Shroud of Turin’s Bloodstains Special: An Interview with Shroud Scientist Dr. Kelly Kearse

image0022b252842529

 

Enjoy the Podcast:

Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/skeptics-and-seekers/episodes/Supplemental–Interview-Assessing-the-Shrouds-Bloodstains-with-Shroud-Agnostic-Dr–Kelly-Kearse-e49a4f .

Note that due to a technical glitch around the 1 hour 20 min mark or thereabouts- 40 seconds of audio was lost- my apologies to Kelly and the audience for that.

In this special interview, Shroud expert and scientist Kelly Kearse has reached out to me to say that he’d like to provide a unique perspective on the Shroud’s bloodstain images specifically. He has authored multiple academic papers on the Shroud’s blood images (some of which are included in the sources section below).  Kelly is also a member of STERA, Inc.’s Board of Directors.
In his own words, here is what Kelly tells us what to look forward to in today’s interview; “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”.
What conclusions can we glean from the Shroud’s bloodstains; is it real blood? What are their features and properties? What significance do they have in terms of natural image formation mechanisms and its possible link to the historical Jesus? All this and more is answered by this honoured guest 😊

Note for Kelly’s own bio see immediately below:
Biographical Information

Kelly P. Kearse holds a BS and MS in Biology and a Ph.D. in Immunology. Following completion of postdoctoral fellowships at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Biochemistry and the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health in Immunology, he became a Principal Investigator in the Experimental Immunology Branch at the National Institutes of Health. After several years, he transferred to the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at East Carolina University School of Medicine to have the opportunity to do both research and teaching. He has authored over forty peer-reviewed research articles in the fields of cell biology and immunology in such journals as the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences, the Journal of Biological Chemistry, and the Journal of Experimental Medicine; and was the Editor in Chief of T Cell Protocols, Development and Activation. In 2000, he semi-retired from laboratory research to relocate to his original hometown and teach high school science, something that he had always wanted to do. He has been a science instructor at Knoxville Catholic High School, in Knoxville, TN for the past twenty years

Recommended Sources (for further study):

First here is the attached list of interview questions = KELLY KEARSE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

 

a) Kelly Kearse has provided a full list of his own recommended academic articles and sources;
https://www.academia.edu/39251164/The_Blood_on_the_Shroud_of_Turin_Species_Unknown

https://www.academia.edu/39142967/The_Shroud_of_Turin_the_Relics_of_Jesus_and_Eucharistic_Miracles_The_Significance_of_Type_AB_blood

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14746700.2013.750962

https://shroudstory.com/tag/kelly-kearse/

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse4.pdf

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse.pdf

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse3.pdf

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse1.pdf

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse2.pdf

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/kearse5.pdf

b) Kelly Kearse presented a paper and presentation on the Blood at the 2014 St. Louis Conference:

See the paper here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlkearsepaper.pdf . The PowerPoint presentation (118 slides) = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stlkearseppt.pdf . Also, a short 30 min YouTube video of the presentation can be seen here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21_h30_W_1E .

c) Other Sources Referenced:

Here is the 38 page paper by pro-Shroud proponents Mark Antonacci and Arthur Lind, it details their supernatural hypothesis to explain the formation or rather transference of the Shroud’s bloodstain images from Jesus’ body to the Shroud during the Resurrection and details a series of scientific experimental research in Part 2 (starts on p.15 of the article) they did to test and falsify the natural theories of panting the Shroud bloodstains with blood and also the Direct Contact hypothesis where its transferred via direct contact between a bloodied body and the cloth. See here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/stllindpaper.pdf .

Also see the skeptical Blood Pattern Analysis (BPA) experimental research that was done in 2018 and supposedly “proved” the Shroud’s bloodstains are an artistic fake here = https://www.rsi.ch/news/vita-quotidiana/eta-beta/Larticolo-apparso-sul-JFS-concessione-di-Matteo-Borrini-10693997.html/BINARY/L’articolo%20apparso%20sul%20JFS%20(concessione%20di%20Matteo%20Borrini)

Counter (Pro-Shroud) sources responding to the flawed approach of the new BPA results = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/CIS%20reply.pdf (4 pages), Mark Antonacci’s counter article (5 pages) here = https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/97f3f2_ec89de32d712410e9b6441838eaa66da.pdf and/or,

2 short 10 min YouTube videos on it here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcA621zyka0 (Part 1 video) and Part 2 here = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w23xM2thXHc .

Former Pro-Shroud expert and guest Bob Rucker has written a counter to the BPA experiments here = http://www.shroudresearch.net/hproxy.php/Evaluation-of-A-BPA-Approach-to-the-Shroud-of-Turin–Rev-0.pdf?lbisphpreq=1 (25 pages).  Or if the link doesn’t work see attachment here = ROB RUCKER- Evaluation-of-A-BPA-Approach-to-the-Shroud-of-Turin–Rev-0- BLOOD FAKE BY LGUIGI GARLASCHELLI

The scientific peer-reviewed papers by Drs. Heller and Adler proving there is real blood on the Shroud here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Blood%20On%20The%20Shroud%20Heller%20Adler%201980%20OCR.pdf and https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Chemical%20Investigation%20%20Heller%20Adler%201981%20OCR.pdf .

