share that info in the comments.
Joe said;
“Hi Dale,
My name is Joe Marino. I am a good friend of Barrie Schwortz. My late wife and I were the ones who came up with the invisible reweave theory that Ray Rogers first discounted but then later confirmed. I’ve been listening to your various podcasts. I’m currently on the one where you and Allen are discussing the C-14 dating. I haven’t finished that section yet but I thought I would alert you (if you aren’t aware of them) to 3 articles I’ve been involved in that speak to the C-14 question and which are accessible via Barrie’s site. The 1st two are from 2008 and were co-authored with retired (and agnostic) NASA scientist Ed Prior. They were called: “Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Area of the Shroud of Turin” and ” “ADDENDUM to Chronological History of the Evidence for the Anomalous Nature of the C-14 Sample Areaof the Shroud of Turin.” The link for the 1st article (which has embedded link for the Addendum” is https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/chronology.pdf. The 3rd article (with 3 parts) is from 2016 and is titled “THE POLITICS OFTHE RADIOCARBON DATING OF THE TURIN SHROUD”; the link is http://newvistas.homestead.com/C-14PoliticsPt1.html. It’s a ton of material between the 3 articles but you should find a lot of useful material.
Best wishes,
Joe Marino”
LikeLike
Hi Hugh, I was a bit bemused by your assertion that you couldn’t get a modern day InVisible Mender to repair your hankie! I had a different experience. In the 1970’s-1980’s, I lived in Back Bay Boston right next to Sax Fifth Avenue where I had frequent occasions to purchase some very expensive garments. I had a keen liking for St. John knits tips and skits made of wool. Apparently, the moths in the Back Bay also took a keen liking to them. I cried when I returned my outfit to Sax, and felt sure the garments couldn’t be repaired. I was so very pleasantly surprised when they told me they had a method of repair they specifically called a “French Reweave” and that I would never know that there were holes (looking like a lawn mower had taken a ride over the garments). After 3 months my garments were return to me by Sax. They showed me, to my great surprise, that both inside and out, there was no indication that my St. John knits had been repaired. Needless to say I was thrilled and thought then it was an exclusive service provided only by Sax until some 20 years later I learned of the Medieval French Reweaving method performed on the Shroud through the research of husband and wife Sindonologists—Sue Benford and Joe Marino.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Interesting, thanks for your take there Club, I know Hugh often interacts with or reads the comments so hopefully he will see this 🙂
LikeLike
I hate to sound dubious, but I’m fairly sure Saks Fifth Avenue get their invisible mending done by Withoutatrace, who have also carried out an astonishingly good repair for me. However, it is not invisible under close examination, nor does Michael Erlich, the proprietor, say it is. I’m sorry to doubt club’s 40 year old memory, but I’m afraid I think his mend was of this kind.
I have to say that to take on the challenge to prove that something invisible doesn’t exist is existentially a fairly fruitless task, and sufficiently expensive for me to feel that I have given this idea a fair run for its money. There is no such thing as invisible mending, and there never was. There are no examples of invisible mending, and no manuals or instruction books to suggest that it ever existed. The famous pamphlet, “The Frenway System of French Reweaving”, which several Shroud experts claim to possess but obviously haven’t read, clearly shows exactly how to carry out the procedure, and it’s not invisible. There are no other kinds of invisible mending. All the authenticist has to do is to do some or find some, but, nobody ever has.
On a more general point, I’m afraid I find that authenticists in general are extremely reluctant to challenge any alleged evidence, however remote or unattested, which they hope supports their case, whereas I, like any proper scientist, have gone to huge lengths to disprove my own. In this endeavour, all I have managed to do is to strengthen the medieval hypothesis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just following up on a mention of the second sentence of Galatians 3:1, often translated as: “before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (KJV) or or “before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified? (RSV) or “It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly exhibited as crucified!” (New RSV), the implication being that an image of Christ had been seen by the Galatians.
The Greek word from which “set forth”, “portrayed” or “exhibited” is ‘προεγράφη’, made of ”προε-‘ (‘before’ or ‘previously’) and ‘γράφη’. This last can in different circumstances be translated either ‘written’ or ‘drawn’, which has lent support to the hypothesis.
However, in the Bible the word only refers to writing, including in two of St Paul’s other letters. No wonder it was translated into Latin (the Vulgate) as ‘praescriptum’, which can only refer to writing. The idea that it could refer to a picture is, I think, from long before the discovery of the Shroud, and refers to discussion among the early church fathers regarding iconoclasm. In my opinion such a defence is rather far-fetched. Both the Vulgate, and to a certain extent the KJV got it right. The crucifixion had been clearly explained in writing for the Galatians, not illustrated by a painting, or by the Shroud.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Hugh,
I will admit I found the Galatians reference intriguing when I first heard it, but I was kind of skeptical that it actually referred to the Shroud. I suppose its possible that it does but I’m doubtful about it myself. Again though, I haven’t looked to deeply at this argument myself and so maybe if Joe sees this and responds that would be great 🙂
LikeLike
Hugh’s analysis is very reasonable. The translation with “publicly portrayed” was just an intriguing possibility at best. One certainly has to go back to the original Greek, which Hugh has done. His interpretation is, in fact, in line with some other English translations of the verse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for commenting on that Joe and welcome to the S&S Boards 🙂 Feel free to make any comments based on any followups you might have had for the audience.
Believe it or not, despite the lack of comments, many people continue to listen to the Shroud Wars debates and click on the sources, so people are checking out what you and Hugh have to say here 🙂
LikeLike
Hey everyone,
I received this feedback from another Shroud expert that I’ve referenced during the show. He has reached out saying he might be interested in coming on to do an interview about the Shroud’s bloodstains which he specializes in. We haven’t covered too much about the blood specifically, so I will see what can be arranged 🙂
Here is what Kelly said;
“Hi, I’ve listened to several of your podcasts on the Shroud of Turin and enjoyed the episodes. I am neither an authenticist or a skeptic, but believe I could contribute a unique viewpoint to questions related to the bloodstains on the Shroud.
I consider myself a Christian who happens to be a scientist and a scientist who happens to be a Christian. My own personal belief concerning the authenticity of the Shroud is I simply do not know. I have authored mutiple papers on the Shroud bloodstains (list on shroud.com), and most recently here:
https://www.academia.edu/39251164/The_Blood_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_Species_Unknown
Also, https://www.academia.edu/39142967/The_Shroud_of_Turin_the_Relics_of_Jesus_and_Eucharistic_Miracles_The_Significance_of_Type_AB_blood Biographical info is listed at the end of first article (Shroud Blood Species).
Please contact me if interested.
Best Regards,
Kelly P. Kearse
LikeLike