Hi Alan
Happy New Year!!
Below is a debate between Gary Habermas and Hugh Farey on the Shroud. Hugh puts forward a hypothesis on the image. I think your argument is a problem for Hugh’s theory. His theory is discussed about 35 min in.
Yes, Vincent Torley included it in a TSZ post that I linked to previously. His (Farey’s) point that cloths were often used as props in medieval ceremonies celebrating the resurrection and the Turin shroud may be the single known survivor following the reformation seems plausible.
Happy New Year to you.
1 Like
At 35 min in his theory is that the image was created by a statue with an ink like substance that generated the image. As you pointed out this would generate an Agamemnon mask.
Not if it was produced by the statue emitting neutrinos as it was being miraculously brought to life. Such a hypothesis would, of course, need to be further developed.
So Habermas is a Shroudie, eh? I didn’t know that. All the more reason to consider him a buffoon rather than a scholar.
1 Like
Hey if miracles (as in fantastically rare and unlikely occurrences) are allowed to explain the image, I can just posit that UV photons from the sun happened to transmit through the ozone layer and atmosphere without being absorbed by any intervening atoms, and hit the shroud in such a fashion that the image formed. A naturalistic miracle. No suspension of the laws of physics, no violation of established science. Just the incredibly rare event that some photons reached all the way to the Earth’s surface without hitting anything on their way. Which one occasionally does here or there.
Viola!
Whether there is blood elsewhere on the shroud (an issue that I will deal with below) does not demonstrate that the “blood crust” sample is actually blood – and there is strong evidence that this sample contains mostly inorganic contaminants – gold, iron (in a proportion too high to be from blood – so most likely rust particles), and none of the trace elements (sodium, potassium) found in the true blood sample.
Fanti is worthless Bill.
Please stop citing him!
In addition to the issues already covered when you last raised his ‘work’, he states the following in this new article:
J. Heller and A. Adler detected the presence of primate blood on the HS identifying
hemoglobin and serum albumin in them …
The trouble being that the two J. Heller and A. Adler he cites [1][2] make no mention of primate blood.
So Fanti is caught making false claims.
I would further note that tests-for-blood appear to be notoriously subject to false positives – which is why Heller and Adler describe it as only “presumptive evidence” and/or their “opinion”.
That Fanti refers to the Shroud of Turin throughout as the “Holy Shroud” is indicative of both Fanti’s blatant bias and Word Scientific News*’ 
complete lack of editorial integrity.
So please, not more Fanti, and no more WSN.
1 Like
Adler Primate blood.pdf (82.3 KB)
Hi Tim
Unlike us here Fanti has lots of experience testing the Shroud for both blood and age related issues. This paper shows Adler’s claim of primate blood on the shroud.
In sum, our testing showed that the substance
composing the bloodstains on the Shroud is a blood-derived material; it is definitely from
primate blood, and it is the exudate of a wound.
No Bill. That is a completely false assertion – Fanti has no experience whatsoever “testing the Shroud for both blood and age related issues”. He is an engineer who appears to have done no shroud-related testing himself. Therefore he has no more “experience” than you or me in this matter.
The problem with this paper is (i) Fanti explicitly cited his claim to “J. Heller and A. Adler”, not to Adler working alone, and (ii) does not cite this Adler-only paper in his paper.
At best, Fanti can ber considered muddled and careless in his claim. But that does not in any way improve his complete lack of credibility on shroud testing.
Beyond this, the Adler paper itself is not evidence:
-
It presents no hard evidence, merely making the unsubstantiated claim that “We have shown by immunological tests that the blood is definitely primate blood” – without giving, or citing, the results of these tests; and
-
it is unpublished, and therefore has not been subjected to peer-review.
I would further note that this document lists its author as “William Cole”, and that it was created using your web-browser.
Stop doing this!
If you found something on the internet then link to it – don’t copy it and upload it here! Doing the latter obfuscates its origin and is thus deceptive and bad manners.
Addendum: looking back on this thread, you have been doing this repeatedly Bill. 
1 Like
How does your resume compare with this relative to Shroud research? Personally I am not at this level yet 
Giulio Fanti is Professor of Mechanical and Thermal Measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering of Padua University, Italy, since 1996.
He was founding member of the Center of Studies and Activities for Space CISAS “G. Colombo” http://cisas.unipd.it/, Secretary of the Italian group of official professors of Mechanical and Thermic Measurements and he has been member of technical teams of international Space Missions: the Giotto Mission to the Halley Comet, the TSS-1 Mission, the Mission Mars '94 for the study of “Fourier Realtime Michelson Spectrometer”, the Cassini Mission for Huygens probe for HASI; he is also a member of various groups for studies on the Turin Shroud…
His past research activity was devoted to the study of physical models of space structures, uncertainty analysis, finite elements modelling, thermo-mechanical optimization of space instruments and sound, pressure, vibration, damping, color and strain measurements and testing of spatial systems.
His present research activity is devoted to studies regarding the Turin Shroud, measurements by means of vision systems and diagnostic of structures.
He is the author of more than 150 papers also published in Italian and international journals, lecture notes and books.
Fanti discredits himself, and anyone still wasting time on this baloney need not be taken seriously.
1 Like
This is still going?
2 Likes
It “compares” to demonstrate exactly the same level of expertise “relative to Shroud research” – i.e. none at all.