Vern Millers 1978 (STURP) website with photos of the Shroud that Kelly mentioned during the show here = https://www.shroudphotos.com/ .

Finally, Kelly talked about John Jackson’s article about some of the bloodstains being comparable to body images rather than actual bloodstains, called “Blood and Possible Images of Blood on the Shroud, see here = JOHN JACKSON- Blood & Possible Images of Blood on Shroud Jackson 1987 OCR.

46 thoughts on “Shroud of Turin’s Bloodstains Special: An Interview with Shroud Scientist Dr. Kelly Kearse

  1. Just wanted to post a comment I retrieved from one of our thoughtful Shroud skeptics about Kelly Kearse and what he made of the show;

    Here is what Jim said about the show;

    “Thank you for the posting.

    One doesn’t have to get down to the molecular level of N-acetyl-galactosylamino-transferases (leading to blood group A) vs
    galactosylamino-transferases (leading to blood group B), 🙂 🙂 :), to appreciate Kearse’s unbiased approach to the blood stain studies. Dr. Kearse offers an unbiased view wrt how far you can go with the available evidence without going the extra step that includes a wish for something to be true.

    For me, the interest in the Shroud topic has primarily been on how to draw the line between what can be said with confidence and presupposition-based assessment (in this, or any other artifact from antiquity). I don’t discourage the latter, but imo, it’s good to recognize/acknowledge when the line is crossed. In this regard, Kearse provides a dose of reality, so ty again for posting the interview.”

    Like

  2. I noticed that some on here have tried to click onto Bob Rucker’s 25 page article on the BPA study but the link is now defunct, I have added in the direct attachment so you can get it that way.

    If any of you notice that one of my links isn’t working just let me know and I can fix up the link or put in the diret attachment instead.

    Thanks everyone and sorry for the inconvenience there, it seems to happen that Bob Rucker’s links don’t work at times I find and thus you got to go to his website and go to the research tab and/or directly attach his articles.

    Dale

    Like

  3. Hi, everybody,

    The purpose of the discussion that I am starting here is to delve into the evidence and arguments pertaining to the following question:

    Is the Shroud of Turin the authentic burial cloth of a resurrected Jesus?

    The standard of proof that I will be operating under is not to prove this question to a 100% certainty. Instead, I will be operating under the standard of proof that our society has chosen to use in criminal trials to deprive defendants of life or liberty: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

    In order to put some reasonable parameters on the discussion about the Shroud of Turin, I think that it is reasonable that we need stipulate to there being only three possibilities as to what the Shroud of Turin is. Those possibilities are: (1) the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, (2) the authentic burial cloth of an unknown person or (3) that the Shroud was made by the human hands of a forger/artist to look like Jesus’ burial cloth.

    I think that these parameters are fair, since the vast majority of Shroud skeptics take the position that it was a faked relic created by a forger/artist.

    I think that the natural place to start is tackling the question of whether the Shroud is fake or not.

    Since this discussion is taking place on the comments page for the episode interviewing Dr. Kelly Kearse, I think we should start with the following, possibly two-part, question:

    Are the “blood stains” on the Shroud made of real blood or not? If they are made of real blood, is it human blood?

    (Since it’s well past midnight where I am right now, I’m going to need to continue on with this tomorrow.)

    Like

    1. In order to put some reasonable parameters on the discussion about the Shroud of Turin, I think that it is reasonable that we need stipulate to there being only three possibilities as to what the Shroud of Turin is. Those possibilities are: (1) the authentic burial cloth of Jesus, (2) the authentic burial cloth of an unknown person or (3) that the Shroud was made by the human hands of a forger/artist to look like Jesus’ burial cloth.

      How did you determine that #1 was a reasonable possibility?

      Like

      1. Hi, Darren,
        If you take another look at what I wrote regarding the stipulation, I did not claim that #1 was, in and of itself, a “reasonable” possibility. I said that I thought that it is reasonable to limit the discussions/arguments (via a stipulation) to the three possibilities that I set forth.

        I have never heard or read about there being a serious Shroud skeptic (much less an armchair one) who claimed that the Shroud was anything other than a fake or some unknown person’s authentic burial cloth. The vast majority of Shroud skeptics favor the position that the Shroud is a fake created by a medieval forger.

        So, if you (or anybody else) wants to give reasons to support the addition of a 4th possibility, I’m all ears.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Darren,
        One other thing, the reason why the vast majority of Shroud skeptics think that the Shroud is a man-made fake of Jesus’ burial cloth is because the “story” that the bloodstains and other aspects of the Shroud tells points it to being Jesus’.

        If something is a “fake” it’s trying to look like something else. There is specific information that exists about Jesus’ crucifixion, and a lot of that specific information is contained on the cloth in question.

        Like

        1. So, if you (or anybody else) wants to give reasons to support the addition of a 4th possibility, I’m all ears.

          I was asking less to suggest other possibilities and more to figure out what your starting apriori plausibility levels were.

          For example, #3 is fairly plausible. We have lots of examples of people creating thousands of religious forgeries throughout history, and we know it was especially prevalent during the middle ages. As just one example, There were something like 15 to 20 holy foreskins running around in the middle ages.

          We also know that humans are easily deceived. All you have to do is go to a magicians show and he will do things that you can’t explain unless you happen to have an interest. But you recognize that just because the magician does something that looks naturally impossible, and no one in the audience can think of how it was done, doesn’t mean that the magician is using real magic.

          As far as I can tell, #1 is so improbable as to be the equivalent to impossible. No one has ever demonstrated that the supernatural is a real thing, and since you are using the shroud as evidence that the supernatural is a real thing, you can’t first assume that it is real. We also know that the “story” the bible tells has no actual support for it being true, nothing that could be taken seriously in a court of law. And as far as I can tell, the god that is supposed to have created the shoud is logically impossible.

          So the prior probability of the shroud being a forgery is fairly high, while the prior probability of it being real is vanishingly small. And as far as I can tell that starts us off with a lot of reasonable doubt.

          Would you agree?

          Like

          1. Hi, Darren,

            It should come as no surprise that I don’t agree. Yes, there have been a plethora of fake religious relics, but none of them have undergone the intense scientific scrutiny that the Shroud has by top (some being world-reknowned) medical, scientific and forensic experts. That’s a horse of a totally different color.

            The Shroud is the most studied, investigated and tested relic (probably object) in the world. That counts for something. In fact, that counts for a lot —once we get into what the experts have to say.

            Moreover, this will be an exercise in going through the evidence, a little at a time, with discussions about the evidence.

            Since the Shroud is claimed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus, this exercise is to see whether that’s a bunch of bunk or not.

            Like

            1. Since the Shroud is claimed by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus, this exercise is to see whether that’s a bunch of bunk or not.

              Sure. And because we know that forgeries abound and no one has ever demonstrated that the supernatural is even a real thing, to begin with. We know that you are going to have to bring in some truly spectacular evidence if you expect ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. Just pointing out that no one has been able to figure out the trick yet is not going to be enough to get over those hurdles. You can’t overcome reasonable doubt if you can’t demonstrate that your solution is even a real thing.

              It is perfectly reasonable to doubt something that can’t be shown to be real.

              Like

              1. I’m going to start (as soon as I finish with this comment) with a description of the team that investigated the Shroud.) I’m not going to be able to do everything in one sitting, so, if you would, let me convey enough evidence about who the people are that were doing the testing and, then, what it is that they discovered –regarding the first question about whether what appear to be blood stands on the Shroud are made of real blood or not.

                Like

  4. As I refer to different experts, I will mention their credentials. I will be starting off with evidence from the Shroud of Turin Research Project ( “STURP.”)

    STURP consisted of a 40 person international team comprised, almost exclusively, of a multi-disciplinary group of scientists. The scientists involved in this group were chosen because of their expertise in certain areas. They came from very well-respected organizations which included, among others, eight scientists from Los Alamos National Scientific Laboratories (one of the largest science and technology institutions in the world), one scientist from Sandia National Laboratories (one of three National Security Administration research and development laboratories), one scientist from Lockheed Corporation, two scientists from the U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratories, a medical examiner in Harris County, Texas (the city of Houston is in this County) and one scientist from Nuclear Technology Corporation.

    The STURP team worked for approximately a year and a half to decide on what tests they would be performing on the Shroud and how they would be performing them. In October 1978, the American portion of the STURP team went to Turin, Italy and met up with additional scientists around the world to conduct the only in-depth, scientific examination of the Shroud that has ever occurred.

    The STURP team was permitted access to examine the Shroud by the Shroud’s then-owner in 1978 –King Umberto II, Duke of Savoy. They examined the Shroud, collected and analyzed data from it, and they used state-of-the-art equipment and instruments to do so. After three years of testing, the STURP team released their findings in October 1981.

    Like

    1. … and they used state-of-the-art equipment and instruments to do so.

      To clarify, they used equipment that was state of the art 40 years ago. Technology has progressed quite a bit in the last 40 years.

      Like

    2. STURP consisted of a 40 person international team….

      Just out of curiosity. What was the percentage of the scientists that started the study thinking it was authentic, vs the percentage of the scientists that were convinced it was authentic by the time the study was completed?