His past research activity was devoted to the study of physical models of space structures, uncertainty analysis, finite elements modelling, thermo-mechanical optimization of space instruments and sound, pressure, vibration, damping, color and strain measurements and testing of spatial systems.
None of this is remotely relevant.
His present research activity is devoted to studies regarding the Turin Shroud, measurements by means of vision systems and diagnostic of structures.
This is vague to the point of meaninglessness.
He is the author of more than 150 papers also published in Italian and international journals, lecture notes and books.
I don’t know why you bolded this – as it offers no support for your claim. It neither demonstrates that these papers were relevant to the shroud, provided original research (as opposed to merely parroting others’ claims), nor that they were published in rigorous, peer-reviewed publications – “lectures notes” don’t count, nor do predatory, low-editorial-standards journals like World Unscientific News.
Giulio Fanti has no expertise or experience relevant to the shroud.
He is just yet another cultist in the Cult of the Shroud’s Authenticity.
Addendum – the ‘resume’ that Bill quotes appears to be from this page – which appears to be an ‘orphan’ webpage of an otherwise empty sindone.dii.unipd.it domain.
Giulio Fanti is Professor of Mechanical and Thermal Measurements at the Department of Industrial Engineering …
… links to a defunct server, and
Ritorno alla Homepage del DIM
… likewise links to a missing page.
It would appear that (i) the resume that Bill is quoting is outdated, and that the University of Padua is no longer involved in Shroud research.
Speaking of Fanti’s “more than 150 papers” and predatory publishers, has anybody heard of “URF Publishers”/“United Research Forum”, the ‘publishers’ of one of Fanti’s more recent papers?
It does not appear to have made any impact online, and its physical offices are in a block of serviced offices in London – which typically cater to businesses too small to require a building, or even a floor of a building to themselves – I worked out of a similar building when I worked for the Melbourne branch of an economic consultancy – and they had about 6-8 offices/floor and the average occupancy of each office was about 1-2 people.
Addendum: Another recent paper by Fanti – published in Journal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences by SciRes Literature:
SciRes Literature LLC is a publisher of academic journals. It has a postal address in Middletown, Delaware, US,[1] but is actually based in Hyderabad, India.[2][3] It started its activities in 2015.[4] The company uses an Open Access model of publishing, which charges the authors. Articles are distributed online and free of cost or other barriers. As of October 2022, none of its journals names a scientific editor-in-chief.[5]
This is the “postal address” Bill:
It is a Bridal boutique.
SciRes Literature was criticized for sending unsolicited emails to scientists.[3][4][6] Its Journal of Biomedical Research & Environmental Sciences was criticized for presenting a misleading impact factor, as the impact factor reported is not identical with the highly regarded ISI impact factor from Web of Science.[7] SciRes Literature has also been criticized for using journal titles which mimic the names of established, indexed scientific journals.[8] The company has been included on Beall’s List of potential predatory open-access publishers.[9]
If Giulio Fanti is a legitimate academic, then why is he padding his resume with publications in fake journals Bill?
2 Likes
How so Ron?
Heck, I remember “shroud” cranks of the 1970s. As long as there is gullibility, mountebanks will thrive. And the lack of the slightest shred of credible evidence slows it not one bit.
5 Likes
How do you think they became this forum’s gold and silver medal winners in the “Most Replied To” category?
3 Likes
The lack of the slightest shred of credible evidence for authenticity ? If you do think it is the case, then clearly you didn’t investigate the case seriously. There is a saying that says you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Nevertheless, I’m going to assume you might be thirsty and offer you some water in the form of Meacham’s lengthy argument for authenticity (see below). I think that no one who has read this piece carefully will be able to affirm without completely discrediting himself that there is not the slightest shred of credible evidence supporting authenticity.
1 Like
Arguments are not evidence.
Then present the evidence yourself, not hearsay.
The mere fact that you refer people to rhetoric is consistent with the lack of the slightest shred of credible evidence, Gil.
4 Likes
From Meachem’s paper
The fact that the exact manner of image formation is not and may never be known does not pose a serious obstacle to establishing the Shroud’s authenticity.
The fact that the Shroud is not easily harmonized with the Gospel accounts has been taken as evidence both for and against authenticity.
the Shroud’s history prior to 1353 is a matter of much rich conjecture and little firm evidence
Meachem acknowledges the existence of these objections, but then waves off the gravity of them. OTOH, he seems swayed by questionable or rigged arguments, including the pollen analysis, and the imagined Semitic appearance of the image - a jaw dropping argument considering the virtually identical Roman depictions of Zeus. Did he bring in Nazi experts to measure the nose?
So after reading the piece, I suppose I must completely discredit myself by affirming that there is not the slightest shred of credible evidence supporting authenticity. The case for authenticity was feeble prior to the carbon dating, and those results obliterated any remaining credibility. That there are still authenticity advocates tells me that they have entered a psycho-social realm where there are no possible further scientific tests that would dissuade.
2 Likes
Hi Ron
If you take the most minimal piece of evidence that we have which is not being able to replicate the shrouds image supports authenticity. I am honestly surprised you have taken the position you have.
If you read the counter arguments here they are primarily assertions that do not really address the evidence such as, blood, pollen, non destructive dating etc. They are also trying to discredit all the authors of papers that support authenticity despite being researchers/academics from credible institutions.
Why not take a position of neutrality and let this play out? Your passionate objections make it appear you don’t want the shroud to be authentic. Given you believe in the resurrection this does not make sense.
1 Like