      Like

      1. Dr. John Jackson and William Mottern were the ones who first saw (and were shocked by) the 3-D qualities of the Shroud when the looked at a photograph of it under the VP-8 Image Analyzer (which is an image processing tool.) The 3-D qualities of the Shroud were not what one would see if looking at a photograph or painting through the VP-8 Analyzer. Dr. Jackson is a Christian, but I couldn’t find anything about Mottern. They enlisted another scientist (not sure of his religious affiliation, either), and then they enlisted –to, also, be on the STURP team– two Jewish men –Don Devan and Barrie Schwortz. Additional people were added on –and there was a mix of Christians, Jews and agnostics on the STURP team. The primary goal was to figure out how that very unique image was formed. After the 5 days of round-the-clock examination and testing of the Shroud, and after 3 years of studying and testing, all they could conclude was that the Shroud was not artwork. They, still, could not figure out how that very unique image was formed –and it remains a mystery to this day. Still, no one can replicate the variety of unique aspects of the Shroud. The STURP team has published 30 scientific papers on the Shroud. These can be found at shroud.com. I don’t know how many scientists thought it was authentic by the time the study was completed, but Barrie Schwortz, the Jewish STURP team member, mentions that he was a self-described Shroud skeptic for seventeen years before he became convinced of its authenticity.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Dr. John Jackson and William Mottern were the ones who first saw (and were shocked by) the 3-D qualities of the Shroud when the looked at a photograph of it under the VP-8 Image Analyzer (which is an image processing tool.) The 3-D qualities of the Shroud were not what one would see if looking at a photograph or painting through the VP-8 Analyzer.

          I’m not sure why they would be shocked by it. Given what the VP-8 actually does, it isn’t actually surprising. Plus it is strong evidence against the shroud being anything other than a forgery.

          …but Barrie Schwortz, the Jewish STURP team member, mentions that he was a self-described Shroud skeptic for seventeen years before he became convinced of its authenticity.

          I’m sort of curious as to why you claim the evidence is so compelling then. If it took him 17 years to be convinced by it, it can’t be all that compelling. Or does he fall under your not reasonable criteria because it took so long?

          Like

          1. Hey guys,

            Just to help out the convo since I know Barrie personally, actually Teddi is correct about how amazing this finding was at the time, the “3D” effect was the reason Barrie found the Shroud so amazing that he took the job in the first place (that in addition to a free trip to Italy). No other artistic forgeries in history have this feature, the Shroud is entirely unique in this regard as to date no other artistic mechanisms have been able to duplicate the Shroud “3D” effect apart from primitive deformed or partial effects and certainly no single painting has this feature at all (which is what skeptics thought it was at the time).

            His lack of belief afterwards stemmed mostly from the fact that the bloodstains were too red to be real- that was of course until they scientifically proved this could happen with real blood and had no relevance to the paint vs. blood debate and so he changed his mind based on the scientific evidence.

            Again, don’t want to interfere too much but I thought it would be appropriate here since I actually know Barrie and can speak to him specifically.

            Carry on 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

            1. No other artistic forgeries in history have this feature,….

              Given how the VP8 actually works, this is largely a meaningless statement.

              …the Shroud is entirely unique in this regard as to date no other artistic mechanisms have been able to duplicate the Shroud “3D” effect …

              Then it was never given to an actual artist. Any artist at all that knows how the VP8 works could easily replicate it.

              You guys do realize that the VP8 is nothing but a brightness map right? All it does is take the white parts of the image and move them to the highest “elevation”, the black spots get pushed back to the lowest elevation and then everything in between gets put into the mid-range depending on how bright it is.

              All you have to do is look at the shroud and you can tell that the 3d images online are not an accurate depiction of what the VP8 produced. And the image you get back from the VP8 would be completely dependent on how the photo taker manipulated the photo that was fed into the machine.

              I truly have no clue whay you both think this is such an amazing feature of the shroud or why you don’t think any artist worth their salt couldn’t do a better job at making a 3-D image using a brightness map that what the shroud does.

              Like

              1. Good question Darren. Yes, I know full well how the VP-8 works, and understand we aren’t dependent on that technology today- so the feature has been confirmed.

                As to any artist with training being able to replicate the images- wrong:

                Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline conducted extensive experiments utilizing certified forensic artists to test whether such artists could create drawings that when analyzed by a VP-8 analyzer could compare favorably to the Shroud 3-dimensional results. In spite of being coached on what they were trying to achieve, the artists consistently fell short of the Shroud results. It is likely that an artist could learn and improve his/her technique over time if they had the technical instrumentation to check their work. However, given the shortcomings of modern coached forensic artists, there are extreme technical as well as historical difficulties with the idea that an artist in medieval times, or before, could encode 3-dimensional body
                information into an image artistically crafted in “reverse /negativity”. Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline suggested that “the reason for only fair correlation is probably a combination of limited visual discernment of shading at low contrast and motor (eye/brain/hand) coordination in applying correct shading values”.

                This result was published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal in Jackson, J.P., E.J. Jumper, and W.R. Ercoline, “Correlation of Image Intensity on the Turin Shroud with the 3-D Structure of a Human Body Shape,” Applied Optics, Vol. 23, No. 14, 1984, pp. 2244-2270- read it for free here = https://www.shroud.com/78papers.htm or the paper directly here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Correlation%20of%20Image%20Intensity%20Jackson%20Jumper%20Ercoline%201984%20OCRsm.pdf .

                Time to educate 🙂

                Like

                1. Jackson, Jumper and Ercoline conducted extensive experiments utilizing certified forensic artists to test whether such artists could create drawings that when analyzed by a VP-8 analyzer could compare favorably to the Shroud 3-dimensional results.

                  Then they are lying to you or completely inept. Pure and simple. An artist could duplicate the shroud exactly with paint to get exactly the same results that the shroud produced, and then they could incrementally correct the rather blatant flaws in the shroud brightness to fix what the shroud got wrong.

                  This isn’t even hard. All you have to do is keep in mind how the VP8 works and look at the shroud with your own eyes to see how epic of a failure this particular argument is. I know you won’t because it goes against your narrative. But it is easy enough for anyone reading this to do.

                  Just pull up any of the photos of the shroud you find online, and make a 3d map in your mind by pushing the darkest spots to the back and the lightest spots to the front. You will see for yourself.

                  Liked by 1 person

                  1. OK Darren, I guess the scientific community are quite dumb compared to you since they published in an academic prestigious peer-reviewed journal.

                    Shroud skeptics like to talk tough, but can they actually back up what they say- let’s see you paint a Shroud image and submit it to peer-review to see if it replicates the Shroud’s “3D” effect adequately, none of the other world’s experts and scientists who’ve tried have been able to do so when their results are submitted to falsification. When you get your image or the image of a Shroud skeptic that replicates the Shroud images in this regard published in a peer-reviewed paper, then I will believe you- til then I side with actual scientists and the world-renown prestigious science journal Applied Optics 🙂

                    Like

                    1. Make fun all you like, it doesn’t change the facts of the matter.

                      Like

                    2. Darren,

                      OK I don’t mean to make fun if you are being serious. But yeah, if your answer is to assert that the scientists are lying or inept then you sound like a Young Earth Creationist to me, you are no different than Ken Ham. I guess people can read the peer-review article to see what was done and plus the fact that all Shroud skeptics experts disagree with you and agree with me would lend credence to what I’m saying.

                      Name one Shroud skeptic expert today who believes that the Shroud’s “3D” feature can be painted- Hugh Farey, Colin Berry, Joe Nickell- none of them say this, the last advocate was the late Walter McCrone and no one believes him today because the evidence falsifies it. Again, I’m serious, you will be rich, if its easy- paint an image yourself and submit it to testing/peer-review; you would revolutionize the field and take away one of the major talking points of Shroud proponents like me.

                      Also, another feature of the Shroud images are the vertically-mapped wrapping distortions which if painted would be physically impossible for an artist to paint in conjunction with the images being semi-negatives and “3D” features.

                      “The distortions can be correlated to an actual 3-dimensional body being wrapped in the Shroud and a vertical projection of the body image. It seems inconceivable that an artist would be aware of such subtle distortions in the image. Even if there was awareness, could a human artist accurately craft such subtleties into a reverse/negative image? We have come to the judgment that this characteristic is inconsistent for an artistic method dependent on eye/brain/hand coordination. Even if the artist was to conceive of putting wrapping distortions into his/her artistic creation (no known historical precedents) it would require a contact modeling to demonstrate where the distortions should be placed in the image.
                      However, it has been pointed out that distortions from a contact modeling would be far greater than those observed on the Shroud where the distortions are correlated with a vertical projection of the image”. See this feature confirmed scientifically here = https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/Examination%20for%20Image%20Distortions%20Ercoline%201982%20OCR.pdf

                      It is simply physically impossible- violates the laws of nature for a human being to have the hand/eye/brain coordination via a traditional painting method, to paint a “3D” semi-negative image with vertically-mapped wrapping distortions- but yet all three physical characteristics are properties of the Shroud images; your hypothesis isn’t just improbable, its virtually impossible to be true and hence why everyone (Pro-Shroud or Skeptic without a single exception) rejects this hypothesis today.

                      Like

                    3. It is simply physically impossible- violates the laws of nature for a human being to have the hand/eye/brain coordination via a traditional painting method, to paint a “3D” semi-negative image with vertically-mapped wrapping distortions- but yet all three physical characteristics are properties of the Shroud images;

                      Except the paper you linked to doesn’t demonstrate it is impossible. Some of the test images they added for illustration got really close to succeeding.

                      But the fact of the matter is that if the shroud were really taken from a round head, it would be physically impossible for the VP8 to produce anything other than a warped image of the face. It is just basic geometry combined with the limited algorithm the VP8 was using. The only physically possible way to produce a clean “3-D” image is if it was working from something with the dimensions of a face put onto a flat surface intentionally or put on with very shallow bas relief of a face.

                      There just is no physical way for the VP8 to produce a real looking 3-D image of a face from something that was made from a sphere. The machine was a mechanical machine made in the early 70’s with a very simple algorithm of spacing out pixels based on how bright they were.

                      So I don’t really care if the other shroud people agree with me or not. Physics and geometry don’t lie.

                      Like

                    4. Darren,

                      First off I appreciate that you gave the pictures a scan in the article, that is something, but I’ll just say no scientist in the world agrees with you that they got anywhere near close to duplicating the Shroud’s “3D” effect- that’s confirmed scientific fact. It interesting that you feel free to reason like a Young Earther whenever the scientific evidence disagree with your Atheistic religious faith.

                      As to your issue about the “wrap-around effect”- I’ve addressed that issue like 100 times already- check out some of Shroud sources in the shows and you’ll be able to find the answer to it.

                      As to VP-8 being old and outdated- yeah so what??? Modern equipment has only confirmed the “3D” finding- in fact you saw one such modern method with your very own eyes in that BBC documentary. Literally no one, not even Walter McCrone who thought the Shroud was painted like you denied the obvious fact that the Shroud had “3D” or topographical information corresponding to a human body and facial image- its undeniable.

                      Anyways, I see you now have switched to the use of a bas-relief to produce the facial images; that’s a different artistic theory than what we’ve been discussing- and yes they do better in the “3D” department but still no where close to the Shroud.

                      The best of these methods are those of Garlaschelli’s method, like all bas-relief efforts, will produce a result that has some 3D qualities it does not, on close scrutiny, match the 3D effects of the Shroud, particularly in the area of the face. As Heimburger has pointed out, the Garlaschelli 3D
                      image is made up of mostly “flat plateau” areas corresponding to contact areas and “valleys” corresponding to non-contact areas with abrupt “vertical cliffs” between. This is in contrast to the Shroud that has 3D properties that show fine variations of “altitude”. Heimburger pointed out that we “must realize that ‘modern artists and researchers’ (including Garlaschelli) know that they have to work in such a way that they have to produce a Shroud-like image with these properties. Up to now they all failed. What is the probability for a medieval forger, who obviously could not have in mind these properties, to produce by chance an image having these properties?”

                      It has also been pointed out by numerous Shroud researchers that in the Garlaschelli “3D” body image the hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps that are not consistent with the Shroud image.

                      If you wish to see my full assessment of the Traditional Painting Hypothesis and/or the Powder-Rubbing Method (using a bas-relief for the face such as Garlaschelli’s method which has to date produced the best images) see;

                      a) Painting Hypothesis shows = Part 7 = https://skepticsandseekers.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/supplemental-10-part-7-evidence-for-christianity-based-on-the-shroud-of-turin/ and Part 8 (on the use of paint vs. no paint) = https://skepticsandseekers.wordpress.com/2018/10/20/supplemental-11-part-8-evidence-for-christianity-based-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

                      b) For Powder Rubbing Methods (the bas-relief methods using powdered pigments) as Darren now advocates for, see here = https://skepticsandseekers.wordpress.com/2018/11/08/supplemental-12-part-9-evidence-for-christianity-based-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

                      I strongly suggest those interested in truth give em a listen and also check out the detailed sources with links to Garlaschelli’s websites with pictures for comparison of the techniques if you wish to know the truth. The sources will conclusively confirm who is right about this and who is wrong for any “real seeker” after the truth of the matter.

                      Good debate Darren and happy to continue another time once you’ve given the shows a listen and the sources a scan through or read 🙂 We can continue along with Teddi after that.

                      Liked by 1 person

                    5. It interesting that you feel free to reason like a Young Earther whenever the scientific evidence disagree with your Atheistic religious faith.

                      If you are truly interested in having respectful dialog, it is probably best if you stop being a raging dick.

                      EDITORIAL WARNING- Darren, you used a swear word to insult me personally- that is not allowed! I will allow the statement to stand with a warning, but remember our comment policy and be respectful by finding other ways to get your point across rather than swearing at me. Never speak this way again, or your comment will be removed!

                      As to your issue about the “wrap-around effect”- I’ve addressed that issue like 100 times already- check out some of Shroud sources in the shows and you’ll be able to find the answer to it.

                      Well, when you come up with something that is actually compelling, let me know.

                      As to VP-8 being old and outdated- yeah so what???

                      Perhaps at some point, you will address my actual point rather than just strawmanning what I said.

                      Like

          2. Schwortz, being a hard-core skeptic (and, maybe, even a cynic) didn’t want to believe it –especially since he was Jewish. Just think, he was brought up in an Orthodox Jewish family. What are his parents and family members and Jewish friends going to say about him being vocal about believing the Shroud’s authenticity. But, he then, to his great credit, came to the point where he just couldn’t deny what was so obvious –and, literally, right under his nose (at least for those five days in Turin.) Barrie Schwortz has, in my book, a tremendous amount of character.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. Teddi,

      David said you wanted to post links but its not letting you??? That’s werid there is nothing in the spam or trash folder for me to approve, so try posting the links again and let me know if any issues. I know you can’t do attachments in the comments- there is no way to do that on here unfortunately.

      Like

      1. Hi, Dale,

        Thanks for your response. It’s not that I’ve tried to post a link and have been unable to, it’s that I have no clue as to HOW to even go about posting a link.

        (I’ve avoided stuff like Facebook forever until about a year and a half ago –where I had to join FB in order to know where the meeting dates are for a parent’s group I joined.
        So, you’re talking to someone who doesn’t know how to post links on FB –other than the kind of links where you just press the Facebook symbol by the article. But, it seems like there might be some other way to cut and paste, am I right?
        I don’t even know how y’all are always snipping a portion of a comment and responding to it. I’m not aware of a cut and paste feature when I’m on the internet.
        Any help would be appreciated, but no worries if y’all are slammed for time. I think I’m going to just do a traditional citation –it’ll probably, also, take up less space, as well.
        Thanks, again!
        Teddi

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey Teddi,

          Like you I’m not tech savvy at all, I have no idea how Darren and them bold their comments, etc. I can tell you how I’d do it is by going to the Unbelievable Board which gives you buttons to bold, quote, etc. and then converts it into HTML format and then you can copy and paste onto here and it will come out properly. = https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Why-be-a-Christian-Cosmic-Skeptic-debates-Justin-on-faith-morality-and-determinism

          As to creating hyperlinks (is I think what you are asking), I have no clue at all to be honest, I just usually copy and paste the web address into the comment box for people to click on rather than turning words into a hyperlink but I know people are able to do that as I’ve seen it on the Unbelievable Boards and so I assume its the same here.

          Maybe David or others can be of help on this front???

          Like

          1. Thanks, Dale! You’ve given me some good ideas to try. I didn’t know you can cut and paste with stuff while on the internet! 🙃 I thought you could only do that when word processing. Thanks, again!
            -Teddi

            Liked by 1 person

            1. You are welcome Teddi- yep you can do all that stuff here as well- thanks Teddi I’m amazed that I’m not the most computer illiterate person on here anymore lol 😛

              Liked by 1 person

  5. Dale said: … but remember our comment policy and be respectful by finding other ways to get your point across rather than swearing at me.

    I tell you what. When you start showing other people the respect you demand of yourself, then I will stop swearing at you.

    You have done nothing but be degrading to people that disagree with you, personally insulting to me, acting like a bully. Instead of whining about the words I use, why don’t you instead try acting like an adult that has respect for other people? Either that or stop whining when other people treat you the same way you are treating them. After all, it doesn’t take a “bad” word to be insulting to other people.

    Like

    1. Darren,

      The quote that you find to be insulting was within our policies rules- that was important to David that we not be too restrictive in allowing people to say offensive things.

      Secondly, you’re false characterization of me is complete nonsense and I don’t care how many skeptics agree with you on it. I compered your reasoning to that of YEC in regards to your dismissal of the scientific evidence- hardly the end of the world. After all you’ve said some pretty outrageous BS in the comments this Season without complaint from me at all- remember calling Christians and/or Christianity repugnant and a host of other insulting language; I didn’t appreciate that kind of demeaning and disrespectful language at the time either but I let it go because its allowed under the new policy.

      My advice to you is to grow up and stop being a baby. As to swearing at me- no you will do as David and I command you to do or you’re comments will be deleted and eventually if you continue to defy our authority and bring down the Boards then you will be blocked from the site altogether along with Tara. You don’t dictate terms to us, especially after I conceded very favourable terms to the skeptics on here with minimal requirements.

      You swear at me again and you will have crossed a line. As to you being offended by every little thing, that’s your problem, I’ve not complained about any of your little digs so long as they go according to the new comment rules we set up- they are quite clear; I suggest you don’t test me like you did before where I was forced to teach you a lesson.

      Like

      1. My advice to you is to grow up and stop being a baby. As to swearing at me- no you will do as David and I command you to do or you’re comments will be deleted and eventually if you continue to defy our authority and bring down the Boards then you will be blocked from the site altogether along with Tara. You don’t dictate terms to us, especially after I conceded very favourable terms to the skeptics on here with minimal requirements.

        And your real motivations come out. You are nothing but a petty little dictator that is on a power trip. You feel it is perfectly fine to degrade and bully other people, but heaven forbid anyone to call you a “bad” name. You are truly pathetic. And look at that, I expressed myself without using any bad words.

        Perhaps you should take your own advice about growing up and stop being a baby.

        Like

        1. Darren

          Lol, you are totally ignorant of my motivations Darren. My motivations were to create better convos but reasonable freedoms in which to do it. Skeptics want to be able to swear, I find that distasteful and disgusting, but I compromised as I guess you people feel its very important to your self-expression apparently according to David.

          You are prohibited from swearing (at people not ideas) because doing so fosters bad conversations and discourages some from participating, you claimed you would refuse the rules- unacceptable. That’s called being a benevolent host/moderator. Test those rules and you will face the consequences, David and I were totally fair, we posted this for you all to see at the beginning of the Season, I didn’t see you calling David and I dictators then, only once you shamefully breached the rules and refused to accept such do you now whine and complain like a little baby.

          You can call me a petty little dictator all you like- that is an insult and offensive but allowed under the rules. So again, I suggest you grow up.

          Now on a moral ethical level- I agree with you that its better to have no insults at all even if allowed by the policy but you are in the wrong here, I was simply stating my opinion about your reasoning abilities on the Shroud evidence being comparable to a YEC- its a perfectly adequate analogy and I would use it again as I think that is true. However, I called you a troll one week, again that is allowed, but that kind of insult wasn’t really productive even if I did think it was true, I probably should have said you were acting like a troll since you again refused to stop acting in the way that I outlined to you I would interpret as troll behaviour.

          No doubt you’ll probably say I’m somehow being passive-aggressive again- I don’t understand it and I don’t care at this point- its not true period and I’m right and you skeptics are wrong b/c I and I alone know my motivations.

          As to swearing to me or anyone else personally as opposed to their ideas- you have been warned!

          Like

          1. Lol, you are totally ignorant of my motivations Darren.

            I will just leave this hear with the rest of your post so that everyone reading can see how truly hypocritical you are.

            Liked by 1 person

            1. OK sounds good Darren, but I will just say that if you feel I’m being hypocritical than point out the comment where I swore at you personally and I will delete it immediately- the rules apply to me and David as much as anyone else.

              If I’ve missed something where I’ve sworn at you by accident or something, feel free to point it out and I will delete it right away. Heck, in the interests of good will which I had with you until I woke up this morning to find you swearing at me for no justified reason out of no where, I’ll delete any comment that you feel insulted you- let me know which comment/s offended you and I’ll delete them for you (with the latter mere insults it has to be a comment I made to you though as others I’ve promised to keep up my comments until Dec with those I’ve replied to- I don’t want Bryan to be upset that I’ve removed the context of a convo I’ve had with them). But as to convos with you, yeah anything you feel is unduly insulting and you want gone- just let me know and I’ll be happy to do so for you.

              Like

              1. But as to convos with you, yeah anything you feel is unduly insulting and you want gone- just let me know and I’ll be happy to do so for you.

                Nope, I want you to leave it all up so people can see what kind of person you are.

                Like

                1. Cool well that’s up to you Darren as I made the offer for your benefit to use or not use- I don’t really care as I’ve said nothing wrong. So yeah, I’m happy with leaving the comments up as you request as people will see what a benevolent and consistent person I am and how well I’ve fostered good conversations with the skeptics on here. There were no issues whatsoever until you swore at me this morning, people will be able to see that.

                  For anyone else, swearing at people is not allowed on these Boards and that goes for everyone. If anyone (including me or David) swears at you personally, then feel free to let us know and those comments will be removed as per our new policy.

                  Like

  6. Let’s see if my first attempt to create a hyperlink works –fingers crossed! If it doesn’t work, just search “List of Evidences of the Turin Shroud May 2010” –the article from the Semantic Scholar should comes right up.

    This is a fantastic list of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin along with references as to the source of the information for each piece of evidence stated.

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/887f/e9120bf7684edaa4f89912d08848ead35306.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Another wonderful read on the evidence supporting the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. It’s one of two parts.
    https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi22part3.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Teddi, do you want me to post up a blog for you now or would you prefer I wait til you present your full case first? Not sure if you want these links to be in your own Shroud blog or not?

      Like

      1. Hi, Dale,
        If that’s okay with y’all, that would be great! My thanks to you both for that —I really appreciate it. I’d prefer to get the discussions underway as soon as it is convenient to create that blog spot for the Shroud.
        Yes, I can put those links on the Shroud blog along with other ones —now that I know how to do it. I had no idea, previously, that it’s as simple as cutting and pasting —like when drafting documents!😂 Now, I’ve got to make up for lost time!😂😂😂😂😂😂

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hey Teddi, OK I will put it up tonight sometime for you 🙂 Still send me your final copy when done and I can put that document in the Blog portion for people rather than just being in the comments 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Will do, and thank you so much!

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website at WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close